Changing notions of territory in the Peruvian Amazon: A ...political efforts have eclipsed the need for further work. The article "Transboundary political ecology in Amazonia: history,

CHANGING NOTIONS OF TERRITORY IN THE PERUVIAN AMAZON

1

Changing notions of territory in the Peruvian Amazon: A case study of Ucayali

Diego Leal

University of Richmond


2

Abstract

Land titling in Peru gained recognition as the indigenous political movement’s pillar after the 1974 enactment of the Native Communities and Agricultural Promotion in Jungle Regions Law. Since then, millions of hectares of land have been titled in favor of the Amazonian indigenous communities. While nearly fifty communities remain without legal titles to their land in the Peruvian region of Ucayali, the regional political movement has gradually shifted its attention towards regaining administrative and autonomous control over titled territories. Based on a participatory research methodology, this paper explores the evolution of the indigenous rights discourse in recent times. More specifically, it analyzes the growing disconnect regarding indigenous territoriality between the Ucayali indigenous political organizations and the communities they intend to represent. The experience of a land titling project focused on the Ashéninka community of Saweto shows the need of a new replicable and sustainable titling process in order to tackle modern obstacles towards further titling in Ucayali. A brief gender analysis based on interviews and participatory observations in community and federation assemblies suggests that women have the potential to become a new ally in the effort to preserve the territorial integrity of the Amazonian indigenous peoples.


3

Changing notions of territory in the Peruvian Amazon: A case study of Ucayali

Conflicts related to the territoriality of indigenous communities in the Ucayali region of

the Peruvian Amazon have gradually evolved over the past decades. Historically threatened by

colonialist policies embodied mostly by the Peruvian State (Chirif & Garcia, 2007), the

indigenous peoples of this region and their local, regional and national organizations now face

the challenge to organize effectively to maintain control over their communal lands. Global

demand for high grade timber, minerals and oil, has resulted in the creation of extractive

concessions and various investment opportunities that directly or indirectly affect the indigenous

population of the area. Once the symbolic center of the Amazonian indigenous movement

(Hvalkof, 1998), land titling has ceased to be a key aspect in most communities’ discourse

related to indigenous rights. Instead, territorial administration, and thus the control of local

economies through the autonomous management of natural resources, has taken a leading role in

the mind of the Amazonian peoples.

Land titling has recently lost relevance within the indigenous political movement in

Ucayali. The successful land titling experiences of the native communities that lead the regional

political efforts have eclipsed the need for further work. The article "Transboundary political

ecology in Amazonia: history, culture and conflicts of the borderland Asháninka" (Salisbury,

Borgo & Vela, 2011) is one of the few recent scholarly publications that argues for new titling

efforts. Today, nearly fifty indigenous communities in Ucayali continue the struggle to obtain a

legal title to their land (DRSAU, 2012). Scholars have conceptualized land titling as a form of

community empowerment and protection for indigenous peoples who have historically been

threatened by colonialists and nationalistic policies (Halkof, 2006). The potential for a new


4

sustainable titling process to prepare untitled communities for a post-titling existence has driven

recent efforts by new actors in the field.

New titling initiatives

A combined project between the Upper Amazon Conservancy (UAC), the Peruvian non-

governmental organization ProPurús, the Amazon Borderlands Research Center (CIFA) of the

Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, the Regional Agrarian Office of Ucayali’s (DRSAU) new

Office of Legal and Physical Formalization of Rural Property (OLPFRP), and the Ashéninka

community of Saweto is the most recent land titling initiative in Ucayali (Image 1). With UAC

providing all the necessary funding, the project’s main goal is to title Saweto’s homeland near

the Brazilian border. Without the participation of the AIDESEP Regional Organization of

Ucayali (ORAU), which represents the indigenous political movement in the region, the three

organizations participating in this initiative are relatively new in land titling efforts.

1) The Upper Amazon Conservancy is an NGO dedicated to protecting the biological and

cultural diversity of the Amazon headwaters in southeastern Peru. Titling the homeland

of Saweto is relevant to the organization because of its location in a borderland area with

considerable potential for conservation initiatives.

2) CIFA began operating in 2004 as an interdisciplinary research center with the primary

objective of improving living standards and conservation efforts of biological and

cultural diversity in the borderlands (Salisbury, n.d.) Within the titling project, CIFA’s

responsibilities include conducting research to update information regarding Saweto’s

territory, and constructing a Land Titling Manual to inform new tiling processes.

3) DRSAU´s Office of Legal and Physical Formalization of Rural Property (OLPFRP)

began operating in early 2012 as the Governmental body responsible of titling indigenous

territories. Saweto’s titling process represents a crucial opportunity to systematize and


5

institutionalize technical and legal procedures that will form the new land titling system

in Ucayali.

Image 1. Saweto’s leader and ProPurús Executive Director sign a cooperation agreement.

Photo by Diego Leal

As part of the David D. Burhans Fellowship program, I worked side-by-side between

June and August 2012 with the organizations involved in the titling project. I worked primarily

as an intern for CIFA, specifically contributing to the creation of a sustainable and equitable

titling process for indigenous communities in the Ucayali region. In order to comprehend the

dynamics, importance and history of land titling, I firstly interviewed several members of NGOs


6

(such as the Instituto del Bien Común and the Asociación para la Investigación y Desarrollo

Integral), governmental institutions related to indigenous territories, and members of titled and

untitled indigenous communities. A review of important literature on land titling and the history

of territorial conflicts in Ucayali also directly informed the research process.

Constant communication with ProPurús led me to expand my internship responsibilities

and allowed me to participate in several meetings among the four parties involved in this

initiative. After spending several days with two of Saweto’s leaders in the city of Pucallpa, I

became an additional line of communication between the community, CIFA, ProPurús, and

DRSAU. This highly flexible and independent position allowed me to observe and register the

different perspectives on land titling and indigenous communities´ territories that each party had.

It also became an opportunity to contribute with the planning of DRSAU´s field work in Saweto,

in coordination with ProPurús. Additionally, I participated in meetings with the Peruvian

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Brazilian state of Acre Secretary of the Environment

concerning Saweto’s titling. I also developed a relationship with the Director of the Forestry and

Wildlife Executive Agency’s (DEFFS) Area of Forestry Concessions, which is a crucial stepping

stone in Saweto’s struggle to overcome a major obstacle for titling: superimposed forestry

concessions (Map 1).


7

Map 1. Extractive concessions in Ucayali: untitled communities are ‘hidden’ under investment

opportunities.

As the last part of this participatory process, I contributed with organizing a workshop

that brought together Saweto’s leadership, the Brazilian Ashéninka community of Apiwtxa’s

leadership, ProPurús, CIFA, UAC, the Peruvian Army and Navy, members of the Ucayali’s

Regional Government, and other important actors in the field of land titling (Image 2).

During the research process, the Instituto del Bien Común (IBC) became an important liaison

between my work and members from indigenous communities. IBC is a non-profit NGO that

focuses on improving the management and conservation of common resources in Peru, including


8

water, forests and culture. Participating in IBC´s workshops and events allowed me to interact

directly with and interview several community leaders that travelled to Pucallpa. After

developing a close relationship with some of these leaders, I was able to establish contact with

the leadership of ORAU, the regional indigenous political organization. Personal communication

with community members strongly informed the process of understanding how land titling and

new territorial threats relate to the current socio-economic and cultural situation of several

communities.

Image 2. Ashéninka community leaders meet with ProPurús and other experts in titling and

conservation.

As a result of this research initiative, I will now be a Culture and Language across the

Curriculum Teaching Assistant for Dr. Salisbury´s Society, Economy and Nature course at the

University of Richmond. Important findings also led me and Dr. Salisbury to agree on


9

conducting further independent research on a new sustainable land titling process and threats to

communities’ territories in the coming months. Dr. Salisbury and I expect to publish the results

of this research and we will submit them to two academic conferences: the Latin American

Studies Association 2013 Congress, and the Association of American Geographers 2013

Conference.

Indigenous land titling in Ucayali

Ucayali groups 16% of all Amazonian communities in Peru (COFOPRI 2008) with 275

registered communities in the Peruvian Public Registries (DRSAU, 2012). Thorough studies

(Garcia, Hvalkof & Gray, 1998; Chirif and Garcia, 2007; Hvalkof, 2006) have documented the

history of land titling in Ucayali and its importance as a defense mechanism against colonialist

and neoliberal policies embodied by the Peruvian State. Hvalkof´s studies (1998, 2002, 2006)

have been particularly important to historically contextualize the process and to show indigenous

peoples´ agency to defend their land rights. Research by Kerekes and Williamson (2008) has also

investigated the ability and process of government land titling to achieve secure property rights

institutions. The enactment of the first land titling-related law in 1974 marked the beginning of a

series of legal instruments that have allowed communal homelands titling (Baldovino, 2009).

The law acknowledged the need to recognize and respect the rights of ownership and use of land

to promote local development. It also defined the State responsibility of ensuring the integrity of

indigenous communities’ territories and leading the land titling process of all communities in the

rainforest. Most importantly, it declared the inalienable, imprescriptible, and irreversible nature

of communal lands.


10

Although the enactment of this law was a victory for the indigenous land rights struggle,

it also established a system of communal land management that did not necessarily respond to

the socio-cultural and economic organization of indigenous peoples. The law’s concept of

community forced the indigenous peoples, who had mainly nomadic lifestyles, to reinvent

politically and economically (Chirif and Garcia, 2007). One of the strongest setbacks for

indigenous territoriality came in 1993, when President Alberto Fujimori signed a new

Constitution that eliminated the inalienable nature of communal territories. Chirif and Garcia

(2007) indicate that "the pursuit of fragmentation, which results from the perception of civil

property, severely impacted circular forms of land-use" (p.38). Motivated by the need to seek for

legal security, the Ucayali indigenous peoples were forced to create artificial borders within

territories that they had traditionally occupied. In order to better comprehend the effects that

these processes had on indigenous communities, fieldwork was conducted in Pucallpa, the

largest city in Ucayali, during a period of 10 weeks.

Methods

Fieldwork conducted in the city of Pucallpa and the indigenous communities of Puerto

Bethel, San Francisco and Yamino, consisted mainly on semi-structured interviews with 57

individuals from 37 different indigenous communities in Ucayali. Additionally, 24 testimonies

given by community members in local and regional events relevant to indigenous territoriality

were recorded (Image 2). Lastly, 19 interviews were conducted with members of the Instituto del

Bien Común (IBC), AIDESEP Regional Organization of Ucayali (ORAU), the Forestry and

Wildlife Executive Agency (DEFFS), USAID-Perú, the Forestry and Wildlife Supervision

Agency (OSINFOR), the Research and Integral Development Research Association (AIDER),

the Regional Agrarian Office of Ucayali (DRSAU), the Office of Indigenous Affairs of the


11

Municipalities of Masisea and Coronel Portillo, the regional government of Ucayali , among

others.

Image 2. Shipibo community members meet with their federation’s leaders and the leadership of ORAU.

Photo by Diego Leal

The interviews sought to understand the reality of indigenous territoriality through the

subjective experience of each interviewee. These oral narratives and manifestations formed the

core methodology of the research process because they illustrated the perception that each

subject had about territoriality. This research method allowed me to directly observe the contrast

between interviewees’ discourses related to land rights and their experiences within the

indigenous movement and its communities. An analysis of the interviews results showed how

indigenous peoples interpret and conceptualize the laws related to their territories, specifically

appropriating concepts of international legal instruments such as the International Labor

Organization Convention 169.


12

Results

Out of the subjects interviewed, 76.54% were male and 23.46% female (Table 1). It was

particularly difficult to find women among community members who came to Pucallpa to

conduct legal and administrative matters, or to participate in the events organized by ORAU. Out

of the 19 community leaders interviewed, only two were women. There was also a profound

difference between the number of men and women who attended the various events held in

Pucallpa related to indigenous territoriality.

The age of the interviewees was taken into account for the purpose of tracking

generational changes regarding the perception of territory. Most of the interviewees were

between 21 and 30 years, indicating that the indigenous generation that has constant contact with

the Peruvian society and indigenous political organizations had not even been born when the first

law establishing communal homelands titling was enacted in 1974.

Table 1. Total interviewees and division by gender and age.

Description Total Percentage Personal Interviews 57 70.37% Registered Testimonies 24 29.63% Total 81

Gender Total Percentage Women 19 23.46% Men 62 76.54%

Age Age range 19-62 Average age 35.4


13

Regarding the geographical origin of the subjects (Table 2), members from 37

communities were interviewed. Of the 81 subjects, 50 are from the Province of Coronel Portillo,

17 of Padre Abad Province, 9 of Atalaya Province, and 5 of the Province of Purus. While most

native communities in Coronel Portillo and Padre Abad have direct access to Pucallpa by river or

land routes, the interviewees from Purus reached Pucallpa by air. Taking into account the access

difficulties and economic obstacles to reach the city of Pucallpa, it is worth noting that the

federations that bring together communities near Pucallpa have developed a stronger relationship

with the leadership of ORAU. In a bidirectional relationship, both the federations, particularly

those near Pucallpa, and ORAU benefit from the political and logistical support they mutually

provide each other.

Table 2. Origin of the interviewees.

Origin Total Percentage Communities of origin 37

Subjects per Province Total Percentage Coronel Portillo 50 61.73% Padre Abad 17 20.99% Atalaya 9 11.11% Purús 5 6.17%

The positions that the interviewees occupy in their respective communities and

federations was an important factor in determining how the reality of indigenous territoriality is

perceived in various ways within the indigenous movement (Table 3). The interviews results

showed a considerable lack of representation between ORAU and the communities it supposedly

represents. The current political discourse on independent forest management has increasingly

gained relevance in recent years, even encouraging the creation of a specialized Communal


14

Forestry Management Office within ORAU. While the leadership discourse of ORAU takes for

granted the need to log entrepreneurially in communal territories, a large number of other

interviewees mentioned the subject of logging as a necessary but reversible process.

Table 3. Positions and titles of the interviewees.

Positions Total Percentage Interviewees without a title or position 28 34.57% Indigenous University Students 6 7.41%

Communities’ leadership committee Total Percentage Chief 16 19.75% Sub Chief 3 3.70% Municipal Agent 3 3.70% Governor 2 2.47% Mothers’ Club President 3 3.70%

Local Federations Total Percentage Federations showed in general sample 9

Positions and Titles per Federation Total Percentage President 9 11.11% Vice-President 4 4.94% Territory Secretary 1 1.23%

Other Organizations Total Percentage Regional Institute for Indigenous Communities Development (IRDECON) 2 2.47%

ORAU 4 4.94%

According to the National Statistics Institute (INEI), the indigenous population of

Ucayali represents 14 ethnic families. Responding to the geographical origin of respondents,

55.56% of the subjects are ethnic Shipibo-Conibo, which is the largest ethnic in Ucayali (INEI,

2007) (Table 4). 75% of interviewees who belong to ORAU are from a Shipibo-Conibo

community. The fact that most untitled communities do not belong to this ethnic group (for


15

example, five Ashéninka communities remain without tile in the Tamaya basin), could partially

explain the importance that territorial administration has won over land titling in ORAU’s

political discourse.

Table 4. Interviewees by ethnic family.

Ethnic Family Total Percentage Shipibo-Conibo 45 55.56% Cashibo-Cacataibo 17 20.99% Asháninka 6 7.41% Ashéninka 4 4.94% Culina 2 2.47% Yaminahua 2 2.47% Sin Registro 2 2.47% Amahuaca 1 1.23% Cocama 1 1.23% Cashinahua 1 1.23%

Being indigenous territoriality the central theme of this research, the interviews began

with questions related to land titling and threats to territories. Of the subjects interviewed,

92.59% belonged to a community with title to their land (Table 5). The remaining 7.41% belong

to the untitled communities of Saweto. Tomajao, Saasa, and Santa Clara. It is worth mentioning

that only 16.67% of the untitled community members were conducted in events organized by

ORAU. The absence of untitled communities in these events and the general dynamics between

ORAU and its communities suggests that title is not only a defense mechanism against invasions

and state policies, but it is also a necessary piece to be included in the initiatives of the

indigenous movement in the region.


16

A progressive contextualization after observing the results of the initial interviews led me

to focus on current threats to communal territories. 100% of the interviewees replied that their

communal territory was threatened by various factors. In response to the question “How is your

territory threatened?” 87.65% indicated that invasions by settlers were one of the most worrying

threats. 61.73% referred to invasions by illegal loggers as another relevant threat. The

exploitation of forests by legal and illegal loggers, invasions by forest concessionaires, mining

problems, conflicts with other indigenous communities, and invasions by settlers engaged in

agriculture were some other threats mentioned by the interviewees.

Table 5. Land titling and threats to communities’ territories

Land titling Total Percentage Subjects with land title 75 92.59% Subjects without land title 6 7.41%

Threats and land conflicts Total Percentage Invasions by Settles 71 87.65% Invasions by Illegal loggers 50 61.73% Forest Exploitation by Legal and Illegal Loggers 43 53.09% Invasions by Forestry Concessionaries 18 22.22% Conflicts with other Communities 6 7.41% Papaya Growers 3 3.70% Invasions by Fishermen 2 2.47%

In relation to the threat "exploitation of forests by legal and illegal loggers," interviewees

indicated that the main cause was contract violations by timber companies. 46 subjects (56.79%)

of 16 different communities indicated that their community currently extracted timber for

commercial purposes (Table 6). Within this group, 63.58% (29 subjects, 35.80% of the total

sample) reported having a contract with one or more companies to extract timber from their


17

community forests. The rest of the group (17 subjects, 20.99% of the total sample) does so

independently. Additionally, 14 subjects (17.28%) expressed their desire to extract timber from

their territories for commercial purposes. In total, 74.07% of the sample currently extracts or

wishes to extract timber from its territory for commercial purposes.

Table 6. Timber extraction from community forests for commercial purposes.

Timber extraction Total Percentage

Timber extraction for commercial purposes 46 56.79%

Intention to extract timber for commercial purposes 14 17.28%

Forms of extraction Total Percentage

Contract with logging company 29 35.80%

Independent work as a community 17 20.99%

When asked why they extracted or wished to extract timber for commercial purposes, 46

interviewees (56.79% of the total sample) said they were looking to have more individual and/or

economic independence (Table 7). Taking into account the interviewees who do handcrafts, and

work with agricultural crops or small poultry, among other commercial projects, the interviews

revealed that the search for capital is strongly motivating production processes in indigenous

communities. Regarding this movement towards a mixed economy (including a self-sufficient

economy and a market economy,) a leader of ORAU said:

"The Western culture is in us; my Shipibo brothers do not want to speak their language because they are embarrassed. Communities always criticize us, they tell us: you always talk about protecting the forest and our culture, but if you do not bring productive projects, there is no money to live. The market economy is already within the indigenous economy, we must accept that the market is already in the minds of the indigenous peoples."


18

Table 7. Motives to search for capital.

Search for Capital Total Percentage Individual and/or Family Economic Independence 46 56.79% Secondary and College Education 37 45.68% Better Schools 32 39.51% Better Health Services 30 37.04% Better Housing 29 35.8% Better Basic Services 29 35.8% More and/or Better Food 18 22.22%

None 9 11.11%

As for the legality of logging, DEFFS forestry permits records indicate that only 6 of the

16 communities extracting timber for commercial purposes are authorized to do so. In the

Ucayali region, ORAU’s Community Forestry Oversight Program reports that 87% of the native

communities perform illegal forest activities (VFC 2009). Among the interviewees who

expressed their intention to extract timber commercially, 100% indicated that obtaining a

forestry permit is virtually impossible due to the excessively high costs and the number of

administrative procedures required.

Among other relevant data regarding logging, 55.56% (45 interviewees) expressed

dissatisfaction with the contracts signed by indigenous communities with loggers. The interviews

revealed that most community members are familiar with the "80-20" contracts, in which the

company gains rights to 80% of the timber in a given territory, and then buys from the

community the remaining 20% at prices well below the market price. Logging companies

typically pay for the administrative fees when obtaining a permit. Loggers then deduct these fees


19

from the 20% of timber owned by the community. Additionally, loggers charge the community

for any expenses made to take the community leaders to Pucallpa to sign any necessary

documents, plus all food, clothing, and alcohol given to the community. According to interview

results, several communities are now in debt with the logging companies that obtained their

forestry permit. In a similar system as the debt-bondage work-relationships used during the

rubber-extraction era, the logger is now able to virtually force the community to provide free

access to its resources for a longer period than the one originally established in the contract.

When asked if the community had authorized working with logging companies through a

General Assembly, 66.67% of the interviewees said that community chiefs acted without full

consent from the community (Image 4). According to a member of a Cacataibo community,

"many leaders make mistakes; they accept gifts and give all the timber, land, lakes, and other

resources we have to loggers. We are tired that they always ignore what the community thinks,

we must hold them accountable." Similarly, the president of a federation said: “Community

leaders get the benefits of the contracts, but if there is no pressure then they do not distribute

them in the community. If we continue to sell timber, there will come a time when all the leaders

will have money, but what will the others eat?"


20

Image 4. Members of a Cacataibo community show their community land title and map, while they explain how previous leaders have jeopardized the community’s territory.

Photo by Diego Leal

Forestry Control

As the interviews showed, forest management shapes, in one way or another, the

discourse of native communities, federations, and the political movement led by ORAU. The

recent creation of the Community Forestry Oversight of ORAU is just one example of the

growing concern about the loss of administrative territorial control experienced by communities.

The enactment of the new Forestry and Wildlife Law in 2010 could partially ameliorate

communities’ position in relation to logging companies and extractive policies dictated by

Regional governments. The law establishes new communal procedures for monitoring, control


21

and surveillance. It authorizes the creation of a community committee of forestry monitoring and

control, which will be registered with the Forestry and Wildlife Regional Authority.

Within a national process to ask communities for their opinions regarding the new

Forestry Law, the Office of Community Forest Management of DEFFS organized the

"Decentralized workshop for socializing the scope of the Forestry and Wildlife Law” in the

Shipibo community of Puerto Bethel (Image 5). The workshop main objective was to promote a

participatory process of intercultural dialogue. Through various working groups, the workshop

also aimed to collect contributions on relevant articles for native communities related to forest

management and superimposed land rights.

Image 5. 112 participants from 38 Shipibo communities meet to discuss the most recent Forestry Law. Photo by Diego Leal.


22

Several of the 37 female participants took leading roles in the working groups. On

various occasions there was a strong number of women criticizing the excessive attention given

to logging. The President of New Ahaypa’s Mothers Club stated: "... we’re over logging. The

leaders are going to continue doing business with abusive companies and we no longer have

animals or fish. If we are going to speak about the forest, we have to accept that the forest has

many more things than just timber. It seems that the law does not say that."

Women and territory

One of the strongest patterns observed during field work was the striking difference

between male and female interviewees’ territorial management perceptions. As mentioned

above, only two of the 19 heads and sub-heads interviewed were women. This separation

between authorities and women is not only evidenced in the participation in community

leadership.89.47% of the women interviewed identified the leaders of their community as

responsible of territorial conflicts (Table 8). In comparison, only 61.29% of the men interviewed

did the same. Additionally, 84.21% of the women interviewed considered that communities need

internal governance mechanisms to punish leaders who sign timber extraction contracts with

loggers against the community’s will. By contrast, only 22.58% of male interviewees had the

same view.

Table 8. Division between community members and their gender policies.

Conflicts with Communal Authorities, Women Total Percentage Communal Chiefs as Conflict Creators 17 89.47% Call for Stronger Internal Governance System 16 84.21% Conflict with Communal Authorities, Men Total Percentage Communal Chiefs as Conflict Creators 38 61.29% Call for Stronger Internal Governance System 14 22.58%


23

During an interview, an indigenous federation Secretary of Women Affairs said: "The

community committees formed by men usually sell our land to loggers, but we as women are

fighting for the welfare of all children in the community" (Personal communication, IBC, 07-25-

2012). Female interviewees’ strong self-identification as women seems to enable them to join in

fighting gender discrimination and claiming their space within the territorial struggle. Based on

observations, the identification of women with territorial issues has been increasing as national

conferences, workshops on gender equity, and non-governmental projects strengthen women's

political agency.

According to another female interviewee, "women are the new force in the territorial struggle of

indigenous peoples. When a woman leads, everyone in the community can go to the Assemblies

because the leader can call the women and none are left washing and caring for children."

Participatory observation during a community General Assembly allowed me to observe gender

dynamics related to forestry and territorial management. While discussing possible agreements

with illegal loggers, several women tried to express their opinion during the Assembly; however,

nearly every man ignore women’s repeated attempts to voice their concerns (Imagen 6). A young

woman entered the room, stood in the middle and said:

“Working with timber has not left us anything. We do not receive all alike. You (community leaders) are getting everything. Loggers have stolen for years and you want to continue, that makes no sense. Think of the children, the future of the community. I may be a woman, but they no longer fool me. We as women have a voice; you will not make the decision just because you are men. All timber is gone and nothing is left. Enough is enough."

With a 22-9 vote, the community decided to start working with three loggers illegally to pay a

previous fine imposed by OSINFOR. 90% of women who voted opposed the proposal; only one

woman voted in favor, joining all the men present. This substantial dichotomy cannot be ignored


24

by non-governmental organizations seeking to support communities in their native land

administration processes.

Image 6. Cacataibo women stand outside their community’s hall during a General Assembly.

After having repeatedly attempted to voice their opinion, most women stepped outside to

comment on the leaders’ decisions.

Photo by Diego Leal

The value assigned to each reason for seeking capital also differs significantly between men and

women. By answering, "Would you like your community to have commercial projects? If so,

why?”, three answers were preeminent in women responses, all oriented to the development of

their community: better health services, better schools in the communities, and better basic

services such as drinking water (Table 9). By contrast, the three most common responses of men


25

were individual and/or economic independence, secondary and college education, and better

schools in communities.

Table 9. Reasons for seeking capital, by gender.

Search for Capital, Women Total Percentage Better Health Services 11 57.89% Better Schools 11 57.89% Better Basic Services 11 57.89% Better Housing 10 52.63% Secondary and College Education 4 21.05% More and Better Foods 4 21.05% Individual and/or family economic independence 4 21.05%

Search for Capital, Men Total Percentage Individual and/or family economic independence 42 67.74% Secondary and College Education 33 53.23% Better Schools 21 33.87% Better Health Services 19 30.65% Better Housing 19 30.65% Better Basic Services 18 29.03% More and Better Foods 14 22.58%

Conclusions

This research project documented the changes in discourse related to human and territorial rights

of indigenous communities, local federations, and the regional political movement led by

ORAU. The results and analysis presented suggest that community land titling has gradually lost

the strong attention than it enjoyed in the past three decades. Since fieldwork was conducted

primarily in the city of Pucallpa, accessing communities in the borderlands of the Brazilian

border was not possible. Some of these communities continue to fight for a title to their


26

territories and it is crucial that the issue is not forgotten. If titling efforts cease when nearly fifty

communities continue untitled in Ucayali, hundreds of families could be absorbed by colonialist

processes and/or exploitative working systems.

Using mainly Chirif and Garcia (2007), and Garcia, Hvalkof and Gray (1998) reserach, a

historical contextualization allowed to better understand how conflicts related to indigenous

territoriality have evolved from a struggle for legal recognition to administrative territorial

control. Following the exploitation patterns of a purely extractive economy in Ucayali (Hvalkof

2002), logging companies continue to exploit local knowledge and indigenous labor through

debt-bondage systems. However, Ucayali indigenous peoples have maintained their political

agency and remained important exponents of the international movement for indigenous rights.

The experience of Saweto’s titling process, plus interviews with experts in the field of titling,

indicate that new titling efforts may not have immediate positive results. Although there is a

solid legal basis for titling, some weaknesses in regulation and operational procedures affect

efforts undertaken by communities and organizations. Scholarly publications regarding

indigenous territoriality have contextualized land titling as a community empowerment approach

that strengthens preexisting organization schemes instead of creating completely new forms of

participation (Chirif & García, 2007). Based on this concept, the technical and administrative

support from key organizations such as IBC and ORAU will be crucial in preparing untitled

communities for post-titling threats.

The evolution of the human rights and territory perceptions can be seen both in

discourses and actions of communities, associations, and regional organizations. The creation of

the Community Forestry ORAU Oversight and Community Forest Management Bureau of the


27

DEFFS are signs of the growing attention given to land and forestry management and control of

local economies. The constant waves of resources demand have strongly affected the indigenous

economy by weakening its sustaining pillar: immediate access to natural resources. Interviews

revealed the communities’ intention to search for the necessary support to protect their economic

integrity in new forms. Ucayali’s indigenous peoples now see the market economy as the most

immediate and accessible option.


28

References

Baldovino, S. 2009. Manual de Capacitación: “Manual de saneamiento físico legal-rural”. Sociedad Peruana de derecho Ambiental – SPDA. Available from: http://www.spda.org.pe/_data/publicacion/20100115182704_.pdf (Accessed August 20 2012).

Banco Central de Reserva del Perú. 2012. Informe Económico y Social Región Ucayali 2012; Encuentro Económico. Available from http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Proyeccion-Institucional/Encuentros-Regionales/2012/Ucayali/Informe-Economico-Social/IES-Ucayali.pdf (Accessed August 20 2012.)

Chirif, A, & García, P. 2007. Marcando Territorio: Progresos y limitaciones de la titulación de territorios indígenas en la Amazonía. Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA).

Dirección de Saneamiento Físico Legal de la Propiedad Agraria. 2012. Reconocimiento, Titulación y Registro de Comunidades Nativas en Ucayali. Presentación digital.

García, P., Hvalkof, S., & Gray, A.. 1998. Liberation through land rights in the Peruvian Amazon. Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA). Copenhagen.

Hvalkof, S. 2002. Beyond Indigenous Land Titling: Democratizing Civil Society in the Peruvian Amazon. The Spaces of Neoliberalism: Land, Place and Family in Latin America. Kumarian Press, Inc. Connecticut, USA.

Hvalkof, S. 2009. Progress of the victims: Political ecology in the Peruvian Amazon. In Reimagining political ecology: New ecologies for the twenty-first century., eds. Aletta Biersack, James B. Greenberg, 195-232. Durham: Duke University Press.

Kerekes, C., & Williamson, C. 2010. Propertyless in Peru, even with a government land title. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69 (3) (JUL): 1011-33.

Linares, C., Arce, R., Pinedo, D., de los Ríos, R., Silva, M., Ramirez, G., & Rojas, S. 2009. La Veeduría Forestal Comunitaria: Una respuesta a los retos del manejo forestal comunitario. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana. Lima, Perú.

Organismo de Formalización de la Propiedad Rural. 2008. Demarcación y titulación de comunidades nativas. Presentación digital. Available from: http://www.minem.gob.pe/minem/archivos/Cofopri%20Demarcaci%C3%83%C2%B3n.pdf (Accessed August 20 2012).


29

Salisbury, D.; Borgo, J., & Vela, J. 2011. Transboundary political ecologyin Amazonia: history, culture, and conflicts of the borderland Asháninka. Journal of Cultural Geography, 28:1, 147-177.

Documents

Changing notions of territory in the Peruvian Amazon: A ...political efforts have eclipsed the need for further work. The article "Transboundary political ecology in Amazonia: history,