Searchable database of alleged violations against Indigenous Peoples' human rights in protected areas and natural parks.
| Title | Country | Impacted Indigenous People(s) | Short Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cuero y Salado Wildlife Refuge | Honduras | Garífuna | Created by Honduras’s National Congress in 1987 (Decree No. 99-87) and expanded in 1989 (Decree No. 38-89), the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Barras de Cuero y Salado overlaps with Garífuna territorial land claims. By 1993, at least 84 families lived in the area. The refuge’s establishment and management have been associated with restrictions on customary access to land and natural resources—especially fishing—affecting livelihoods, food security, and reportedly contributing to out-migration. Garífuna fishers describe long-standing conflict with park officials and security forces, including alleged over-enforcement, confiscation of equipment, threats, and beatings. Concerns also include a lack of consultation in externally funded management initiatives and environmental pressures linked to surrounding oil palm expansion and deforestation. |
| Punta Izopo National Park | Honduras | Garífuna | Created by Honduras’s National Congress on December 28, 2000, Parque Nacional Punta Izopo overlaps with territory historically occupied by the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. A 1996 Ramsar information sheet estimated that about 3,000 Garífuna lived along the coast in the area. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Honduras responsible for failing to consult the community on the park’s creation and its management plan, and noted testimony that communities were not informed of impact studies. Additional concerns include lack of consultation in externally funded initiatives promoting management by outside entities. The park and surrounding Tela Bay have also faced pressures from oil palm expansion and tourism development, which Garífuna organizations link to land dispossession, degradation of fishing and agricultural areas, and forced migration. Reports further allege abuses by patrols against artisanal fishers, including seizures, threats, and beatings. |
| Ngorongoro Conservation Area | Tanzania | Maasai, Datooga, Hadzabe | Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Tanzania, was created in 1959 as a “multiple land use” area after laws and boundary changes restricted Maasai residence in the Serengeti. Although a continued Maasai presence was promised, subsequent conservation tightening and UNESCO designations (1979, 1981, 2010, 2018) were widely reported as proceeding without Maasai Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and with limited participation. From the mid-2000s onward, UNESCO/IUCN/ICOMOS missions increasingly framed resident population, livestock, and land use as threats, reinforcing “carrying capacity” narratives. Since 2021, reports describe a coercive relocation agenda (including registration pressures and zoning proposals), restrictions on grazing, water, and cultivation, demolition/eviction notices, and repression of protests through arrests and detention. Civil society also documents systematic withdrawal or diversion of funds and permits for health, education, and water services (including grounding a church-run medical flying service), contributing to food insecurity, poverty, and heightened risks to community health and safety. |
| Takamanda National Park | Cameroon | Fulani - Mbororo | Takamanda National Park - Cameroon: The establishment and governance of Takamanda National Park (2008) have been linked to multiple alleged human rights violations affecting Fulani/Mbororo and other local communities. Reports indicate the park was created without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), with some residents labeled “illegal settlers” and enclave villages opposing the park’s creation. Participatory bodies (e.g., Village Forest Management Committees and “clusters”) were reportedly imposed without community choice, do not reflect traditional institutions, and fail to ensure consensus-based decision-making; meanwhile, the Park Management Committee allegedly rarely or never convened, effectively excluding communities from high-level governance. Communities have also reported threats of forced eviction, intimidation, and harassment by guards, including ransacks during travel between villages, disruption of ceremonies with firearms, and confiscation of ritual “dane guns.” Since 2016, militarization linked to the Anglophone conflict has further heightened insecurity and restricted freedom of movement and livelihoods. |
| The Pololeti Game Reserve | Tanzania | Maasai | The Pololeti Game Reserve- Tanzania: The Pololeti Game Reserve, carved in 2022 from 1,502 km² of registered Maasai village land in Loliondo and Sale divisions, has been associated with longstanding and escalating human rights violations. The Maasai have faced violent evictions, the burning and demolition of homes and bomas, arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention of community leaders, shootings and injuries, and the enforced disappearance of an 85-year-old man following security operations. Thousands of people were displaced, with many fleeing to Kenya. Authorities and conservation-aligned actors have seized tens of thousands of livestock and imposed heavy fines, undermining livelihoods and food security. Communities report sexual violence, intimidation, and criminalization of activists, and systematic denial of participation, consultation, and free, prior, and informed consent in land-use decisions. The declaration of Pololeti as a Game Reserve, in disregard of domestic legal safeguards for village land, has entrenched the loss of ancestral territory and deepened poverty and cultural harm. |
| Loliondo Game Controlled Area | Tanzania | Maasai | Established in 1951 as the Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA), the area allowed residence and grazing while regulating hunting. From the 1990s, plans to reserve 1,500 km² for tourism escalated, despite overlapping registered villages. After the 2009 Wildlife Conservation Act, authorities used force—burning homes, seizing livestock, and harassing pastoralists. In June 2022, demarcation operations brought shootings, arbitrary arrests, intimidation of leaders, expulsions, and sexual violence. Subsequent orders converted 1,502 km² into the Pololeti reserve and narrowed village boundaries, entrenching exclusion. Seizures and fines, plus restricted access to land and water, have driven food insecurity, displacement, and erosion of culture and livelihoods. |
| Parque Nacional Laguna Lachuá (Laguna Lachuá National Park) | Guatemala | Q’eqchi’ | In Laguna Lachuá National Park (Guatemala), Q’eqchi’ villages (Sakopur, Sajobché, Xyaal Kobé) were not consulted during the park’s creation. Communities have faced repeated forced evictions (2011, 2019), destruction of homes and crops, shootings, killings of land and environmental defenders (2018, 2020), criminalization and arrest of leaders, and ongoing land conflicts linked to state and corporate interests. Authorities report “invasions” and use army patrols, exacerbating tensions and violence. |
| Indravati National Park | India | Gond, Bhunjia, Muria, Munda, Halba, Kamal | In Indravati National Park (India), Indigenous communities, including the Gond, Bhunjia, Muria, Munda, Halba, and Kamal peoples, have faced displacement and violations of their forest rights despite the 2006 Forest Rights Act mandating consultation and consent. The park, a Project Tiger site, has seen repeated forced and “voluntary” relocations under the National Tiger Conservation Authority, with tens of thousands of families nationwide affected. Communities are caught in conflict between state forces and Maoist groups, facing harassment, displacement, and loss of access to forests. Conservation policies driven by government and donor-backed programs—such as CAMPA and the Global Environment Facility—prioritize “human-free” reserves, ignoring Indigenous stewardship and legal protections. Recent NTCA directives urging mass evictions have sparked widespread Indigenous protests across India, including at Indravati, against unlawful relocations and violations of land, cultural, and self-determination rights. |
| Sunderbans (Sundarbans) National Park | India | Munda, Santhal, Bhumij, Oraon | In Sundarbans National Park (India), Indigenous and tribal communities—including the Munda, Santhal, Bhumij, and Oraon peoples—face systemic violations of their land, livelihood, and cultural rights under fortress-style conservation policies. Declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Project Tiger reserve, the park’s establishment and expansion occurred without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Indigenous fishers, honey collectors, and prawn seed gatherers are criminalized through restrictive Boat License Certificates, arbitrary fines, and harassment by forest officials. Despite the Forest Rights Act (2006), authorities have largely denied communities legal recognition, arguing they live outside “core” forest zones. Communities report extortion, confiscation of forest produce, and violence, including detentions and assaults for resisting bribes. Conservation and tourism projects led by WWF and state agencies prioritize tiger protection and eco-tourism while marginalizing traditional livelihoods, forcing residents into dangerous tiger zones where attacks are common. Local groups like the Sundarban Jana Sramajibi Manch and the All India Union of Forest Working People continue to resist dispossession and demand implementation of the FRA. Recent NTCA directives to accelerate evictions have intensified fears of displacement, as Indigenous Peoples across West Bengal, including the Sundarbans, mobilize against illegal relocations and the erosion of their cultural and subsistence rights. |
| Sanjiangyuan National Park | China | HaixiMongolians, Tibetan | In Sanjiangyuan National Park (China), Tibetan and Haixi Mongolian communities have faced coerced relocations from ancestral pasturelands under the banner of “ecological preservation,” loss of grazing rights through permit confiscations, and park planning without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. Authorities have seized village lands (e.g., Qingshuihe Town, 2024) and detained nomadic herders opposing grassland takeovers (2022). These measures, alongside tourism- and conservation-driven park expansion and overlapping pressures from mining and infrastructure, have disrupted livelihoods, eroded cultural practices, and curtailed civil and political rights. |
Disclaimer: The Conservation database contains allegations related to human rights violations of indigenous peoples impacted by protected areas, national parks and other conservation measures. Allegations of human rights violations were collected from a wide range of sources, including thematic, country, and fact-finding mission reports submitted by indigenous organizations, individual experts, non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors, newspaper articles, petitions, communications, statements, and other relevant information or materials issued by United Nations independent experts and human rights mechanisms. The information provided in this database does not necessarily reflect the official views of the University of Arizona, the University of Arizona College of Law, or the University of Arizona Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program, nor is there any guarantee or endorsement of any information or views expressed therein. If you wish to add additional allegations, please reachout to us via email law-conservation@arizona.edu