“There is no poverty here” Community natural resource management, autonomy and self-development in Kuna Yala Oliver Cem Ayyildiz 10861289 MSc International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam June 24, 2015 Supervisor: Enrique Gomez Llata Second reader: Arij Ouweneel ABSTRACT The relationship between Indigenous Peoples and natural resources has emerged as an important focus of debates on self-determination. This has grown under the rise of post-development theory, though it remains a politically loaded and evolving topic. This thesis presents the findings of a nine-week study in Ustupu in the autonomous indigenous region of Kuna Yala, Panama. Framed around a postcolonial approach, the aim was to unearth knowledge and tactics of self-development based on nature and participation in order to understand how the community sets alternative development strategies. The research found that the main strand of discourse on Indigenous Peoples as guardians of nature who resist Western governmentality and anti-modernity only partly coincides with the experiences for the Kuna in Ustupu. Through an actor-oriented approach, the role of farmers, community representatives and knowledge brokers was analysed in relation to experiences with the land and political agency. The methods of data gathering included in-depth interviews, participant observations, transect walks and secondary quantitative information. Political speeches and rallies in both Ustupu and Panama City also lent themselves to building a more systemic view of Kuna self- determination and relative to the situation of other indigenous groups in Panama and globally. Autonomy is hybridised and driven by territorialisation of the land and unstable relations with Panama. Knowledge formation and community mobilisation take place through access to the tropical forest and marine resources. Natural resource users, especially farmers, are important actors in this process and must negotiate a social contract and cultural traditions set by the community. In these efforts, nature, community participation and food production are positioned at the core of the Kuna cosmovision, and are driven by community representatives who harness networks and ties at multiple scales. The research implies that self-determination is dependent on territorialisation over the land. This interdependent relationship helps to support knowledge formation, food production and a globalised struggle, which subsequently encourages adaptive capacity and anti-modernity strategies. Keywords: Indigenous Peoples, Kuna, post-development, self-determination, autonomy, natural resource management, community participation, Latin America i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i Table of contents ii List of figures, table and maps iv List of abbreviations and acronyms v Acknowledgments vi Preliminary remarks on use of Kuna language vii 1 Introducing the debate 1.1 An historical perspective: From ‘natives’ to ‘Peoples’ 1 1.2 Indigenous Peoples in development discourses 2 1.3 Research rationale and contribution to existing field of knowledge 3 1.4 Thesis outline 4 2 Empirical focus 2.1 Colonialism and the Latin American project 5 2.2 Framing Panama’s development agenda 6 2.3 Indigenous Peoples in Panama: Invisible peoples or an emerging force? 8 2.3 Kuna Yala: Resistance to cultural imperialism 10 2.4 Case study: Ustupu 12 3 Moving into the new paradigm 3.1 The emergence of post-development theory 14 3.2 Autonomous rural communities as agents of change 16 3.3 Rethinking nature 18 3.4 Natural resource management as a platform for resistance 19 3.5 Feeding self-development 21 4 Articulating meaning from Ustupu 4.1 Research question and subquestions 24 4.2 Epistemological and ontological perspectives 24 4.3 Conceptual scheme 26 4.4 Units of analysis 27 4.5 Sampling 28 4.6 Research methods 28 4.7 Methods of analysis and data analysis 31 4.8 Ethical considerations and limitations 32 5 Self-organisation, knowledge and food production 5.1 The ‘community’ and forms of participation 34 5.2 Attitudes and practices toward nature 38 5.3 Harnessing local knowledge 42 5.4 Mobilisation through food production 45 ii 6 Scales and networks of power 6.1 Local governance and intra-island cooperation 51 6.2 Externalised structures and ties 53 6.3 Rescaling to build adaptive capacity 56 6.4 International solidarity and alliances 58 7 Conclusion 7.1 Main findings: A hybrid model 62 7.2 Theoretical reflection 65 7.3 Methodological limitations 66 7.4 Agenda for further research: A shift in consciousness 66 Bibliography 68 Appendices A. List of interview respondents 76 B. Operationalisation of main concepts 77 C. Glossary of Kuna words 78 D. Pictures of transect walk (s) to tropical forest 80 E. Pictures of the 90-Year anniversary of the Kuna Revolution 81 iii LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND MAPS 1 Contested power in Latin America 5 2 Population figures: Indigenous groups in Panama 9 3 Map of Kuna Yala 10 4 Map of tropical forest cover in Panama 12 5 Map of fieldwork site: Ustupu 12 6 Conceptual scheme 27 7 Métis Holistic Lifelong Learning Model 43 8 Vulnerability matrix linking nature, knowledge and food production 49 9 Multi-scalar power relations 50 10 Interface between community priorities 51 11 Self-development matrix 64 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAC Campesino-a-Campesino CNRM Community natural resource management IITC International Indian Treaty Council ILO International Labour Organisation KNC Kuna National Congress KYGC Kuna Yala General Congress MNC Multinational corporation NGO Non-governmental organisation OAS Organisation of American States PDT Post-development theory UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNPFII United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues UNREDD United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Programme UNWGIP United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to a number of people both in Panama and the Netherlands, whose support and enthusiasm helped me immensely during the different phases of fieldwork and thesis writing. I would first like to thank my supervisor Enrique Gomez Llata for both his encouragement and critical analysis. Likewise, I also want to thank Arij Ouweneel as my second reader. I must also extend my gratitude to Quetzal Tzab and the Indigenous Movement in Amsterdam for providing logistical support in making this thesis possible. Dad Neba and Andres de Leon Kantule also deserve a special mention for hosting me in Panama City and Ustupu, respectively, and translating numerous stories from Kuna to Spanish. A mention should also go to Yulissa Boeren Cerna, Arvid van Maaren and Clara Martinez Gines for their much-appreciated translation assistance. Most of all, however, I would like to say “nue gambi” to those people I met in Ustupu who let me into their world and shared experiences from the land. vi PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON USE OF THE KUNA LANGUAGE I have chosen to use Kuna terminology where referencing specific locations, institutions and roles, and food names. As a predominantly oral language I want to make clear concepts and ideas which I believe carry added meaning in the local tongue and the Kuna approach. Though I am not a Kuna speaker I have adapted the words and concepts laid out under Appendix C through what was taught to me by participants and individuals I met during my fieldwork. These are also presented in a bilingual Kuna- Spanish dictionary given to me and published by the Saila Dummagan, or the Kuna National Congress (KNC), through collaboration between several Kuna development agencies and the Panamanian Government. vii 1. INTRODUCING THE DEBATE At the time of my fieldwork in early April 2015 the Organisation of American States (OAS) – the 35 independent states of the Americas – convened in Panama City to discuss, among other issues, land appropriation and conflict over natural resources affecting Indigenous Peoples of the Americas (Graef, 2015). While negotiations to endorse the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples remain in limbo, and look set to collapse, the indigenous question has undoubtedly emerged as a pressing theme in politics, not least for development studies. This rise is evident from the 14th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) after it met in New York in April 2015. By reiterating the need for the post-2015 development agenda to be in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), as well as a commitment from states themselves, in its Draft Report from the 14th Session, the UNPFII outlined: We affirm that indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development, based on their security, of their lands, territories and resources (UN, 2015). 1.1 An historical perspective: From ‘natives’ to ‘Peoples’ The political awakening of Indigenous Peoples has manifested through several key milestones, including adoption of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 in 1992 and the UNDRIP in 2007. A number of working groups with a specific focus on legal redress and rights have also been created1, namely the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) and the UNPFII, among others. It is important to mention, however, that as yet no working definition of Indigenous Peoples has been implemented.2 States themselves remain wary of the potential for financial retribution, land claims and threats to their sovereignty (Meyer, 2012, p. 331). Contemporary discussion on Indigenous Peoples can be traced to the rights laid out under the UNDRIP. Of these, there are several pertinent to this study, in particular that stipulated under Article Three, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely 1 ‘Rights’ is a problematic concept in indigenous discourses as it is rooted in a Western focus on the ‘individual’ rather than the collective.