The last decade has seen the African elephant systematically wiped out for its ivory tusks, with the world losing roughly 27,000 savannah elephants a year.

According to the Great Elephant Census report, there are just 352,271 left across 18 African states, with many protected areas suffering heavy losses and the hardest hit areas being Tanzania and Mozambique.

Since the survey covered only 93% of relevant land, a full count would probably put the number at closer to 400,000 – still an appallingly low figure. Meanwhile, forest elephants are at serious risk of being decimated.

The causes of this decline include poaching for the vast global illicit ivory trade; habitat loss; and fragmentation. Put simply, the findings make clear that we cannot afford to wait if we are to protect the elephants for the future. At this rate of loss, we will have to explain to our children why there are none of these magnificent creatures left. We will also have to confess to our complicity unless we act now.

Recent decisions to close consumer ivory markets present the greatest opportunity we have to save the elephant, and also demand a rethinking of the management of these great creatures in an increasingly human-centric world.

Following a number of international conferences and other developments, the world must seize the opportunity to address the underlying causes of poaching – and take action both in terms of demand and supply.

A new reality for elephant conservation!

The Great Elephant Census was released on the eve of the largest gathering yet of the World Wildlife Conference, otherwise known as CITES – the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CoP17). At the conference, 182 member states voted on how best to protect the most endangered species from extinction.

This followed the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last month, at which members voted overwhelmingly (86.11%) in favour of a motion calling for the closure of all domestic ivory markets. CoP17 progressed this with a consensus decision to eliminate “the illegal trade in ivory and domestic ivory markets that contribute to illegal trade”.

There is legitimate concern that the qualifying line may constitute a loophole – some countries have shamefully already tried to duck responsibility by asserting that their ivory market does not contribute to the illegal trade, which is quite blatantly not the case.

But the truth is that all these events, preceded by a joint commitment in September 2015 by the US and Chinese presidents, concurrent with an unconditional commitment by Botswana to uplist its elephant population (the world’s largest) to the highest level of protection (under CITES Appendix 1), signal a new reality in elephant conservation.

In this new reality, the majority of African elephant range states, and the second largest and largest ivory markets, the US and China, have decided that – to secure a future with elephants across Africa – the international ban on ivory trade must continue, and all ivory domestic markets must close.

Already, the US has effectively shut down its domestic trade, and we expect that China will soon follow its statements of an impending ban with effective policy action.

A ban on the ivory trade?

How can we implement this ban, and make it workable, so that we do seize the historic opportunity provided by the recent international consensus?

Recent research suggests that there is a significant degree of ivory stockpiling occurring in China, given the sheer disparity between the volume of ivory apparently entering the country and actually being sold.

Stop Ivory and the Science for Nature and People Partnership recently commissioned a series of research papers into the ivory trade. The first paper concluded that to achieve the best outcome China’s domestic ban should be implemented as soon as possible and for an indefinite time period.

Leaving open the possibility of a future trade would generate strong incentives to hoard ivory now, which could exacerbate rather than contain poaching.

Addressing the ‘supply side’ of the ivory trade

At the same time, if we are to make the most of the current momentum, we cannot ignore the importance of tackling the issues on the supply end of the ivory chain, where elephants live in the wild across the savannahs and forests of Africa. Here, where poaching happens, governments also have to grapple with other problems that threaten elephants.

As highlighted in the second paper, which looked at ‘sustainable use’ policies, there are several options for how elephant conservation can be funded in the absence of the ivory trade.

Supply side interventions include ‘sustainable use’ policies – which incentivise conservation of wildlife and wider ecosystems by providing social and economic benefits to ‘elephant neighbour’ communities. These should be supported by global mechanisms that share among donors the financial costs of paying for the conservation of wilderness landscapes, or community-led natural resource management.

The paper finds, for example, that some kind of cross-border ‘biodiversity tax’ may be needed to limit elephant habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. On the thorny issue of hunting, it takes a pragmatic view that in some contexts, to protect land used for wildlife, this will have to serve as a short term buffer against competing development priorities, as problematic as that might be.

As for the latter suggestion, we know that community members living with or near elephants need to become drivers of conservation. The third paper in the series explored community-led natural resource management, highlighting that for this to succeed, those living near elephant populations need to derive benefits from protecting them and be empowered and engaged in conservation.

Ultimately, if it is to succeed, conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the broader development agenda instead of being treated in isolation.

Nurturing changes in attitudes and values

Getting both demand side and supply side policies right is vital, as we are at a critical moment for the elephants. The crucial link between the two is values – what people believe about elephants and all they stand for, and ivory and what it has come to represent.

As the last paper in the series highlighted, getting supply side policies right will be an uphill struggle. The reality is that global norms often jar with local value sets. In other words, a total ivory trade ban may not produce an immediate reversal of the poaching pandemic.

Illegal bush meat trade, for instance, also spurs poaching (though the scale is incomparable), while communities that resent the imposition of external norms may respond by poaching wildlife – this is dangerous for as long as trade continues. Likewise, demand is driven by several things; a desire for prestige, by those looking for ‘good investments’, and by ignorance of the link between ivory consumption and poaching.

The good news is that well-constructed, locally sensitive campaigns have been shown to effectively shift values away from poaching and consumption and towards conservation. We need global cooperation on this, in order to move towards a world without an ivory trade, and with a flourishing elephant population.

If our children are to see elephants roaming wild across the African continent, we must seize this moment and have the confidence to step out together with open minds and generous hearts.

Ross Harvey is an economist and a senior researcher with the Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Alexander Rhodes is a solicitor at London law firm Mishcon de Reya, and the outgoing CEO of Stop Ivory.

Feeding the Insatiable features thinkers and makers from across the world, with an opening keynote event from Land Art Generator Initiative (Robert Ferry and Elizabeth Monoian) with ecoartist / producer Chris Fremantle from eco/art/scot/land. Other sessions focus on Ecologies, Shaping the World, Artist projects, Communicating, Energy Generation and Poetics.

The Land Art Generator Initiative has become one of the world’s most followed sustainable design events and is inspiring people everywhere about the promise of a net-zero carbon future. LAGI is showing how innovation through interdisciplinary collaboration, culture, and the expanding role of technology in art can help to shape the aesthetic impact of renewable energy on our constructed and natural environments.

The goal of LAGI is to design and construct a series of large-scale site-specific public art installations that uniquely combine art with utility scale clean energy generation.

Composer Lola Perrin will give an opening performance which is in part been devised by and participated in by participants in the summit (more details to follow). Described as ‘hauntingly compelling’ (The Guardian) her music has been heard in concert halls across the world.

Our other keynote speaker is Laura Watts: writer, poet and ethnographer of futures. Laura is Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies (STS) at IT University of Copenhagen. Her interest is in the effect of landscape on how the future is imagined and made in everyday practice. How might the future be made differently in different places? Over the last fifteen years, she has collaborated with industry and organisations in telecoms, public transport, and renewable energy, to re-imagine how the future gets made in high-tech industry, and how it might be made otherwise.

Feeding the Insatiable welcomes scientists, engineers, artists, philosophers, public policy-makers, influencers, and experts in public art from across the world.

Date: November 9-11, 2016
Venue: Schumacher College, Dartington Hall, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6EA, UK
More info on Feeding the Insatiable

Official documents received by Survival International reveal that the Peruvian government’s ‘Master Plan’ for a new national park would pave the way for large-scale oil exploration in one of the Amazon’s most intact areas – also home to several uncontacted tribes.

The area, known in Spanish as the Sierra del Divisor (Watershed Mountains), is part of the Amazon Uncontacted Frontier, the region straddling the Peru-Brazil border that is home to the largest concentration of uncontacted tribal peoples on the planet.

Oil exploration and development in this would pose a serious threat to the lives, lands and culture of the indigenous peoples of this remote and precious area, and could undermine their ability to pursue their traditional way of life.

The Sierra del Divisor National Park was created in 2015 to protect the region, which is currently overrun by illegal logging, drug trafficking and mining. The Master Plan, currently being developed by SERNANP – the Peruvian national parks agency – will determine who can enter and what can take place inside.

However the current draft of the Plan indicates it will not recognize the existence of a number of uncontacted tribes. Only those in the very bottom of the park, who inhabit the Isconahua Reserve, have been given official recognition.

40% of the Park allocated to Canadian oil company

The Master Plan, which will divide the park into different zones, will allow oil exploration to continue in an area inhabited by uncontacted Matsés. Canadian oil company Pacific E&P (formerly Pacific Rubiales) currently has the rights to explore the oil concession. The concession – ‘Lot 135’ – currently superimposes over about 40% of the park.

Contacted Matsés people live nearby. In 2016, Pacific E&P cancelled a contract to explore for oil on on a different oil concession – Lot 137 – in the face of stiff opposition from the tribe and international campaigning. The two concessions where the Matsés live are over 1.5 million hectares in total, where it is estimated that almost a billion barrels of oil lie deep in the ground.

A video taken on a Survival field trip showing a senior Matsés man, Salomon Dunu explaining the dire consequences of oil exploration has been viewed online several million times. A contacted Matsés woman said: “Oil will destroy the place where our rivers are born. What will happen to the fish? What will the animals drink?”

However, the more vulnerable uncontacted members of the tribe are still at risk from Lot 135. In 2012-13 Pacific E&P conducted its first phase of exploration, which Survival International and contacted Matsés campaigned against. The $36 million project saw 700 sq km of forest drilled for oil.

Survival International has looked at the proposed zonification plans in detail and is calling for oil exploration to be excluded from the Master Plan. Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said: “It’s in all our interests to fight for the land rights of uncontacted tribes, because evidence proves that tribal territories are the best barrier to deforestation. Survival is doing everything we can to secure their land for them.”

“Uncontacted people have made the choice to remain isolated. This is their right and it must be respected. They cannot be consulted over projects on their land and therefore, they can never give their consent. As a result, their territories should never be opened up to oil exploration. Contact must be their choice alone. Whenever outsiders force it, it’s always fatal.”

An unfolding disaster – fror tribes, forest and rivers

The oil exploration process uses thousands of underground explosions along hundreds of tracks cut into the forest to determine the location of oil deposits.The explosions scare away animals, leaving little food to hunt. The exploration process also pollutes the three major rivers that Matsés use to hunt and fish.

Oil exploration opens up the land to workers, who set up camps deep in the rainforest, posing a serious risk of contact. This can lead to violence, and also exposure to infectious diseases.

After the ‘exploration’ stage ends, oil extraction enters a whole new level of disaster. Crude oil is forcibly pumped out of the ground and transported through the rainforest in metal pipes. This frequently leads to oil spills – there have been six in the last year alone in Peru – all of which have devastated indigenous lands and Amazonian biodiversity.

The region’s extraordinary biodiversity is proof that tribal peoples are the best guardians of their environment. But these guardians, and their lands, are not receiving the protection that they desperately need. Uncontacted tribes are the most vulnerable peoples on the planet. All uncontacted tribal peoples face catastrophe unless their land is protected.

In 2015, Norway’s Government Pension Fund – the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world – divested from Pacific E&P. This was partly in response to the destruction that the company causes on tribal lands.

With a new Peruvian government in place, Survival and the indigenous organizations AIDESEP, ORPIO and ORAU are urging the government to think again.

The document: ‘Zonificación del Parque Nacional Sierra del Divisor‘ (in Spanish).

Lewis Evans is an author and a campaigner at Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights.

Sarina Kidd is the campaigner for Peru and Paraguay at Survival International.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid yesterday announced the decision on Cuadrilla’s appeal against the negative planning decisions handed down by Lancashire County Council back in June 2015.

The decision is to approve drilling at the Preston New Road site subject to conditions, while a decision on a second site at Roseacre Wood has been delayed.

This decision has taken over two years to reach. Much of the delay was due to Cuadrilla constantly providing additional information to makes its case. The planning appeal that lasted five weeks back in February and March this year had to digest thousands of pages of information.

Mr Javid’s predecessor, Greg Clark, had called in the final decision, reflecting the importance that the current Government in London attaches to this issue. After the hearing, a Planning Inspectorate report was sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government on July 4, with a decision required within three months.

This is the latest episode in Cuadrilla’s troubled history of trying to develop Lancashire’s shale gas potential. Back in April 2011 their drilling activities at its Preece Hall site triggered earth tremors, resulting in a moratorium while the Government devised a ‘traffic light’ system to monitor and manage so called ‘induced seismicity’ that might be associated with shale gas drilling.

A battle is now under way

The current applications at Roseacre Wood and Preston New Road involve drilling and monitoring up to four wells at each site and will involve horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Thus the approval at the Preston New Road site potentially represents a step change for the shale gas industry in England. However, the local communities in the region are vehemently against shale gas development and may seek a judicial review.

These are not the only drilling sites that are currently attracting the attention of anti-shale gas campaigns. Back in May Third Energy was granted planning approval to drill at an already existing well at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire.

This decision is now subject to a potential judicial review brought by the local anti-shale gas organisation Frack Free Ryedale and Friends of the Earth, who maintain that the County Council did not take sufficient account of the impact of the activity on the UK’s climate change policy. The case will be heard in late November.

A third decision is also in limbo as Nottinghamshire County Council suspended discussions of a planning application from IGas to drill at the Mission Training Area in Bassetlaw. The reason being a covenant unearthed by Friends of the Earth that prohibits noisy or disruptive activities that would impact on the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The County Council decided to seek legal advice on the status of the covenant and have adjourned their meeting until 15th November 2016.

All of this activity highlights the battle that is being fought at the local level as local planning officers and county councillors find themselves caught in the crossfire of a national government determined to promote shale gas development and local communities and environmental groups just as determined to stop shale gas exploration.

North-south divides

However the so-called shale gas debate is about a lot more than drilling, it highlights many fault lines in wider society.

It is not without reason that I write about a potential shale industry in England: at present it is not possible to obtain planning permission to drill for shale gas in in either Wales or Northern Ireland as both devolved Governments have announced that they will not support approvals. In Scotland there is a very high profile moratorium in place while additional evidence is gathered.

The arrival last week of the first shipment of ethane for the INEOS-owned refinery at Grangemouth added fuel to the fire as the ship arrived emblazoned with banner along its hull ‘Shale Gas for Manufacturing’. These ethane shipments are compensating for a fall in natural gas liquids production from the North Sea, but INEOS sees the long-term solution as domestic shale gas production and is investing in drilling licenses in England and would like to drill in Scotland.

Within England itself the debate over shale gas development has been couched in terms of the North-South divide; whereby it is not considered appropriate to drill for oil in the South, but it is to drill for shale gas in the North. This perception was reinforced by Lord Howell’s intervention in the House of Lords about drilling in the desolate North.

There is also a growing urban-rural divide in relation to shale gas, but also onshore wind and large-scale solar. These are all things that take place disproportionately in rural areas, who face the brunt of the negative environmental, social and economic impacts. Anti-shale gas organisations in these regions argue that shale gas development is not in keeping with the rural landscape and is tantamount to the industrialisation of the countryside.

It is because of these issues, and many others, that the question of shale gas is not about the local impacts of drilling activity. It’s about climate change, it’s about energy policy and it’s about sustainable development.

But the immediate and obvious reaction of the local communities is to claim that the decision made by a minister in London is anti-democratic. After all, the initial decisions were made by elected councillors and there is proof that the majority in the local community do not support development. Yes, there are organisations and individuals in the community in favour of development, but they seem to be in the minority.

The scale of the local opposition reflects a failure by Cuadrilla to engage effectively with the local community and make their case. It is also a failure by the national Government in London to explain why shale gas development is in the national interest.

Political support – but no social licence

So what happens next? Notwithstanding the possibility of a judicial review, Cuadrilla – subject to conditions – now has the necessary permits and planning approvals to move ahead with its drilling programme at Preston New Road; thus one could say it has a regulatory licence to operate.

The industry more generally has a political license from the National Government in London, but Cuadrilla does not have such support from local government in Lancashire. Equally, what it does not have is a social licence to operate that can be conceived of as ongoing acceptance or approval from the local community and other stakeholders.

That said, the harsh reality is that the social license has no standing in the regulatory regime that governs shale gas development in the UK. As one industry observer noted at a shale gas conference: “A social license may the hardest one to obtain, but it’s the only one that you don’t need.”

We must now wait and see what happens in Lancashire, but it seems unlikely that the local community will simply accept the judgement made in London. In a statement, the Preston New Road Action Group said “This is not the end. We will challenge this.”

And this is just the beginning of the story – not the end. These current licences are all the from 13th Round issued in 2008 – and that has already been enough to trigger the creation of a nationwide network of anti-fracking groups. In December 2015 the Oil and Gas Authority issued a further 93 licences over 159 blocks was in the 14th Round, 73% of the area relating to unconventional oil or gas.

Each block will, if it goes to commercial development, require numerous wells to exploit. As a result hundreds of rural communities will find themselves caught up in the shale gas controversy. If they perceive their quality of life as being under threat, many more of them are certain to resist by whatever avenues are available to them.

The shale gas industry may just find it does need that elusive social licence, after all.

Michael Bradshaw is Professor of Global Energy at Warwick Business School.

It can sometimes be a nice surprise to discover who hides a ‘Green Voice’. Artist and illustrator Ralph Steadman is best known for his anarchic humour but a recent commission to paint an extinct bird awakened an interest for him.

Once he had completed it, he found he couldn’t stop. One hundred paintings later his book, Extinct Boids was born. The collection is a riot of classic Steadman colour and humour, focussing on species that no longer inhabit our skies and others that only ever took flight in Steadman’s imagination. Birds such as the Needless Smut or Gob Swallow flap through the pages – as well as the famous (and real) Dodos and Great Auks.

A follow-up book ‘Nextinction’ concentrated on avians that there is still time to save: the 192 Critically Endangered ones on the IUCN Red List, including the Giant Ibis or Sumatran Ground-cuckoo. But, of course, Steadman couldn’t resist sprinkling the pages with a few extras from his rich fantasy world.

The British artist is probably best-known for his collaboration with journalist Hunter S Thompson whose drink-and drug-addled view of society challenged America’s literary circles in the Seventies. Generally, Thompson has been seen as the hard-core manic but Jann Warner, proprietor of Rolling Stone which published the duo’s work, always believed Steadman to be the crazier of the two.

That might go some way to explain how the Brit can conjure up his parallel universe of subversive, spattered creations. His left-field perspective has also provided the ammunition for his main target: politics. Members of parliament must wince at how Steadman’s visceral, distorted creatures mock the Establishment.

Steadman says that while he’s has ‘a contempt for politicians generally’, he has no strong political affiliations. At his core, the artist has always been a humanitarian and unable to understand how we can inflict such terrible acts on each other. He employs his spiky wit to demonstrate how our treatment of our fellow humans can make a difference. He says: “My continual inspiration has always been the desire to change the world, my continual disappointment is that I have not changed it enough.”

Given his humanitarian and wildlife work, it is perfectly logical that he should be among 50 artists contributing to the Green Party’s ‘Green Creates’ exhibition, which runs from 19 to 24 October at Hoxton Arches, London. Other internationally renowned creatives taking part include Grayson Perry, Gavin Turk, Andy Goldsworthy, Lesley Hilling and Craig Jones. Their donated pieces on the theme of ‘Green Voices’ will be auctioned to raise funds for the party.

Lesley Hilling’s fascinating salvaged wood sculptures are grid-like yet organic constructions that draw the viewer into what seems like a scaled-down world. She says: “I usually start with a selection of wood. I like to use the hues of the wood as if I’m a painter. Often the piece will have a gradient from dark to light.”

She will be exhibiting Sphere 11, the eleventh is a series of balls of various dimensions, made from items that people have discarded. Hilling adds: “I hope that people will see that art can be made from anything, that lots of things thrown away can be put to a good use. Often things made from recycled materials are more interesting and beautiful and can trigger ideas.”

Another Green Voice contributor, wildlife photographer Craig Jones captures the beauty of the natural world through his intense emotional attachment to his subject. “My love of wildlife started from a young age, learning to respect and care for wildlife was instilled in me by my late mother.” He adds: “I learnt very early on that once I came across a wild animal it was down to me how long that encounter would last.’

Jones will be talking about his work in Sumatra, which highlights the impact the palm oil industry on the island’s fauna, during the show. A captivating signed, limited edition photo of an Orangutan called Eye Contact will form part of the exhibition.

The cross section of artists donating to the exhibition should ensure ‘Green Voices’ shout loud and clear about the direction the world needs to take.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1679491772378791/?active_tab=highlights

http://www.hoxtonarches.com/

This Author

Gary Cook is a Conservation Artist and the Ecologist Arts Editor.

He has also been invited to show his work as part of the Green Party’s ‘Green Creates’ exhibition this month

cookthepainter.com

Twitter: twitter.com/cookthepainter

Pillaging of Nicaragua’s Bosawás Biosphere Reserve – the largest tropical rainforest in the western hemisphere after the Amazon – persists at rates around 200-280 acres per day, according to an estimate published in Time Magazine. With encroaching destruction driven by a sinister triad of corporate, colonial, and government interests, most progress that has been made – largely through indigenous stewardship of community forests – has been the result of indigenous resistance.

Under reestablished Sandinista rule, which has brought only small-scale efforts at reforestation, Nicaragua’s biodiverse forest cover continues to disappear at a quickening pace, further threatening species such as rare jaguars, spider monkeys and the few remaining Baird’s tapirs. Miskitu and Mayanga Indigenous Peoples in the region called on President Barack Obama in 2013 to support their fight for preservation.

Indigenous Miskitu and Mayangna have been battling the nationalization of their traditional territories against the Sandinistas in one form or another since at least the 1970s. While attempts at compromises and concessions were made by both sides along the way, the human rights and environmental crises central to this struggle have once again come to a head. Recent escalations have generated unthinkable violence and humanitarian disasters as illegal armed settlers known as ‘Colonos’ progressively encroach upon indigenous territories, terrorizing the legal inhabitants under a violent siege.

The Miskitu Council of Elders – via a statement submitted by Ottis Lam Hoppington, Chief of the Elders, and Carlos Rivas Thomas, who represented the Elders at the UN – explained that the territory under grave threat by Colonos consists of sacred sites; they described how the real material value the land holds for its Indigenous Peoples is in maintaining a link between the physical and the spiritual, “and life itself.”

In this official statement issued on August 22, 2016 the Elders proclaimed:

           “Since ancient times we’ve [cared for] our forests, because apart from being our only means of sustenance, we understand that any alteration to [them] attracts risks; alters our form of life; puts existence itself at risk; causes drastic changes [to] the climate; alters the ecosystem; and breaks our link with our ancestors.

            [For] little more than five years, [we] have experienced the largest internal colonization [of] our history. The presence of ‘Colonos’ has drastically altered our form of life. In such a short time [the invasion] has destroyed tens of thousands of hectares of our forests, which has led to [the drying of] our rivers, [causing] the animals [to] migrate and the climate to alter, and us to emigrate. Our large forests are now deserts, occupied for the livestock, and [we] can do nothing to curb the advance of the settlers as they have the support of the Government of Nicaragua and [we] are alone.

             Since June of 2015, our communities have [been] experiencing [increased] violence, persecution and [other crime] from [the settlers] and part of the Government. With the support of no one, we have survived on our own.”

Former Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Dr Jaime Incer Barquero, told the IPS news agency that by March 2016 the country had lost 60% of its surface water sources, and almost half of its underground sources, due to climate change-driven drought and industrial pollution. To date, at least 100 rivers and their tributaries have dried up.

Local scientist, Jadder Lewis noted area lobster populations – a crucial subsistence food and chief export – presenting at unprecedentedly low volumes; he also cited increasing endangerment of area coral reefs rooted in regional deforestation and other unsustainable resource exploitation. Lewis projects the current deforestation rate to actually be as high as 40,000 hectares per year.

If the notoriously controversial Chinese-backed Nicaragua Trans-Oceanic Canal indeed comes to fruition, related infrastructure and construction will destroy another 1 million acres of Nicaragua’s climate change mitigating rainforests and wetlands. According to the Environmental Resources Management consultancy, the Indio Maiz Biological Reserve, as well as the Cerro Silva and Punta Gorda reserves, experienced a higher rate of environmental deterioration between 2009 and 2011 – under Sandinista rule – than in the previous 26 years.

Academics, nonprofits, and activists expressing moral and scientific objections to canal plans have found their rights systematically violated as Ortega, who is set to run virtually unopposed in the upcoming November election (with his wife as vice-president) has become increasingly reactive to the slightest of criticisms. On September 13^th, addressing an audience at The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, Jimmy Carter expressed, “The Sandinistas have established…not a democracy…but a way to maintain power.” On September 21^st, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill known as the ‘Nica Act’ which mandates U.S. opposition on any loans to Nicaragua from allied organizations.

One Costa Rican analyst posited Nicaragua’s recent acquisition of 80 million dollars’ worth of Russian war tanks as defensive posturing in anticipation of widespread civil unrest from canal protest movements and resistance to colonial occupation in the north.

Interestingly, Sandinista activity concerning the autonomous nation of Muskitia increasingly mirrors Chinese policy on Tibet – evident in the way the FSLN attacks and discredits Miskitu leadership; their refusal to respect Muskitia sovereignty; and the covert yet violent invasion of their territory as colonizers aligned with the FSLN and its populist base invade Miskitu lands while Sandinista soldiers intimidate and threaten anyone who gets in their way. Indigenous leadership or outside observers who dare criticize the FSLN in this regard are branded puppets of ‘U.S. imperialism’.

It’s a set of moves straight out of the China vs. Tibetan independence movement playbook. Yet Ortega’s new brand of ‘Christian Socialist Solidarity’ also suggests a concurrent shift towards a more theocratic model of governance, in some ways analogous to the government of Iran – another country who, along with Russia and China, is hoping to get a stake in the proposed canal.

Propaganda rolled out by state-sponsored and crony media outlets of the Bolivarian left portray Nicaragua as a leader in ‘consensus-based’ decision-making with respect to indigenous rights. This would likely come as news to Nicaragua’s indigenous communities, such as the Miskitu, who feel increasingly alienated from the centralized government as health and education services on the frontier collapse amid escalating violence. Surrounding cities forced to absorb the internally displaced receive no government subsidies; and, newly displaced Indigenous Miskitu are often forced to live as virtual beggars among their own, more urban, extended communities.

Statements collected from indigenous leader, Brooklyn Rivera, contextualize recent escalations in violence and the role of the Sandinista regime.

              "The Sandinistas are the mestizos on the Pacific side, they had 
[no rights to] Muskitia land; they encroached on the territory until the war 
occurred in 1979 and tried to control everything, but they did not understand 
or respect the customs of the Indigenous Peoples. They felt they were gods
 and wanted to fulfill all their desires. Then, the people rebelled because 
[we] had a different way of living - from the ancient times - with very 
different customs than the mestizos. So, the conflict started, the war started, 
the Sandinistas led us to the war that lasted 10 years. [We fought] for our 
lives, to protect our land, to protect our communities; we had many 
difficulties but we managed to overcome that.

                After the Sandinistas lost the elections and were out of power for fifteen years, they came and talked to the people and asked to be forgiven for their faults of the past, because they caused a lot of damage to people – murdered, burned them – they then made many promises to the people to rebuild the communities again, especially in the Coco River, and also, to respect the rights of the communities. That is why we signed an agreement that lasted 11 years where it is said that we would support the opportunity for them to return to power, and that was the agreement that was signed. We supported the Sandinistas twice, led by Daniel Ortega, for the elections of 2006 and 2011 by giving them our votes. But we are now in a different situation, because now Daniel and the Sandinistas feel that [the] indigenous are like a stone in their shoe, so they are looking to eradicate the Indigenous Peoples and introduce mestizos settlers in the Rio Coco and also in coastal areas, eradicating the indigenous Miskitos and Mayangnas, to no longer have more conflicts with us.

               The Sandinistas are advised by the people of Cuba to not give any opportunity for minority populations, because they think that Indigenous Peoples are their enemies and we, along with the (Gringos) American people, will rebel against them. That’s why it is better for them to destroy the Miskitus, so that in Nicaragua there will not be any minority populations and everyone will be equal and there will only be mestizos. So they want to impose the Colonos; and not only that, but they are also imposing leaders in the communities from their political party.

               The inhabitants of the communities have the right to choose their sindicos, their judges, but [the Sandinistas] do not respect that and only choose people from their own political party – people who will obey them, people who follow them. And these leaders are against the population, so they will continue destroying the communities and in that way eradicate them; and, that is one method of how they try to do it. The other method is the destruction of our natural resources, our forests and our marine resources. It is a great pressure on the resources, [and as they] become extinct, they are destroying our way of life. So we try to go against that, we are fighting so our lifestyles do not disappear, so that everything remains the same as our ancestors left us. So, that is the current struggle we have.

               Behind the settlers, there are companies with millions of dollars, and the government. The Sandinista government supports the Colonos who come to take our natural resources, our forests, our lands, introduce livestock, and destroy our resources. These people invade our coastal areas to the Coco River. That’s why the population is getting organized. Indigenous Peoples are organizing together to defend their rights, to defend their territory, to prevent the Colonos from continuing to invade our lands.

               Now, they are also attacking the leaders of the [YATAMA] organization; that is another strategy that helps them to eradicate us: killing the leaders; creating persecution of leaders so the population does not have their support; because if the population needs to rise up and their leaders are not leading them, that’s impossible. So they are attacking the leaders, that’s how they are trying to break us: destroy the leaders, destroy the organization, and destroy YATAMA. Those are their methods: destroying our land; destroying our natural resources; destroying the people in the organization, killing them, [terrorizing] them. These methods are what they call ‘strategy’ to eradicate Miskitus and the [YATAMA] organization.”

Nicaragua is a country full of paradoxes. Prostitution is legal, yet abortion is completely banned. The ruling party takes political cues from communist Cuba, yet Ortega embraces neoliberal economics and development models with unabashed enthusiasm. Sandinista government enthusiasts wax about indigenous rights and environmental responsibility…all the while, fleeing Indigenous refugees, and their ancestral land considered the ‘lungs of Mesoamerica’, struggle to catch their breath.

(Special thanks to Dr. Laura Hobson Herlihy for administrating the interview with Brooklyn Rivera, and Mark Rivas for coordinating the statement from the Elders.)

 This Author

Courtney Parker, MNPO is a freelance journalist and PhD candidate at the University of Georgia College of Public Health