Searchable database of alleged violations against Indigenous Peoples' human rights in protected areas and natural parks.
| Title | Country | Impacted Indigenous People(s) | Short Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lobéké National Park | Cameroon | Baka, Bangando | Lobéké National Park, located in southeastern Cameroon, covers 217,854 hectares within the Sangha Trinational (TNS), a UNESCO World Heritage Site inscribed in 2012. Established by Decree No 2001/107/PM on 19 March 2001, the park was created on the ancestral lands of the Baka, an Indigenous hunter-gatherer people, without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Documented violations span over two decades, beginning in September 2001. Eco-guards — trained, equipped and in some cases funded through partnerships with WWF — have been accused of systematic beatings, torture, sexual violence, night raids on camps, confiscation of legally hunted bushmeat, arbitrary detention and destruction of property. One village chief reportedly died following a beating. A 10-year-old girl was reportedly tortured by an anti-poaching squad. In 2016, Survival International filed a formal OECD complaint against WWF over its role in the abuses. A 2019 Memorandum of Understanding between MINFOF and the Baka representative body ASBABUK was intended to restore customary access, but independent evaluations by Forest Peoples Programme found it largely unimplemented, with communities still denied access to their traditional territories as of 2025. Cameroon's justice system remains effectively inaccessible to Baka peoples |
| Lore Lindu National Park | Indonesia | Kaili, Kulawi, Behoa, Pekurehua, Bada, Masyarakat | Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), located in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, covers 215,687 hectares and forms the core of the UNESCO Lore Lindu Biosphere Reserve. Established by Ministerial Decree No 593/Kpts-II/1993, the park was created without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the masyarakat adat communities whose customary territories (tanah adat) it enclosed, including the Kaili, Kulawi, Behoa, Bada, and Pekurehua peoples. Approximately 117 villages are situated in or adjacent to the park. Documented violations include the displacement of the Katu community from their ancestral lands from the 1980s onwards; the destruction of homes by park guards at Dongi-Dongi following community land occupations in 2001; the prohibition of subsistence hunting, gathering, and traditional agroforestry; and the systematic denial of customary land rights across multiple communities. A fatal confrontation between park rangers and community members at Dongi-Dongi resulted in deaths on both sides. The Ngata Toro community, whose customary forest was 85 per cent absorbed into the park, filed a land restitution claim in 1995; only 1,747 of the 9,000 hectares requested were returned by ministerial decree in 2021. |
| Wia Wia Nature Reserve, Galibi Nature Reserve and Wane Kreek Nature Reserve, Marowijne District. | Suriname | Kaliña Indigenous People, Lokono Indigenous People, Christiaankondre, Langamankondre, Pierrekondre, Bigiston, Erowarte , Tapuku , Marijkedorp , Alfonsdorp | The Wia Wia, Galibi, and Wane Kreek Nature Reserves, located in the Marowijne District of Suriname, overlap with the ancestral territories of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples. Established in 1966, 1969, and 1986 respectively under the Nature Protection Act of 1954, the reserves were created without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous communities whose lands they enclosed, including the villages of Christiaankondre, Langamankondre, Pierrekondre, Bigiston, Erowarte, Tapuku, Marijkedorp, and Alfonsdorp. Together, the reserves cover almost half of the traditional territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples. Documented violations include forced relocations linked to the establishment of the reserves and the Tuinstad Albina tourism development project; restrictions on hunting, fishing, and access to sacred sites; militarized conservation enforcement, including armed guard posts and incidents of intimidation; and the granting of mining concessions and infrastructure projects without consultation. Bauxite extraction in the Wane Kreek reserve caused deforestation, water contamination, biodiversity loss, and disruption of traditional livelihoods. In 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, found that Suriname had violated the peoples’ rights to collective property, juridical personality, and judicial protection, and ordered the State to recognize and title their ancestral lands and ensure their participation in the management of the reserves. |
| 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. |
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