Territorial ‘Fix’? Tenure Insecurity in Titled Indigenous Territories

Abstract

Indigenous territorial governments in Nicaragua's North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region experience ongoing land and resource contests, in many cases building from longstanding disputes or problems, even after titling. I argue that it is naïve to expect that granting titles – a supposed territorial fix – will resolve conflicts created across decades as a result of ineffective policies and economic pressures. As shown with three demarcated Miskitu territories, tenure insecurity arises from challenges with the state, private firms, non‐indigenous colonists, and even from the activities of territorial leaders. These cases suggest the need to move beyond perceptions of Miskitu territories as simple bounded remnants of the past and acknowledge they are complex, porous, trans‐local, and transgressed by processes such as migration, urbanisation, and neoliberal economic integration. Indeed, new territorial governments are encouraged by foreign donors and state laws to mirror government agencies and prioritise market linkages.

The Global Emergence of Community Drones (2012–2017)

“…Many experiences aimed at improving territorial defense. This process may have been facilitated in Latin America by at least two factors: (1) many indigenous groups have gained formal recognition of their customary lands from the state in the last decades [118] but their territories face many threats [119][120][121]; (2) the absence or ambiguity of new national regulatory frameworks to operate and import drones in the region [18,122]. However, Latin American regulatory frameworks are being readjusted in a trend that may discourage or even ban community drones.…”

Titles of Contention: Sociocultural Change and Conflict over Legalization of Indigenous Lands in Southeastern Ecuador

“…In fact, the land, as a place of reference, does not have to have boundaries or be constantly occupied (as with religious centers that are pilgrimage sites, for example). The titling policy, meanwhile, assumes that all peoples conceive of the territorial connection in terms of ownership, usually collective ownership (Arraiza, 2012;Beltrán and Narváez, 2012;Castro, 2000;Finley-Brook, 2016). Furthermore, it seems to retain the colonial assumption that indigenous peoples live in cohesive communities whose members have the same ideas about life, identity, or the use of the land.…”

“…Management of the titled property was carried out in terms of categories and procedures that were not traditional but state-imposed (census taking, territorial divisions, uniform definition of rights, etc.) and often accomplished by fledgling leaders whose qualifications had (primarily) to do with their ability to understand the bureaucracy or communicate with the representatives of the state (Arraiza, 2012;Finley-Brook, 2016;Jamieson, 2011;Larson, 2010).…”

“…This notion contains certain premises about cultural idiosyncrasies (of indigenous cultures, in particular), the need for territorial support, the link between territory and identity, and the security that comes from state recognition and issuance of deeds. But the results of titling around the world have been mixed (Aylwin, 2011;Finley-Brook, 2016). What has been confirmed by empirical cases is the complex dynamic created by any titling depending on the way it is carried out (Márquez, 2013;Payne, Durand-Lasserve, and Rakodi, 2009).…”

Recognizing Indigenous Miskitu Territory in Honduras

“…Scholars question whether indigenous governance is functioning inside these territories (Herlihy ; Stevens and De Lacy ; Hale ; Bixler and others ). Cultural and political ecologists (Bebbington ; Herlihy ; Aagesen ; Zimmerer and Bassett ; Zimmerer ; Larson and Lewis‐Mendoza , Finley‐Brook ) examine the complexities of indigenous natural‐resource management and confirm that indigenous communities often lack territorial governance structures over their lands being titled (Larson and Lewis‐Mendoza ).…”