Contesting the Limits of Consultation in the Amazon Region: On Indigenous Peoples’ Demands for Free, Prior and Informed Consent in Bolivia and Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While states have legal rights over more than 60% of the world’s forests, around one billion people inhabit and “manage” them often without proper legal recognition. Many countries are moving towards conferring legal rights over forested land to a broad range of private actors such as individuals or communities. However, and perhaps not surprisingly, two thirds of on-going violent conflicts involving rural communities are driven by contested claims over land and resources. In many Latin American countries, statutes and regulations on consultation have recently become strategic issues, even though these laws are suppose to comply with treaties and declarations signed by states some years or even decades before. Is it reasonable to claim that international approaches to indigenous rights, such as the ILO Convention 169 (1989) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) have actually begun to influence domestic regulations in a comprehensive manner? In that sense, what is the concrete impact of these approaches in policy-making processes? Is the recognition of the right to consultation bringing improvement to environmental conditions in the jurisdictions concerned? These questions are hereby addressed by means of two case studies where laws on consultation had parliamentary approval and were promoted by State’s agencies, but were contested by indigenous peoples’ movements: the framing of the Peruvian National Law on Consultation (Law No. 29785) and the ad hoc Law on Consultation (Law No. 222) over a planned road through the Indigenous Territory and Isiboro-Sécure National Park, regarded as the basis for the Bolivian Law on Consultation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".