EXPLORING THE ROLES OF

P A R T I C I P A T O R Y M A P P I N G CLIMATE CHANGE, FOREST REFORM, AND RESOURCE RIGHTS

S U M M A R Y O F L I T E R A T U R E S E A R C H

H E A T H E R T E A G U E

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S A T A U S T I N

T E R E S A L O Z A N O L O N G I N S T I T U T E O F L A T I N A M E R I C A N S T U D I E S

A N D T H E S C H O O L O F A R C H I T E C T U R E

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S A T A U S T I N

P R E P A R E D F O R T H E R I G H T S A N D R E S O U R C E S I N I T I A T I V E

W A S H I N G T O N , D C

EXPLORING THE ROLES OF

P A R T I C I P A T O R Y M A P P I N G CLIMATE CHANGE, FOREST REFORM, AND RESOURCE RIGHTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Participatory mapping has been used since the 1990s to demonstrate Latin American indigenous communities‟ relationships to

and use of lands, and in some cases, to demarcate and fight for legal title to communal territories. The field has its roots in

participatory approaches to rural and community development in the 1980s, and in ethnographic approaches going back to

early anthropology. In 2010, as the problematic effects of global climate change are increasingly experienced and concern grows

about how to mitigate them, struggles for indigenous peoples‟ land rights continue and require that new challenges be met. In

particular, new strategies to mitigate climate change on the global level are leading to new pressures but also opportunities for

indigenous peoples to protect their forest resources. In this review, we examine scholarly texts and also practice and professional

literature to understand indigenous peoples‟ struggles to establish and defend their rights to forest lands and territories, the

challenges and options presented by global climate change mitigation efforts, and how participatory mapping might be used to

support indigenous rights claims in these contexts. We focus in particular on lessons from participatory mapping projects in Latin

America, which can illuminate productive strategies in the struggle to protect indigenous peoples‟ resource rights.

The literature review is presented in three sections. Each section includes references to key texts; a complete list of references is

included in the Citations section.

I. Indigenous peoples‟ rights to land and resources.

II. Global climate change and its relevance for indigenous peoples‟ rights to land and resources.

III. Participatory mapping and its relevance for indigenous peoples‟ rights to land and resources.

I. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES‟ RIGHTS TO LAND AND RESOURCES.

Indigenous peoples‟ rights to land and natural resources are subject to the socioeconomic and political contexts as well as the

legal systems of the countries within which they reside, and so their struggles for self-determination, social and economic justice

occur at local, state (or departmental), and national levels. When those mechanisms fail, indigenous peoples assert their claims

for rights through the international legal system, which in recent years has developed specific mechanisms to address their

concerns. Most prominent of these are the International Labor Organization‟s Article 169 and the Organization of American

States‟ American Convention on Human Rights. At all levels, how a community proves itself to be indigenous is critical to the

success of its claims. Following are some of the key issues in claims for indigenous land and resource rights in international law.

A. International law and defining indigenous peoples and their rights

There are multiple declarations of human rights developed by various international bodies, but scholars

debate their relative significance in protecting indigenous peoples‟ rights to resources, in part due to

arguments about the relative precedence of states‟ versus indigenous rights under international law. On

September 17, 2007, after 25 years of negotiations, 143 countries approved the United Nations Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—an almost unanimous approval. While a few countries abstained from

the vote, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States voted against it. One issue that

continued to be contested right up until the vote was the protection of states‟ territorial integrity in the face of

indigenous claims to territory, resources, and self-determination (Cultural Survival Fall 2007). Of the four

countries that voted against the original passage of the Declaration, Australia changed positions and

endorsed it on April 3, 2009; New Zealand announced its support on April 20, 2010; and Canada approved it

on November 12, 2010. In announcing their formal support of the Declaration, government officials from all

three countries emphasized the fact that it is not legally binding, and that it will not be used to challenge

state integrity or existing legal frameworks. Rather, these countries emphasize that the Declaration contains

principles to which they will aspire (Government of New Zealand 2010, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

2010, Key 2010, Macklin MP 2009, Sharples 2010). Though the United States agreed in early 2010 to

formally review it (United Nations Department of Public Information 2010), as of late November, 2010, it is

the only country that has not endorsed the Declaration. Of greater relevance for indigenous peoples‟ resource

rights in terms of legal power are the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the

American Convention on Human Rights, both of the Organization of American States‟ Inter-American

Commission of Human Rights, and the International Labor Organization‟s Convention 169 (Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights [IACHR] 2010, International Labor Organisation [ILO] 1989, Organization of

American States 1948, Organization of American States 1969). Indigenous peoples in the Americas have

pursued territorial rights under these conventions for many years, with varying results (Anaya 2004, Herlihy

and Knapp 2003, Macdonald 2001, Offen 2009, Stocks 2005).

1. Terminology and language are being debated in the context of international law and conventions.

The term “indigenous peoples” is purposefully not defined in documents of the United Nations (UN) and other

international organizations, so as to keep it flexible enough to protect peoples‟ human rights (Lutz 2007).

However, in common practice “indigenous peoples” are communities who have lived in a place prior to the

arrival of colonizers or other immigrants. It is a concept that “relies on temporal, cultural, racial, and

territorial elements” (Anaya 2004, Manus 2005: 1, See also Vuotto 2004).

2. Legal claims for indigenous rights under international law are often based on assertions‟ of

indigenous peoples‟ special connection with their land. Because indigenous peoples are defined in part by

ancestral ties to lands as well as ongoing dependency on those lands and other natural resources for their

survival, their relationship to the natural environment is crucial in asserting indigenous peoples‟ territorial

claims, and defining (and denying) their rights. Establishing millennial occupation is a critical step in

asserting an indigenous land claim (Inter-American Court of Human Rights 2000, Manus 2005, Vuotto

2004). For example, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights‟ 1997 Draft American Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples guarantees indigenous peoples rights to resources that they held prior to

colonization (Stocks 2005). Indigenous peoples‟ relationships with natural environments are seen as integral

to indigenous cultural identity, values, and livelihood (Inter-American Court of Human Rights 2000, Manus

2005, Vuotto 2004). Asserting such relationships under international law, however, raises concerns that

indigenous livelihoods come to be measured by non-indigenous standards of efficient (profitable)

exploitation and production (Arvelo Jiménez 1993, Manus 2005). The result can be the reduction of complex,

holistic indigenous relationships with natural resources to quantifiable land-use systems, thus denying the

significance of non-Western and spiritual meanings of land necessary for cultural survival.

B. Nation (/state) sovereignty and self-determination

The right to self-determination has always been and continues to be central to indigenous peoples‟ assertions for rights. Broadly

speaking, the idea of self-determination is “grounded in the idea that all are equally entitled to control their own

destinies”(Anaya 2004: 98). Historically, though, self-determination is linked to the domination of sovereign territory. So, when

a group claims autonomy or territory within or across a nation-state‟s borders it challenges the nation-state formation and the

sovereignty that formation enacts and defends. This challenge to state sovereignty gained legal ground in the Inter-American

Court of Human Rights‟ 2001 judgment in Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Before then, international courts had defended postcolonial

state sovereignty over indigenous rights to traditionally occupied lands (Stocks 2005). But in this case, the Awas Tingni

community began formal complaints about a logging concession on their traditional lands in 1995, saying that the concession

violated their customary use rights—and the court upheld their claim in its 2001 judgment (Stocks 2005).

1. One important current discussion related to territorial sovereignty revolves around a tension between “traditional”

geopolitical and administrative perspectives on territories and boundaries as quantifiable, “natural” bounded objects, and on

the other hand, critical perspectives on territories and boundaries as flexible, changing, and organic social constructions and

cultural productions. The latter, critical perspective is especially important for a greater comprehension of indigenous

perspectives on boundaries and “territories.” Campos Muñoz discusses how culture may be conceptualized as a territory, and

territory as culture, in his review of indigenous politics, land tenure practices and laws in Brazil, Mexico, and Chile (Campos

2006). The focus on flexible boundaries includes attempts to imagine opportunities for resistance to the static formations

through which indigenous rights often are denied. However, this critical literature also includes pessimistic perspectives about

the possibilities of reconfiguring spaces for resistance (Fundación Gaia and Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana

(CEREC) 1992, Fundación Gaia and Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana (CEREC) 1993, Universidad Academia de

Humanismo Cristiano and Programa de Investigaciones e Intervenciones Territoriales (P.I.I.T.) 2006).

1. The very notion of “territory” is also debated: some authors hold that there are multiple territories that are crucial for

indigenous rights, including cultural, racial, political, and economic territories (Manus 2005). There are also

discussions of de-territorialization (caused by globalization and what is supposed to be the diminishing power of the

nation-state) and re-territorialization (with new forms of globalized power, and concerns over climate change) (see

Lövbrand and Stripple 2006 regarding the territorialization of the climate).

2. 3. Also related to the tension between self-determination and state sovereignty are movements for agrarian reform

and rural development, which have often been instituted through various forms of pressure on the nation-state from

international development agencies, multilateral institutions and Western governments, including the United States.

Indigenous peoples and their struggles for social, economic, political, and human rights have therefore been intricately

intertwined and affected by agrarian reforms and development initiatives since they began to be instituted in fits and

starts across Latin America in the 1970s (Hurtado Paz y Paz 2008) and continue in other forms today.

C. Reconciling customary-use rights and formal (legal) rights.

Many scholars argue in favor of communal property, rather than territorial rights, with the idea that it ensures the

sustainable management of natural resources (Stocks 2005) through “customary use rights.” Customary land use

often involves activities and practices not recognized by non-indigenous peoples or state structures. Authors

supporting customary rights as a basis for community property rights argue for collective customary use rights as

opposed to individual property rights (Stocks 2005, Unruh 2006, Vuotto 2004), and suggest such customary rights be

“proven” through supporting documentation and evidence. Unruh (2006) points out that people alter the natural

landscape through their cultural practices, and so physical landscape features are material evidence that may be used

to prove a community‟s customary relationship with and use of land. Such evidence is important in establishing

customary use rights that might be legally recognized, and is less contestable than other non-material evidence such

as identity or religion (Unruh 2006). In turn, such evidence is often obtained through various forms of participatory

mapping, which has had mixed results in terms of obtaining indigenous customary use rights.

1. Offen (2003b) dubs the period from the 1990s through the early 2000s as “The Territorial Turn” in

Latin America. Under pressure from social movements and supported by World Bank funding, governments

promoted programs to demarcate and give title to collective lands during this time. However, the legalization

of indigenous territories has not been consistent throughout Latin America. It takes different forms in

different places. In Mexico, many indigenous communities have long held collective rights to land-territories

under the ejido system, but this is changing following the privatization of ejido land (Herlihy et al. 2008,

Stocks 2005). In a few countries, some territories are legalized while others are not (Campos 2006, Stocks

2005). In Colombia, black communities along the Pacific coast were given collective titles, while in Brazil,

Ecuador, and Bolivia, indigenous territories were officially recognized (Smith 1995). In others, like Venezuela

(Arvelo Jiménez 1993), Peru (Stocks 2005), and Guatemala, titles and/or rights have been granted and then

revoked or fraudulently taken.

2. The specifics of national land use laws, such as forestry and agricultural policies, are important in

determining the framework and legal viability of customary land use and community rights. Land use laws

may limit what types of land use are recognized as valid for purposes of asserting property claims. For

instance, activities such as the utilization of managed forest gardens may not be recognized as agricultural

use. Herlihy (1993) reported that the Honduran government was pressured to change its forestry policy to

favor conservation and indigenous rights over profitable timber extraction. Agricultural and forest policies

can also dictate what types of land use an indigenous group or other landowner may or may not engage in.

Forests, for example, may fall under the jurisdiction or management of municipal authorities rather than

community owners (see Wittmann and Caron 2009, for example). In other places, indigenous groups may be

expected to be environmental conservationist “guardians” of the forests.

D. Limitations of formal (legal) titles to communal land and territory

Legal approaches to protecting indigenous, communal use rights and territorial rights are important, but also have

their weaknesses. These approaches are grounded in Western conceptions of individual property rights, value and

property, as well as Western conceptions of human relationships to natural environments. Non-indigenous actors

including the nation-state see property as an instrument for individual profit while indigenous actors often see it as a

means for group subsistence. A major body of literature engages with this issue of the compatibility of indigenous

perspectives on property with those embedded in the law. Authors also examine the limitations of indigenous

communal rights to land posed by states‟ claims to sub-surface rights, and consider to what extent legal titles further

indigenous peoples‟ abilities to earn a sustainable living and protect their rights to resources against future threats.

1. The concepts of territory and property have distinct meanings for indigenous and non-indigenous entities

(Hirt 2006, Hurtado and Sánchez 1992, Stocks 2005). Assies argues that territory may be considered an

economic object or a means of shelter and sustenance (the human rights standpoint), and these different

concepts of territory have implications for development, the legalization of land tenure and the recognition of

alternative views of ownership and management (Assies 2009).

2. Legal title to delimited territory often includes rights to land alone and does not necessarily guarantee

legal right to use, defend, or sell water, timber, soil, sub-soil materials (minerals, petroleum, or gas), or

carbon or other environmental services. Typically, non-renewable and subsoil resources are owned by the

state (Aylwin 2006, Hurtado and Sánchez 1992), while renewable resources are owned with limitations by

the property owner, and water is public property (Hurtado and Sánchez 1992: 22). Stocks opined that these

resource rights are among the most difficult to implement and defend on the ground (2005: 89). The legal

opinion issued in 2009 on behalf of the Suruí people of Brazil is important in this regard. The law firm Baker

& McKenzie‟s opinion states that under Brazilian law, the land title that the Suruí people hold also grants

them the right to the carbon held in soils and trees on that land, and they may farm and sell those carbon

stocks (Baker & McKenzie 2009, Zwick 2009). Similarly, in the case of the Awas Tingni Community,

Nicaragua‟s Statute of Autonomy of the Atlantic Coast Region states that “the communal property of

indigenous communities is comprised of the lands, waters, and forests that traditionally have belonged to

them” (Vuotto 2004: 229).

3. Territorial rights alone do not guarantee the means to earn a sustainable living or subsist within

territory. In other words, land or territorial demarcation alone does not guarantee the social or economic

survival of a group of people. It can provide some legal leverage if a group has the will, capacity, and

resources to leverage their legal rights and/or title. Depending on a number of socio-economic and political

factors, indigenous communities themselves may or may not have skills or other capacities or resources

needed to manage a territory in a manner sufficiently productive for subsistence or profit (Assies 2009,

Campos 2006, Colman 2007).

4. Also, territorial rights do not guarantee indigenous peoples‟ political or economic capacity to

defend their territory or resources. Demarcation does not provide or guarantee practical day-to-day ability to

protect or defend territory, and in fact may make resistance and survival more difficult. For instance,

indigenous tribes may or may not have the capacity to monitor or defend against illegal loggers, poachers,

prospectors, or colonists, or damages or terror caused by corporate interests or criminal organizations (Zwick

2009). Demarcation also makes indigenous persons visible, which may enable further persecution (Campos

2006).

II. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES‟ RIGHTS TO LAND AND

RESOURCES.

Concern with global climate change has grown out of the environmental movement, and in recent years has increased with

mounting evidence of the seriousness of the impact of climate change on human lives. Efforts to deal with climate change link

environmentalism with economic development and industrial/corporate production policy, and indigenous peoples are at the

nexus of the two. Discussions of climate change and ecological debt merit attention as these extend out of and overlap with the

historical discussions on agricultural reform and development, then the transition to sustainable development, and bring us full

circle as they force tensions over indigenous peoples‟ rights to the fore and point back at North-South structural inequalities that

remain at issue. Additionally, the Clean Development Mechanism and climate change mitigation mechanisms highlight the

contradictions of neoliberal policies in the ways they demonstrate neoliberal force and at the same time offer possible routes for

resistance.

A. The Environmental Movement and indigenous resource rights

The Environmental Movement is typically thought to trace its inception to the publication of Rachel Carson‟s book,

Silent Spring, in 1962. This book helped foster awareness of ecological interconnection and dependence as well as the

importance of biodiversity. In the 1970s and 1980s the movement began to take hold politically, drawing attention to

the global threats of deforestation and the accumulation of greenhouse gas. This is also when the concept of

sustainability gained traction.

1. Strategies and movements to protect indigenous peoples have been intimately tied to the environmental

movement (Arvelo Jiménez 1993). Non-governmental organizations supporting indigenous, Afro-descendant,

and environmental causes proliferated during the 1990s, and there was an increase in the number of

“protected areas” in Latin America (Sundberg 2006). Authors, however, are concerned about the linking of

environmental protection and indigenous rights, in the sense that this construction of the “ecological Indian”

as a natural guardian of the wilderness essentializes indigenous peoples and limits their range of options.

Authors also ask which has priority in the question of „conservation of nature and/or conservation of

people?‟(Chapin 2004, WorldWatch 2005). Conservation of one does not necessarily mean protection of

the other (Anaya and Crider 1996, Anaya and Macdonald 1995, Arvelo Jiménez 1993, Herlihy 1993,

Kaimowitz and Sheil 2007). For example, “protected area” management plans can require residents to

change their land use and subsistence practices (García-Frapolli et al. 2009, Sundberg 2006). In many

cases, conflict has arisen between biodiversity conservationists and indigenous communities and their allies

(Chan et al. 2007, Chapin 2004, Dowie 2005, 2009, García-Frapolli et al. 2009, Sundberg 2003, 2004,

WorldWatch 2005). In other cases, entire communities have been displaced from their lands upon the

establishment of nature reserves (Dowie 2005, 2009).

2. „Sustainable development‟ has become an internationally accepted concept, opening a space for pressure

from multilateral institutions and social movements to change state development policies in ways that might

have positive impacts on indigenous rights (Arvelo Jiménez 1993). While states used this concept to leverage

debt cancellation, the World Bank began in 1981 to require governments to comply with sustainable

development requirements in order to receive loans (Arvelo Jiménez 1993: 19). Following this line of logic, in

2005, Sheila Watt-Cloutier (Inuit) and her associates petitioned the Inter-American Commission of Human

Rights claiming that environmental contamination by the United States was harming the natural environment

in which the Inuit live, and thereby violating their human rights (Blue 2006). The Commission eventually

agreed to a one-hour meeting with the petitioners. This was the first time a claimant attempted to claim a

healthy natural environment as a human right (Cultural Survival 2007). Despite these advances, however,

many authors and indigenous activists argue that the “equity” element is generally overlooked in favor of the

other two of the “Three Es of sustainability”—economics and environment—and that the potential of the

concept to protect indigenous rights has not been realized.

B. Global climate change mechanisms and indigenous resource rights

One of the main targets of the environmental movement in the past couple of decades has been the world‟s rainforests,

given that they contain a high concentration of biodiversity and help regulate the earth‟s atmosphere. This has led to a

series of climate change treaties and other international efforts.

1. There are many different interests at play regarding climate change mechanisms. Many governments

and international organizations push for the slowing or halting of deforestation through reforestation,

conservation, and climate change mitigation mechanisms. Wealthier countries and corporate interests

(which also tend to be the biggest polluters and consumers of fossil fuels) are resistant to measures that

will slow extraction, production, and consumption in order to mitigate environmental pollution and

destruction.

2. Instead, mechanisms are developed for states and corporations to “balance” their destruction by

“saving” land and resources elsewhere. States see the possibility of maintaining economic growth

through these “alternative development” strategies, which might simultaneously further indigenous

cultural protection and environmental conservation. However, international treaties are weak on

protections for both indigenous resource rights and forests. The Kyoto Protocol Clean Development

Mechanism, for instance, did not include forest protections (Jagdeo 2009), and the Copenhagen Accord

did not address indigenous rights (Goldtooth 2010).

C. REDD, ecosystems services and indigenous resource rights

The movement towards global climate change mitigation mechanisms includes efforts to place economic value on

forest resources in order to facilitate trade in carbon credits. The latest and most important mechanism that might

shape indigenous resource rights is REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), a

successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol that includes steps designed to use market/financial incentives to reduce

increased levels of greenhouse gases due to deforestation and forest degradation. Although the principal goal of REDD

is to reduce greenhouse gases, its proponents argue that this mechanism can further biodiversity conservation and

poverty alleviation by using funding from developed countries to reduce deforestation in developing countries.

Indigenous people can be in a position to take advantage of REDD and the ecosystems services trade, but there are

many obstacles, including indigenous peoples‟ ability to manage their lands and interests within the complex

ecosystems services trade, and the impacts on their customary uses and bundles of rights under such trading regimes.

1. Indigenous peoples can earn money for conserving the natural environment (which they supposedly

already do, as “ecological Indians”) by participating in a REDD project. This could be a means of

livelihood for indigenous communities that are suffering economically. Case studies of indigenous

groups that are taking advantage of this mechanism include the Suruí in Brazil (USAID/Brazil 2009,

Zwick 2009) and Maori of New Zealand (Funk and Kerr 2007). REDD schemes can also provide funding

to make reforestation and forest conservation financially feasible and worthwhile for cattle ranchers

and other business people who are responsible for clearing large amounts of land (Phillips 2009), thus

decreasing the pressure on indigenous lands. Likewise REDD funding could make it financially feasible

for poor governments to conserve their forests, rather than selling or clearing them, again providing an

opening for indigenous people to maintain their forest rights (Jagdeo 2009).

2. However, international coalitions of indigenous groups generally oppose REDD projects because (1) the

United Nations have removed the provisions that would protect indigenous people‟s rights to the forests

and their livelihoods therein, and have not established a clear framework or oversight mechanism; (2)

they do not agree with a paradigm based on selling permits to pollute; (3) they see REDD as a new form

of colonialism through which Northern/Western corporations and governments will take further control

of forests and the atmosphere, and (4) they fear that REDD and the Clean Development Mechanism will

lead to land grabs, further deforestation and environmental destruction and exploitation (Environmental

Rights Action / Friends of the Earth and Indigenous Environmental Network 2010, Goldtooth 2010,

Indigenous Environmental Network 2009?, Morales 2010). Echoing these sentiments, Evo Morales,

President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, issued a letter calling for indigenous peoples of the world

to reject REDD. He states that indigenous peoples cannot accept the commodification of the forests

(Morales 2010). Even the UN acknowledges that REDD may not benefit, and may in fact further

endanger the livelihoods of indigenous forest peoples, and that if there are benefits, they may come with

social or economic costs (United Nations et al. 2008).

3. Few if any oversight and transparency mechanisms have been approved for REDD and Clean

Development Mechanism projects. Emissions producers can assume their projects will benefit carbon

sequesterers, for instance, when that may not be the case. Such projects can be another way of

reproducing North-South inequalities, patterns of paternalism and exploitation, and may be more

accessible by those who already have more resources, thereby further marginalizing poor people (see

Wittmann and Caron 2009). Interpol has warned that, because of the lack of oversight mechanisms and

the fact that many forests are located in countries where corruption is a problem, REDD is at high risk of

being used by organized crime groups to commit fraud involving bribery, intimidation, threats, and

potentially violence (Vidal 2010). Wandojo Siswanto, a leader in REDD+ negotiations for Indonesia, was

arrested in October 2010 on corruption charges for accepting bribes and kickbacks (Butler 2010a).

4. Carbon sequestration or other ecosystems services projects may be used as a requirement for poverty

alleviation or development support from multilateral institutions, much as agrarian and sustainable

development have been used, thereby also reproducing inequalities and furthering power struggles.

5. In order to take advantage of carbon trading schemes, the seller must measure carbon sequestration,

wind power, and other potential ecosystem services capacity, and be able to manage traded resources

in particular ways. Measurement models are still being tested, and it is not clear whether they can

account for the complexity of forestry management projects. Required management techniques may be

foreign, non-traditional and not preferred by indigenous people, and thus they may require training and

adaptation. Although training may be carried out by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other

groups, this may effectively lead external groups to assume greater control of indigenous lands (Trexler,

Faeth, and Kramer 1989, Wittman and Caron 2009).

6. The terms of ecosystem services trade agreements are often set by powerful electric companies and

other national or multinational corporations, usually located in the global North. This means less control

over the trading relationship for indigenous communities, which most often are located in the global

South. “Clean Development” and the dominant discourse of sustainability often leads to an emphasis

on economic development and environmental protection, rather than the improvement of the livelihoods

of the poor and marginalized (See Wittmann and Caron 2009, also work by conservation oriented

groups such as The Nature Conservancy).

III. PARTICIPATORY MAPPING AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES‟ RIGHTS TO LAND AND

RESOURCES.

Participatory mapping has the potential to more democratically represent indigenous peoples‟ conceptions of and relationships

(both material and symbolic) with landscapes, as well as their material and economic interests, and thereby is a useful method

for demonstrating use of and rights to land and resources, and for planning (or resisting) development and conservation projects

(Herlihy and Knapp 2003, Sletto 2009b). While critiques have been made that counter-mapping processes and results can

reproduce binary divides and other inequalities and biases (Herlihy and Knapp 2003, Sieber 2006), participatory mapping can

be used to provide the evidence of a community‟s material relationship with their environment, which Unruh (2006) suggests is

crucial in making customary use rights translate into legal property rights. The academic literature on how participatory mapping

is being used with indigenous communities as part of climate change mitigation or ecosystems services projects (REDD) is scant,

although there is some discussion in the journalistic press about the challenges and possibilities of linking participatory

mapping with climate change mechanisms (Butler 2006, Butler 2010c). The literature review below, therefore, focuses on key

issues surrounding participatory mapping as a tool for resource and land rights protection for indigenous people.

A. The potentials of participatory mapping to “prove” sustainable land uses

Participatory mapping can serve to “prove” that indigenous people have a special, meaningful relationship

with their natural environment. It can show that indigenous people, through strategies established over a

long time, have developed specialized knowledge of flora and fauna, appropriate and sustainable uses of

natural resources, cautious and limited alterations of landscapes, and effective, sustainable systems of

production and consumption (Smith 2003, Unruh 2006, Vargas Sarmiento 1999a, Vargas Sarmiento

1999b, Vuotto 2004). By using participatory mapping strategies, indigenous groups and their supporters

can also document historical, spatial patterns of land uses to argue that a given community has pursued

sustainable resource management strategies. In this regard, participatory mapping is used by many to

design land and resource management plans, either (1) to support a population in managing their natural

resources and developing their own cultural or economic enterprise (Jardinet and Paizano P. 2004, Smith

1995, Smith 2000), or (2) to facilitate with communities the management of resources within a conservation

area or reserve (Herlihy 2001, Stocks 2003), or a managed forestry project (Armijo Canto and Llorens Cruset

2004, Bray, Merino-Pérez, and Barry 2005, Wiersum 1997). In the case of the latter, indigenous peoples

may have limited rights of use to some or all natural resources (Colchester 2004). Taken further, participatory

mapping can be critical in establishing legally-recognizable land and resource rights (Stocks 2005, Unruh

2006). Authors making this argument sometimes are less concerned about the cultural ramifications of the

process of mapping, but instead see it as an appropriate, instrumental strategy to protect indigenous rights.

Mac Chapin: Chapin is an anthropologist who formerly was the co-director of Cultural Survival‟s Central

American Project. He now directs the Center for Native Lands. In the early 1990s Chapin directed two of

the first participatory mapping projects in Central America (Honduras and Panama). He has been critical

of conservationists for violating the rights of indigenous peoples, and advocates participatory mapping

that considers the possible consequences for vulnerable populations (Brown, Chapin, and Brack 2006,

Chapin 1992, 1998a, 1998b, 2004, Chapin, Herrera, and Gonzalez 1995, Chapin, Lamb, and Threlkeld

2005, Chapin and Threlkeld 2001).

Peter H. Herlihy: Herlihy is associate professor in the Department of Geography at the University of

Kansas. He was involved in the first participatory mapping projects in Central America, where he worked

with Chapin, and has been conducting similar projects since then. He is currently under scrutiny for

directing the Bowman Expeditions (part of the México Indígena project), which are funded by the

American Geographical Society and the U.S. Department of Defense to map indigenous lands in

Mexico. Previously, Herlihy has written about mapping as a tool for the defense of indigenous peoples‟

rights (particularly linked with nature conservation), but recently has downplayed the potential

consequences for indigenous peoples (Herlihy 1986, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, Herlihy and

Aberley 1994, Herlihy et al. 2008, Herlihy and Knapp 2003, Herlihy and Leake 1991, Herlihy and Leake

1997a, Herlihy and Leake 1997b, Herlihy et al. 2007).

Anthony Stocks: Stocks is an anthropologist, formerly co-director with Chapin of Cultural Survival‟s

Central America Program, and currently Professor Emeritus at Idaho State University. He now assists

indigenous groups with mapping their lands and forest resources, most recently in Nicaragua, and takes

a pragmatic approach to the potential of mapping as a tool for land rights (Stocks 1984, 1990, 1999,

2003, 2005, Stocks, McMahan, and Taber 2007, Stocks, Staver, and Simeone 1994).

B. Potentials of participatory mapping to establish and protect territorial “limits” and resource use boundaries

Participatory mapping can be used to determine and justify the boundaries of indigenous customary land

uses and traditional indigenous territories, by providing a participatory process for demarcation of current

and past resource uses and traditional boundaries. This can facilitate processes of legal titling of community

claims and territories (Chapin, Lamb, and Threlkeld 2005, Chapin and Threlkeld 2001, Conn and Arvelo-

Jimenez 1995, Gordon, Gurdian, and Hale 2003, Herlihy 1993, 2002, Herlihy and Leake 1997b, Inter-

American Court of Human Rights 2000, Smith et al. 2003, Stocks 2005, Wainwright and Bryan 2009b). In

addition, participatory mapping can be incorporated into ongoing monitoring programs to reveal resource

abuses and defend against such encroachments (Bitencourt, Mistry, and Berardi 2005). Some indigenous

groups are now using mapping to monitor and defend lands against deforestation, illegal timber extraction,

prospecting, and colonization (Clendenning 2007, Lean 2008). Conversely, however, mapping and remote

sensing technologies are also used by states and multilateral organizations to monitor deforestation as a

way of surveilling communities‟ uses of the environment.

One prominent example of how participatory mapping has been used to justify the boundaries of customary

land uses and traditional indigenous territories is the case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. This case became a

landmark legal precedent when the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in August, 2001, that the

State of Nicaragua had violated Awas Tingni‟s traditional community property rights. It was the first time an

international court ruled against a state in favor of indigenous community rights. The community‟s original

complaint in the mid-1990s was that the Nicaraguan national government had granted a logging concession

on lands traditionally utilized by Awas Tingni. Participatory mapping as well as other ethnographic studies

were used to establish the Awas Tingni community‟s long-standing relationship to and use of the lands

(Anaya and Macdonald 1995, Macdonald 1996). The case was ultimately won based on this evidence as well

as legal procedural technicalities and the claimants‟ perseverance through the slow bureaucratic legal

process. In its 2001 judgment, the Court ordered Nicaragua to legally demarcate Awas Tingni territory

immediately and no later than the end of 2002 (Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program 2008).

However, that deadline passed and the Awas Tingni Community had to go to court again (Vuotto 2002). In

2003, Nicaragua finally passed a demarcation law and in 2004 began the World Bank-funded demarcation

and titling process for Awas Tingni (Anaya 2009, UN News Service 2008). On December 14, 2008, the

Government of Nicaragua presented the community of Awas Tingni with the legal title to 74,000 hectares of

their traditional forested lands (Anaya 2009, UN News Service 2008).

Scholar-practitioners who write about these issues include the following:

Karl Offen: Offen is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Oklahoma. He has been

involved in participatory mapping for more than a decade, focusing his research on indigenous and

Afro-descendent land rights, demarcation, and resource use. He writes about the politics of identity

and race as they are related to place (Offen 2009, Offen 2003a, Offen 2003b).

Richard Chase Smith: Smith is an anthropologist, executive director of the Instituto del Buen

Común, in Lima, Perú, and visiting senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center in

Massachusetts. He uses participatory mapping to determine land and resource-use patterns in

community-based efforts to affirm indigenous rights to and defend those resources, develop and

implement sustainable management plans and economic projects. Sometimes this also involves

demarcating land and proposing reserves (Chirif, García H., and Smith 1991, Pinedo et al. 2000,

Smith 1977, Smith 1982, Smith 1995, Smith 2000, Smith et al. 2003, Smith and Pinedo 2002).

Joel Wainwright: An assistant professor in the Department of Geography at Ohio State University,

Wainwright takes a critical approach to participatory mapping, arguing that even achievements

such as the Awas Tingni case reinforce colonial social relations and force indigenous peoples to

make claims within the framework of the nation-state (Wainwright and Bryan 2009b).

C. Potentials and drawbacks of participatory mapping to quantify resources and ecosystems services

Participatory mapping has been a key method used to locate and quantify biodiversity, design and

implement conservation and management plans for protected areas and indigenous territories (Herlihy and

Knapp 2003). It has also been used to educate, broaden understanding, and resolve conflicts over land and

natural resources. Now, as demand for carbon sequestration projects increases, mapping and GIS

applications are being used in additional ways. Climate change mitigation mechanisms such as REDD

essentially turn forests, trees, and soils, into commodities on the still-developing carbon and ecosystems

services market. In order to qualify for a carbon sequestration project, indigenous communities or other

owners of forested lands must quantify the amount of carbon held in the trees or soils they wish to market as

carbon stocks. Methods for accurately and efficiently measuring carbon stocks are still being researched.

Currently, stocks are measured either by the mapping of ground samples or by using 3D aerial imagery

(Brown et al. 2005). These methods are expensive in terms of both technology and person-hours of labor. In

addition, they do not take into account factors beyond the marketable quantity of carbon. Such

commodification and quantification may lead to the disempowerment of forest peoples, as it is based on

Western conceptions of profit and does not take into account indigenous epistemologies, systems of

meaning and tradition. The benefit of indigenous peoples using mapping to locate, measure, and represent

carbon stocks with Western technologies is that they may be able to manage conservation or ecosystems

services projects through these means. Two examples in which indigenous groups have been successful in

this regard are the Maori in New Zealand and the Suruí in Brazil (Butler 2010b, Butler 2010c, Funk and Kerr

2007, Zwick 2009). Two scholars who work on the measurement and marketing of carbon stocks are:

Sandra Brown: Brown is a senior scientist with Winrock International. In almost 30 years studying

forests, land-use, and climate mitigation, she has led numerous projects sponsored by

governmental agencies, multilateral organizations, and big conservation groups. She was awarded

a Nobel Diploma for her work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was

awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. She investigates the measurement, monitoring,

and verification of carbon stocks, as well as challenges in and practical management of carbon

sequestration projects (Brown et al. 2007, Brown et al. 2005, Brown et al. 2002).

Suzi Kerr: Economist Suzi Kerr is Senior Fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, a

non-profit research institute based in Wellington, New Zealand. She focuses on land use and

climate change in the tropics and New Zealand, as they relate to emissions trading issues. Her work

primarily is theoretical and policy-oriented (Funk and Kerr 2007).

D. The variety of actors involved in participatory mapping

A variety of actors are involved in participatory mapping, including not only indigenous groups and

federations but also regional and state agencies, international NGOs, and multilateral institutions. The

reasons for their involvement are many and different, and their potentials for providing meaningful support to

indigenous struggles for resource and land rights also vary. Multilateral lending institutions such as the

World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have been involved in pressuring or coercing nation-

states to comply with their development initiatives. In multiple cases, the World Bank has required the

demarcation of indigenous territories as a condition for releasing loan monies for conservation or

development projects (Arvelo Jiménez 1993, Gordon, Gurdian, and Hale 2003, Stocks 2005). United States-

based NGOs engaged with participatory mapping include the Amazon Conservation Team, Conservation

International, Cultural Survival, The Nature Conservancy, Rainforest Foundation, Winrock International, and

the World Wildlife Fund. Latin America-based NGOs who use participatory mapping include Fundación Gaia

and Projeto Nova Cartografía. Many of these organizations have received mixed reviews from indigenous

peoples whom they have assisted in mapping lands, partly because of varying levels of open and full

participation in different situations. More controversial has been México Indígena, a project developed by

scholars at the University of Kansas with funding from the American Geographical Society and the United

States Department of Defense (Grossman 2010, Herlihy et al. 2008, México Indígena 2010a, 2010b,

Sedillo 2007, 2009, 2010, Wainwright and Bryan 2009a). Researchers involved in participatory mapping

also have criticized many of the NGOs, particularly the more powerful ones (Conservation International, The

Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund), along with their funders, for prioritizing the conservation of flora,

fauna, and physical landscapes over the well-being of local human populations. In a well-known article in

2004, Mac Chapin accused the big conservation groups of violating indigenous peoples‟ rights in the ways

they conduct their projects (Brown, Chapin, and Brack 2006, Chapin 2004, WorldWatch 2005). Following

are brief profiles of some of the key organizations working in participatory mapping.

Amazon Conservation Team (ACT): The ACT was founded by prize-winning ethnobotanist Dr. Mark

Plotkin in 1995. Plotkin bases ACT‟s approach in his belief that the protection of indigenous

peoples and the conservation of rainforests are mutually constitutive. ACT has helped indigenous

peoples map millions of acres of land in Brazil, Colombia and Suriname.

Conservation International (CI): CI is based in Arlington, Virginia, has offices in Mexico, Guatemala,

Costa Rica, and seven countries in South America, as well as in Belgium and throughout Asia and

Africa. Since its founding in 1987, CI has worked to get communities, governments, and

corporations to implement conservation policies and projects.

Cultural Survival: Cultural Survival is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The group works with

indigenous peoples to defend their cultural and territorial interests. Chapin, Theodore Macdonald,

and Ellen Lutz served as past directors of this NGO. They sponsored some of the first participatory

mapping projects in Central America in the early 1990s. Cultural Survival‟s first indigenous

executive director, Suzanne Benally (Navajo and Santa Clara Tewa) was appointed December 16,

2010.

Fundación Gaia: Fundación Gaia was founded in 1990 by Martín von Hildebrand to put the

management and conservation of indigenous territories back in the hands of indigenous peoples.

Their base is in Bogotá, and they work mainly in the departments of Amazonas, Vaupes, and

Guainía. In the 1970s and 1980s, von Hildebrand lived and worked with indigenous communities

in various social and economic justice struggles, including trying to get rights to their lands. In

1986 he became Head of Indigenous Affairs for the Colombian government, a position in which he

was able to pass legislation that granted title to 50 million acres of indigenous lands and provided

indigenous communities with schools. Since 2007, Fundación Gaia has been working to develop

regional strategies for climate change adaptation (Butler 2010d, Fundación Gaia and Centro de

Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana (CEREC) 1992, Fundación Gaia and Centro de Estudios de la

Realidad Colombiana (CEREC) 1993).

Fundación Minga: Fundación Minga has been working for more than ten years in with indigenous,

Afro-descendent, and peasant communities in Colombia. They apply participatory mapping and

participatory planning methodologies in community organizing and social justice projects, focusing

on the strengthening of local organizations, and the sustainable management and conservation of

natural resources.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC): TNC has mega-conservation projects all over the world. Many of

these are based on a bioreserve model that in principle includes indigenous peoples as managers

of the reserves. However, in practice they have received much criticism for pushing a biodiversity

conservation agenda that violates the rights of indigenous peoples.

Projeto Nova Cartografía: Based in Brazil, Projeto Nova Cartografía was founded and is

coordinated by Alfredo Wagner. This group employs participatory mapping methodologies to

empower marginalized communities as they work through various challenges related to land and

resource access and use (Wagner Berno de Almeida 2006).

Rainforest Foundation (RF): RF was formed in 1989 by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler at the direct

request of a Kayapó leader from Brazil. They were one of the first NGOs to practice a “rights-based”

approach to support indigenous peoples‟ struggles to demarcate, gain rights to, and defend their

land and natural resources.

Winrock International: Winrock International has offices in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Arlington,

Virginia; and affiliate offices in Gurgaon, India and Brussels, Belgium. This group is dedicated to

working with disadvantaged peoples to improve wellbeing and promote sustainable economic

livelihoods. Among their many endeavors, they have programs in clean energy, ecosystems

services, forestry, and natural resource management, including an offset program called the

American Carbon Registry. Their work on ecosystems services is focused on forests, land use, and

the measurement of carbon, for which they employ participatory mapping techniques. Much of

their work is scientifically oriented.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF): The WWF was founded in 1961 to conserve wildlife and natural

landscapes. They are now one of the largest conservation organizations, and have operations all

over the world. They have been accused of pushing their pro-nature agenda without prioritizing the

rights of local peoples. The WWF helped fund and coordinate the University of Iowa‟s Awas Tingni

Resource Development Support Project, which eventually led to the mapping, demarcation and

titling of Awas Tingni lands.

E. The varying roles of new technologies in participatory mapping

Those engaged in participatory mapping are increasingly taking advantage of new, digital and web-based

technologies. This includes processing spatial information with Geographic Information Systems and remote

sensing technology as a means to model and quantify ecosystems services and indigenous land-use

systems, and the preparation of sophisticated, internet based and often interactive spaces that integrate a

variety of representations, include photography, video, text and maps (Bosak and Schroeder 2005,

Cartwright 1997, Dransch 2000). These provide a means to represent the complex relationship between

histories, cosmologies and everyday practices that characterize indigenous landscapes (Mora-Páez and

Jaramillo E. 2003). Google Maps, Google Earth and Environmental Services Resource Institute (ESRI),

developer of the principal Geographic Information Systems used world-wide, are actively engaged in

participatory mapping, as are Garmin and other producers of Global Position Systems hardware and

software. NGOs involved in participatory mapping often facilitate access to these new technologies, as they

may initially be inaccessible for financial or technological reasons (Andrade Medina Sin fecha, Bosak and

Schroeder 2005, Herlihy and Knapp 2003, Jarvis and Stearman 1995). However, the use of these

technologies raises concerns about access and equity among indigenous peoples, since abilities to use such

technologies are often limited in many communities and skill levels are often gendered and age-based

(Bosak and Schroeder 2005, Sieber 2006).

One example of a partnership between technology developers and an indigenous community is the project of

the Suruí in Brazil. They mapped thousands of acres of territory with the help of the Amazon Conservation

Team, entered into agreement with GoogleMaps to use satellite imagery to monitor territory for land

use/abuse (invaders, burning) so that they can more ably defend it accordingly, and also use mapping to

quantify resources and estimate carbon sequestration capacity (Butler 2010b, Butler 2010c, Clendenning

2007, Hammer 2007, Katoomba Group, Lean 2008, von Mittelstaedt 2010). Scholar-practitioners who write

about the uses and effects of these technologies include the following:

Jefferson Fox: Based on his research in Cambodia and Thailand, Fox asserts that mapping should

go beyond demarcating territorial boundaries and recognize bundled overlapping, socially

embedded property rights. Fox is also concerned with how the uses of new technologies may affect

social relations (Fox 1998, 2001, 2002, Fox et al. 1994, Fox et al. 1995, Fox, Yonzon, and Podger

1996).

Peter Poole: Poole writes about the use of mapping technology for the purposes of monitoring

environmental change and land use. He asserts that mapping indigenous lands has a huge and

beneficial impact on their struggles to demarcate and defend their resources by presenting

information in formats that government agencies cannot so easily ignore (Poole 1995a, Poole

1995b, Poole 1995c, Poole 1995d).

Renee Sieber: Sieber is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography and the School of

the Environment at McGill University. She researches how to use computer technology, particularly

GIS, in more equitable participatory ways to benefit social justice causes (Sieber 2006, Sieber

2003, Sieber 2007).

F. Social relations and mapping—opportunities and challenges

Uses of participatory mapping to establish and defend boundaries are complicated by the complex,

traditional systems of resource rights (Gordon, Gurdian, and Hale 2003). Such “bundles” of rights are often

gendered and/or contingent on kinship and family relations, and vary depending on seasons, times of day,

and the specific resource in question. Participatory mapping projects therefore need to consider the complex

relationships between boundaries and resource rights, and this necessitates greater attention to process and

participation (Fox 2002, Sletto 2009a, Sletto 2009b). Because the participatory mapping process

encourages communication among participants, it is a mechanism through which participants may confront

complex social and political issues within their communities, with other communities, and with outside

corporate interests, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and other parties. Some elements of

social relations may be reinforced, some may be antagonized, while others may be worked through and

transformed (Gordon, Gurdian, and Hale 2003, Herlihy and Knapp 2003, Kyem 2004, Offen 2003a).

Participatory mapping practitioners also need to pay careful attention to social relations, including gender

roles and inter-generational relationships (Bosak and Schroeder 2005, Edmunds, Thomas-Slayter, and

Rocheleau 1995, Kwan 2002b, Rocheleau 1995), which may be altered or otherwise disturbed through

interventions with Western technologies and mapping processes, especially if these do not comply with

community norms (Kwan 2002a, Sletto 2010). Two scholar-practitioners who contribute to these discussions

are Mei-Po Kwan and Diane Rocheleau.

Mei-Po Kwan: Kwan, professor of geography at Ohio State University, writes about mapping and

mapping technologies from a feminist perspective, which is useful for understanding how they can

be used with marginalized populations in order to better address social relations and concerns that

may arise in or as a result of the process (Kwan 2002a, Kwan 2002b).

Diane Rocheleau: Rocheleau, professor of geography at Clark University, writes from a feminist

ecology perspective and is concerned with the consequences of mapping projects for gender

relations, and conversely, how mapping projects might reinforce inequitable access to lands by

privileging the participation of certain groups (Rocheleau 1995, 2005, Rocheleau and Ross

1995, Rocheleau et al. 2001, Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and Edmunds 1995).

G. The challenges of representing indigenous knowledges and spatialities in a Western cartographic format

Many authors and indigenous leaders argue that those involved in the participatory mapping of indigenous

lands need to carefully consider the challenges inherent in translating indigenous knowledge into Western,

Cartesian cartographic formats. Indigenous peoples have contrasting and alternative epistemologies and

also different conceptions of time and landscapes. Landscapes are embodied by histories and people in

ways that cannot be captured in maps. Those involved in participatory mapping need to carefully consider

such challenges by paying careful attention to community and social dynamics surrounding the mapping

process, including emphasizing participation. Authors in this area consider the process quite significant, as a

means for community engagement and learning with regard to questions of land and resource rights (Sletto

2010, Sletto 2009a, Sletto 2009b, Vajjhala 2006).

Alfredo Wagner Berno de Almeida: Wagner is the founder and coordinator of Projeto Nova

Cartografía (see above). He himself writes about struggles over lands traditionally occupied by

quilombos, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized communities (Wagner Berno de Almeida

2006).

Joe Bryan: Bryan is assistant professor of geography at the University of Colorado, and writes on the

complex indigenous understandings of spatialities, and how these indigenous spaces are shaped

by multiple, overlapping forms of territories and rights. He asserts that participatory mapping

projects should be more theoretically-informed and should not be assumed to result in better,

normative outcomes (Bryan 2011, Wainwright and Bryan 2009b).

WORKS CITED

Anaya, S. J. 2004. Indigenous Peoples in International Law, Second edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Anaya, S. J., and S. T. Crider. 1996. Indigenous Peoples, the Environment, and

Commercial Forestry in Developing Countries: The Case of Awas Tingni,

Nicaragua. Human Rights Quarterly 18:345-367.

Anaya, S. J., and T. Macdonald. 1995. Demarcating indigenous territories in Nicaragua :

the case of Awas Tingni. Cultural survival quarterly. 19:69-73.

Andrade Medina, H. Sin fecha. La cartografía social para la planeación participativa:

experiencias de planeación con grupos étnicos en Colombia.

Armijo Canto, N., and C. Llorens Cruset. Editors. 2004. Uso, conservación y cambio en los

bosques de Quintana Roo, Primera edition. Mexico, D.F.: Universidad de Quintana

Roo.

Arvelo Jiménez, N. 1993. "Desarrollo sotenible y derechos territoriales de los indios

Amazónicos," in Reconocimiento y demarcación de territorios indígenas en la

Amazonia: la experiencia de los países de la región, vol. No. 4, CEREC Serie

Amerindia, no. 4, pp. 17-51. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Gaia,

Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana (CEREC),.

Assies, W. 2009. Land tenure, land law and development: some thoughts on recent debates.

Journal of Peasant Studies 36:573 - 589.

Aylwin, J. 2006. "Land and Resources," in Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 30.4.

Baker & McKenzie. 2009. "Baker & McKenzie Issued Significant Legal Opinion on

Carbon Rights for Brazilian Indians in Amazon."

http://www.bakermckenzie.com/news/BrazilSuruiTribeLegalOpinion/: Baker &

McKenzie.

Bitencourt, M. D., J. Mistry, and A. Berardi. 2005. Verificação de manejo de fogo na

Reserva Indígena Krahô -- Tocantins, utilizando imagens de satélite. Anais XII

Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Goiânia, Brasil, 16-21 abril 2005,

INPE:2871-2878.

Blue, L. 2006. Sheila Watt-Cloutier. Time International (Canada Edition) 167:56-57.

Bosak, K., and K. Schroeder. 2005. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for

Gender and Development. Development in Practice 15:231-237.

Bray, D. B., L. Merino-Pérez, and D. Barry. 2005. The community forests of Mexico :

managing for sustainable landscapes / edited by David Barton Bray, Leticia Merino-

Pérez, and Deborah Barry. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Brown, D., M. Chapin, and D. Brack. 2006. "Meeting 6: Rights and Natural Resources:

Contradictions in Claiming Rights." Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: Realities,

Controversies, and Strategies, An ODI Meeting Series, 2006, pp. 77-90. Rights in

Action Meeting Series.

Brown, S., M. Hall, K. Andrasko, F. Ruiz, W. Marzoli, G. Guerrero, O. Masera, A.

Dushku, B. DeJong, and J. Cornell. 2007. Baselines for land-use change in the

tropics: application to avoided deforestation projects. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change 12:1001-1026.

Brown, S., T. Pearson, D. Slaymaker, S. Ambagis, N. Moore, D. Novelo, and W. Sabido.

2005. Creating a Virtual Tropical Forest from Three-Dimensional Aerial Imagery to

Estimate Carbon Stocks. Ecological Applications 15:1083-1095.

Brown, S., I. R. Swingland, R. Hanbury-Tenison, G. T. Prance, and N. Myers. 2002.

Changes in the Use and Management of Forests for Abating Carbon Emissions:

Issues and Challenges under the Kyoto Protocol. Philosophical Transactions:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 360:1593-1605.

Bryan, J. 2011. Walking the line: Participatory mapping, indigenous rights, and

neoliberalism. Geoforum 42:40-50.

Butler, R. A. 2006. "An interview with ethnobotanist Dr. Mark Plotkin: Indigenous people

are key to rainforest conservation efforts says renowned ethnobotanist," in

mongabay.com.

—. 2010a. "Former Indonesian REDD+ negotiator arrested on corruption charge," in

Mongabay.com.

—. 2010b. "Mapas Etnográficos construídos com tecnologia de ponta podem ajudar as

tribos Amazônicas a receberem pagamentos pelo carbono de suas florestas," in

Mongabay.com.

—. 2010c. "Protecting their Rainforest: Amazon Tribes Embrace Technology to Save

Land, Culture," in Geoworld, pp. 16-19.

—. 2010d. "Taking Back the Rainforest: Indians in Colombia Govern 100,000 Square

Miles of Territory," in Mongabay.com.

Campos, L. 2006. "La tierra es nuestra: resistencia territorial en poblaciones indígenas de

Brasil, México y Chile," in Resistencia territorial en Ámerica Latina: los espacios

como posibilidad y como potencia

First edition. Edited by P. González Quiroz, M. Barahona Jonas, M. Garrido Pereira, and

J. Joo Nagata, pp. 33-42. Providencia, Santiago de Chile: Universidad Academia de

Humanismo Cristiano.

Cartwright, W. 1997. New media and their application to the production of map products.

Computers and Geosciences 23:447-456.

Chan, K. M. A., R. M. Pringle, J. Ranganathan, C. L. Boggs, Y. L. Chan, P. R. Ehrlish, P.

K. Haff, N. E. Heller, K. Al-Khafaji, and D. P. Macmynowski. 2007. When Agendas

Collide: Human Welfare and Biological Conservation. Conservation Biology 21.

Chapin, M. 1992. The coexistence of indigenous peoples and the natural environment in

Central America. Res. Explor. Sch. Publ. Natl. Geogr. Soc.

—. 1998a. Indigenous Land Use Mapping in Central America. Yale F&ES Bulletin:195-209.

—. 1998b. Mapping and the ownership of information. Common Property Resource Dig.

45:6-7.

—. 2004. A Challenge to Conservationists. WorldWatch 17:17-31.

Chapin, M., F. Herrera, and N. Gonzalez. 1995. Ethnocartography in the Darien. Cultural

Survival Quarterly 18:31.

Chapin, M., Z. Lamb, and B. Threlkeld. 2005. Mapping Indigenous Lands. Annual Review

of Anthropology 34:619-638.

Chapin, M., and B. Threlkeld. 2001. Indigenous Landscapes: A Study in Ethnocartography.

Arlington, Virginia: Center for the Support of Native Lands.

Chirif, A., P. García H., and R. C. Smith. 1991. El indígena y su territorio son uno solo.

Estrategias para la defensa de los pueblos y territorio indígenas en la cuenca

amazónica. OXFAM America

Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuence Amazónica (COICA).

Clendenning, A. 2007. "Brazil Indians, Google to fight logging," in Associated Press. São

Paolo, Brazil.

Colchester, M. 2004. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environmental Science &

Policy 7:145-153.

Colman, R. S. 2007. O problema fundiário em Mato Grosso do Sul: o caso Sucuri'Y. Tellus

7:137-146.

Conn, K., and N. Arvelo-Jimenez. 1995. The Ye'kuana Self-Demarcation Process. Cultural

Survival Quarterly 18:40.

Cultural Survival. 2007. "Turning Up the Heat on Global Warming," in Cultural Survival

Quarterly, vol. 31.1.

Dowie, M. 2005. "Conservation refugees: When protecting nature means kicking people

out," in Orion Magazine.

—. 2009. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation

and Native Peoples: The MIT Press.

Dransch, D. 2000. The use of different media in visualizing spatial data. Computers and

Geosciences 26:5-9.

Edmunds, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and D. Rocheleau. 1995. Gendered Resource Mapping:

Focusing on Women's Spaces in the Landscape. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18:62.

Environmental Rights Action / Friends of the Earth, and Indigenous Environmental

Network. 2010. "Shell Bankrolls REDD--Indigenous and Environmentalists

Denounce." Edited by N. Bassey and T. Goldtooth.

Fox, J. 1998. Mapping the commons: The social context of spatial information technologies.

Common Property Resource Dig. 45:1-4.

—. 2001. "Mapping a changing landscape: Land use, land cover, and resource tenure in

northeastern Cambodia," in East-West Center Working Paper. Honolulu, Hawaii:

East-West Center

—. 2002. Siam Mapped and Mapping in Cambodia: Boundaries, Sovereignty,and

Indigenous Conceptions of Space. Society & Natural Resources 15:65-78.

Fox, J., R. Kanter, S. Yarnasarn, M. Ekasingh, and R. Jones. 1994. Relating farmer

characteristics and spatial variables to Swidden cultivation in Northern Thailand.

Environ. Manag. 18:391.

Fox, J., J. Krummel, S. Yarnasarn, M. Ekasingh, and N. Podger. 1995. Land use and

landscape dynamics in northern Thailand: Assessing change in three upland

watersheds. Ambio 24:328-334.

Fox, J., P. Yonzon, and N. Podger. 1996. Mapping conflicts between biodiversity and

human needs in Langtang National Park, Nepal. Conserv. Biol. 10:562.

Fundación Gaia, and Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Colombiana (CEREC). 1992.

"Derechos territoriales indígenas y ecología en las selvas tropicales del América."

Villa de Leyva, Boyacá, Colombia, 1992, pp. 385 p. : maps ; 21 cm. Serie Amerindia,

no. 3.

—. 1993. "Reconocimiento y demarcación de territorios indígenas en la Amazonia: la

experiencia de los países de la región." Brasilia, Brazil, 1993. CEREC Serie

Amerindia, no. 4 No. 4.

Funk, J., and S. Kerr. 2007. Restoring Forests Through Carbon Farming on Mori Land in

New Zealand/Aotearoa. Mountain Research and Development 27:202-205.

García-Frapolli, E., G. Ramos-Fernández, E. Galicia, and A. Serrano. 2009. The complex

reality of biodiversity conservation through Natural Protected Area policy: Three

cases from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Land Use Policy 26:715-722.

Goldtooth, T. 2010. "Indigenous Peoples Support the Bolivia Cochabamba Peoples'

Agreement of the Recent Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change and the

Rights of Mother Earth: Rejection of Carbon Market Regimes." New York, New

York: Indigenous Environmental Network.

Gordon, E. T., G. C. Gurdian, and C. R. Hale. 2003. Rights, Resources, and the Social

Memory of Struggle: Reflections on a Study of Indigenous and Black Community

Land Rights on Nicaragua's Atlantic Coast. Human organization : Journal of the

Society for Applied Anthropology. 62:369-381.

Government of New Zealand. 2010. "Announcement of New Zealand's Support for the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Grossman, Z. 2010. "Geographic Controversy over the Bowman Expeditions / México

Indígena." Olympia, Washington.

Hammer, J. 2007. "Rain Forest Rebel," in Smithsonian Magazine.

Herlihy, P. H. 1986. A cultural geography of the Embera and Wounan (Choco) Indians of

Darien, Panama, with emphasis on recent village formation and economic

diversification.

—. 1993. "Securing a homeland : The Tawahka Sumu of Mosquitia's Rain Forest," in State

of the peoples: a global human rights report on societies in danger. Edited by M. S.

Miller. Boston: Beacon Press.

—. 1997. "Indigenous Peoples and Biosphere Reserve Conservation in the Mosquitia Rain

Forest Corridor, Honduras," in Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous

Peoples and Protected Areas. Edited by S. Stevens, pp. 99-129. Washington, D.C.:

Island Press.

—. 2001. "Indigenous and Ladino Peoples of the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve,

Honduras," in Endangered Peoples of Latin America: Struggles to Survive and

Thrive. Edited by S. C. Stonich, pp. 100-120. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

Press.

—. 2002. "Indigenous Mapmaking in the Americas: A Typology," in Cultural and Physical

Expositions: Geographic Studies in the Southern United States and Latin America.

Edited by M. Steinberg and P. F. Hudson, pp. 133-150. Baton Rouge: Geoscience

Publications, Louisiana State University.

—. 2003. Participatory Research Mapping of Indigenous Lands in Darien, Panama. Human

organization : journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 62:315.

Herlihy, P. H., and D. Aberley. 1994. Review of Boundaries of Home: Mapping for Local

Empowerment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84:777-779.

Herlihy, P. H., J. E. Dobson, M. A. Robledo, D. A. Smith, J. H. Kelly, and A. R. Viera.

2008. GEOGRAPHICAL FIELD NOTE - A Digital Geography of Indigenous

Mexico: Prototype for the American Geographical Society's Bowman Expeditions.

Geographical Review 98:395-415.

Herlihy, P. H., and G. Knapp. 2003. Maps of, by, and for the Peoples of Latin America.

Human organization : journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 62:303.

Herlihy, P. H., and A. P. Leake. 1991. "Propuesta Reserva Forestal Tawahka Sumu," vol.

Folleto, pp. 1-18. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Federación Indígena Tawahka de

Honduras,

Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia,.

—. 1997a. "Investigación Cartográfica Participativa de Tierras Indígenas de la Mosquitia

Hondureña," in De los Mayas a la Planificación Familiar: Demografía del Istmo

Centroamericana. Edited by L. R. Bixby, A. Pebley, and A. Bermudez. San José,

Costa Rica: Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica.

—. 1997b. "Participatory Research Mapping of Indigenous Lands in the Honduran

Mosquitia," in Demographic Diversity and Change in the Central American Isthmus.

Edited by A. R. Pebley and L. Rosero-Bixby, pp. 707-736. Santa Monica, California:

RAND.

Herlihy, P. H., D. A. Smith, J. H. Kelly, A. Ramos Viera, A. M. Hilburn, and J. E. Dobson.

2007. A Multiscale Geographical Analysis of Indigenous Mexico. México Indígena.

AGS Bowman Expedition.

Hirt, I. 2006. "Descolonizando y reconstruyendo el Iof: procesos de autonomía mapuche en

el sur de Chile, a través de una experiencia de cartografía indígena," in Resistencia

territorial en Ámerica Latina: los espacios como posibilidad y como potencia, First

edition. Edited by P. González Quiroz, M. Barahona Jonas, M. Garrido Pereira, and

J. Joo Nagata, pp. 43-77. Providencia, Santiago de Chile: Universidad Academia de

Humanismo Cristiano.

Hurtado, A., and E. Sánchez. 1992. "Introducción: Documento de reflexión y síntesis.

Situación de propiedad, aprovechamiento y manejo de los recursos naturales en los

territorios indígenas en áreas bajas de selva tropical," in Derechos territoriales

indígenas y ecología en las selvas tropicales del América, CEREC Serie Amerindia, pp.

11-36. Bogotá: Fundación Gaia, CEREC.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2010. "Canada's Statement of Support on the United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Edited by Indian and

Northern Affairs Canada: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,.

Indigenous Environmental Network. 2009? "REDD: Reaping Profits from Evictions, Land

Grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of Biodiversity," pp. 20.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [IACHR]. 2010. Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples' Rights Over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and

Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Organization of

American States.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2000. "The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni

Community Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000 ". Edited

by I.-A. C. o. H. Rights.

International Labor Organisation [ILO]. 1989. "C169: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

Convention 169," vol. C169. Edited by I. L. Organisation.

Jagdeo, B. 2009. "Guyana is a model of forest protection that could solve the climate crisis:

A Copenhagen deal must enable countries like ours to generate income by

conserving forests rather than cutting them down," in The Guardian UK. London.

Jardinet, S., and J. Paizano P. 2004. El uso del mapeo participativo en El Angel II:

Reforestación planificada. Sistematizacion de la actividad. Acción Contra el Hambre

Centramerica.

Jarvis, K. A., and A. M. Stearman. 1995. Geomatics and Political Empowerment: The

Yuqui "...that master tool, geography's perfection, the map." Cultural Survival

Quarterly 18:58.

Kaimowitz, D., and D. Sheil. 2007. Conserving what for whom? Why conservation should

help meet basic needs in the tropics. Biotropica 39:567-574.

Katoomba Group. "Suruí: Carbon Finance and the Protection of Indigenous Peoples'

Forests in the Amazon," in Katoomba Incubator.

Key, H. J. 2010. "National Govt to support UN rights declaration."

Kwan, M.-P. 2002a. Feminist Visualization: Re-Envisioning GIS as a Method in Feminist

Geographic Research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92:645-

661.

—. 2002b. Is GIS for Women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. Gender,

Place & Culture 9:271-279.

Kyem, P. A. K. 2004. Of Intractable Conflicts and Participatory GIS Applications: The

Search for Consensus Amidst Competing Claims and Institutional Demands. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers 94:37-57.

Lean, G. 2008. "Amazon tribe enlists Google in battle with illegal loggers," in The

Independent.

Lövbrand, E., and J. Stripple. 2006. The Climate as Political Space: On the

Territorialisation of the Global Carbon Cycle. Review of International Studies

32:217-235.

Lutz, E. L. 2007. "Home Stretch," in Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 31.1.

Macdonald, T. 1996. "Awas Tingni: Un Estudio Etnografico de la Comunidad y su

Territorio."

—. 2001. Inter-American Court of Human Rights Rules in Favor of Nicaraguan Indians.

Cultural Survival Quarterly 25.

Macklin MP, T. H. J. 2009. "Statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples."

Manus, P. 2005. Sovereignty, Self-determination, and Environment-based Cultures: The

Emerging Voice of Indigenous Peoples in International Law. bepress Legal Series

Working Paper 802.

México Indígena. 2010a. "México Indígena: A Multi-scale Geographical Analysis of

Indigenous Mexico." Lawrence: University of Kansas.

—. 2010b. "Response to Accusations of Geopiracy," vol. 2010. Lawrence: University of

Kansas.

Mora-Páez, H., and C. M. Jaramillo E. 2003. Aproximación a la construcción de

cartografía social a través de la geomática. Ventana Informática:129-146.

Morales, E. 2010. "Nature, forests, and indigenous peoples are not for sale," Servindi.org.

Offen, K. 2009. O Mapeas o Te Mapean: Mapeo Indígena y Negro en América Latina.

Tabula Rasa 10:163-189.

Offen, K. H. 2003a. Narrating Place and Identity, or Mapping Miskitu Land Claims in

Northeastern Nicaragua. Human organization : journal of the Society for Applied

Anthropology. 62:382.

—. 2003b. The Territorial Turn: Making Black Territories in Pacific Colombia. Journal of

Latin American Geography 2:43-73.

Organization of American States. 1948. "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of

Man." Edited by O. o. A. States.

— 1969. "American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San Jose"." San José, Costa

Rica: Organization of American States.

Phillips, T. 2009. "REDD in the Amazon: 'We have the chance to set an example for Brazil

and to make money from this'--Amazonian cattle ranchers are starting to replant

trees with funding from Norway," in The Guardian UK. London.

Pinedo, D., P. M. Summers, R. C. Smith, J. Saavedra, R. Zumaeta, and A. M. Almeyda.

2000. "Community-Based Natural Resource Management As a Non-Linear Process:

A Case in the Peruvian Amazon Varzea." Constituting the Commons: Crafting

Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium, the Eighth Biennial Conference of the

International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana,

USA, 2000.

Poole, P. 1995a. Geomatics: Who Needs It? Cultural Survival Quarterly 18:1.

—. 1995b. Guide to the Technology. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18:16.

—. 1995c. Indigenous peoples, mapping, and biodiversity conservation: an analysis of current

activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologis. Landover, MD:

Biodiversity Support Program.

—. 1995d. Land-Based Communities, Geomatics and Biodiversity Conservation. Cultural

Survival Quarterly 18:74.

Rocheleau, D. 1995. Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political

ecology. Professional Geographer 47:458.

—. 2005. "Maps as power tools: Locating 'communities' in space or situating people(s) and

ecologies in place?," in Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of

Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Edited by P. Brosius, A. Tsing,

and C. Zerner. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.

Rocheleau, D., and L. Ross. 1995. Trees as tools, trees as text: struggles over resources in

Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic. Antipode 27:407-429.

Rocheleau, D., L. Ross, J. Morrobel, L. Malaret, R. Hernandez, and T. Kominiak. 2001.

Complex Communities and Emergent Ecologies in the Regional Agroforest of

Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic. Cultural Geographies 8:465-492.

Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and D. Edmunds. 1995. Gendered resource mapping:

focusing on women's spaces in the landscape. Cult. Surv. Q. 18:62.

Sedillo, S. 2007. ""The Road to Hell"," in elenemigocomun.net.

—. 2009. "The Demarest Factor: The Ethics of U.S. Department of Defense Funding for

Academic Research in Mexico," in http://elenemigocomun.net.

— 2010. "The Demarest Factor: US Military Mapping of Indigenous Communities in

Oaxaca, Mexico." United States of America.

Sharples, H. D. P. 2010. "Supporting UN Declaration restores NZ's mana," Minister of

Maori Affairs.

Sieber, R. 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature

Review and Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96:491-

507.

Sieber, R. E. 2003. Public participation geographic information systems across borders.

The Canadian Geographer 47:50-61.

—. 2007. Spatial Data Access by the Grassroots. Cartography and geographic information

science. 34:47.

Sletto, B. I. 2010. Autogestión en representaciones espaciales indígenas y el rol de la

capacitación y concientizacio: el caso del Proyecto Etnocartográfico Inna Kowantok,

Sector 5 Pemón (Kavanayén-Mapauri), La Gran Sabana. Antropológica LIII:43-75.

Sletto, B. r. 2009a. `Indigenous people don't have boundaries': reborderings, fire

management, and productions of authenticities in indigenous landscapes. Cultural

Geographies 16:253-277.

Sletto, B. r. I. 2009b. "We Drew What We Imagined": Participatory Mapping,

Performance, and the Arts of Landscape Making [with comments]. Current

Anthropology 50:443-476.

Smith, D. A. 2003. Participatory Mapping of Community Lands and Hunting Yields among

the Buglé of Western Panama. Human Organization 62:332-343.

Smith, R. C. 1977. The Amuesha-Yanachaga project, Peru : ecology and ethnicity in the

central jungle of Peru. London: Survival International.

—. 1982. The dialectics of domination in Peru : native communities and the myth of the vast

Amazonian emptiness : an analysis of development planning in the Pichis Palcazu

special project. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival.

—. 1995. GIS and Long Range Economic Planning for Indigenous Territories. Cultural

Survival Quarterly 18:43.

—. 2000. "Community-Based Resource Control and Management in Amazonia: A

Research Initiative to Identify Conditioning Factors for Positive Outcomes."

Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium,

the Eighth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of

Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 2000.

Smith, R. C., M. Benavides, M. Pariona, and E. Tuesta. 2003. Mapping the Past and the

Future: Geomatics and Indigenous Territories in the Peruvian Amazon. Human

organization : journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 62:357.

Smith, R. C., and D. Pinedo. 2002. "Comunidades y Áreas Naturales Protegidas en la

Amazonía Peruana," in The Commons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial

Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property.

Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.

Stocks, A. 1984. Indian policy in eastern Peru. Frontier Expansion in Amazonia:33.

—. 1990. Developers and Indians: finding the middle ground. Tebiwa 24:25.

—. 1999. Iniciativas forestales Indígenas en el Trópico Boliviano: realidades y opciones.

Bolfor Proj. Doc. Técnico.

—. 2003. Mapping Dreams in Nicaragua's Bosawas Reserve. Human organization : journal

of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 62:344.

—. 2005. Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America.

Annual Review of Anthropology 34:85-104.

Stocks, A., B. M cMahan, and P. Taber. 2007. Indigenous, Colonist, and Government

Impacts on Nicaragua's Bosawas Reserve. Conservation Biology 21:1495-1505.

Stocks, A., C. Staver, and R. Simeone. 1994. Land resource management and forest

conservation in Central Amazonian Peru: regional, community, and farm-level

approaches among Native Peoples. Mountain Res. Dev. 14:147.

Sundberg, J. 2003. Conservation and democratization: constituting citizenship in the Maya

Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Political Geography 22:715-740.

—. 2004. Identities in the making: conservation, gender, and race in the Maya biosphere

reserve, Guatemala. Gender, Place & Culture 11:43-66.

—. 2006. Conservation encounters: transculturation in the 'contact zones' of empire.

Cultural Geographies 13:239-265.

Trexler, M. C., P. E. Faeth, and J. M. Kramer. 1989. Forestry as a response to global

warming: an analysis of the Guatemala Agroforestry and Carbon Sequestration

Project. World Resources Institute.

United Nations, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United Nations

Development Program (UNDP), and United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP). 2008. UN Collaborative Programme on Reduced Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD)

Framework Document.

United Nations Department of Public Information. 2010. "Press Conference by the

Indigenous Peoples' Forum."

Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano, and Programa de Investigaciones e

Intervenciones Territoriales (P.I.I.T.). 2006. "Resistencia territorial en Ámerica

Latina: los espacios como posibilidad y como potencia." Providencia, Santiago de

Chile, 2006, pp. 207.

Unruh, J. D. 2006. Land Tenure and the “Evidence Landscape” in Developing Countries.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96:754-772.

USAID/Brazil. 2009. "Suruí alliance with USAID and Forest Trends debates forest carbon

credit in COP 15: A framework for carbon trading may result from international

treaties."

Vajjhala, S. P. 2006. "Ground Truthing" Policy: Using Participatory Mapping to Connect

Citizens and Decision Makers. Resources:14-18.

Vargas Sarmiento, P. Editor. 1999a. Construcción territorial en el Chocó. Vol. 2: Historias

locales. Santa Fe de Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Programa de historia local y regional

del Instituto Colombiano de Antropología ICAN-PNR, con la organización OBAPO

1992-1993.

—. Editor. 1999b. Construcción territorial en el Chocó. Vol. 1: Historias regionales. Santa

Fe de Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Programa de historia local y regional del Instituto

Colombiano de Antropología ICAN-PNR, con la organización OBAPO 1992-1993.

Vidal, J. 2010. "UN's forest protection scheme at risk from organised crime, experts

warn," in The Guardian UK. London.

von Mittelstaedt, J. 2010. "Using the Internet to Save the Rainforest: How an Amazonian

Tribe is Mastering the Modern World," in Spiegel Online.

Vuotto, J. 2002. One Year After Breakthrough Court Order, Nicaragua Government Still

Ignores Awas Tingni Rights. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26.

Vuotto, J. P. 2004. Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua: International Precedent for Indigenous Land

Rights? Boston University international law journal. 22:219-243.

Wagner Berno de Almeida, A. 2006. Terras de Quilombo, Terras Indígenas, "Babaçuais

Livres", "Castanhais do Povo", Faxinais e Fundos de Pasto: Terras Tradicionalmente

Ocupadas. Vol. 2. Coleção "Tradição & Ordenamento Jurídico". Manaus: Projeto

Nova Cartografía Social da Amazônia, PPGSCA-UFAM, Fundação Ford.

Wainwright, J., and J. Bryan. 2009a. "April 8 letter to colleagues about events since

previous call for investigation into potential violations of ethnical standards by

geographers involved with the American Geographical Society's Bowman

Expedition México Indígena project ".

—. 2009b. Cartography, territory, property: postcolonial reflections on indigenous

counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies 16:153-178.

Wiersum, K. F. 1997. Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources:

an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment 63:1-16.

Wittman, H. K., and C. Caron. 2009. Carbon Offsets and Inequality: Social Costs and Co-

Benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Society & Natural Resources: An International

Journal 22:710-726.

WorldWatch. 2005. A Challenge to Conservationists: Phase II. WorldWatch:5-20.

Zwick, S. 2009. "Brazilian Tribe Solidifies Claim on Carbon," in Ecosystem Marketplace.