Searchable database of alleged violations against Indigenous Peoples' human rights in protected areas and natural parks.
| Title | Country | Impacted Indigenous People(s) | Short Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beng Per Wildlife Sanctuary | Cambodia | Koi / Kouy / Kuy Indigenous Peoples | In Beng Per Wildlife Sanctuary (Cambodia), the Kuy Indigenous people have faced mass land loss and displacement due to illegal logging and economic land concessions (ELCs) granted to companies like Try Pheap Group, often in violation of Cambodian law. Since 2010, roughly 1,500 Kuy families have been evicted as forestlands were sold and cleared for rubber and rosewood exports. Community leaders, including Heng Saphen, have faced arrests and intimidation for defending Indigenous territory. Despite national laws recognizing Indigenous land rights, enforcement remains absent, while deforestation and new concessions continue under government-backed “protected area” expansions. |
| Bakun Islands National Park | Malaysia | Orang Ulu | In Bakun Islands National Park (Malaysia), the Orang Ulu, including Kenyah and Kayan communities, face ongoing displacement and loss of ancestral lands following the Bakun Dam project and the 2013 plan to gazette 18 surrounding islands as a national park. The move—initiated by then–Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud—occurred without consultation or recognition of Native Customary Rights (NCR), violating Indigenous consent rights under UNDRIP. Logging and dam construction destroyed forests and livelihoods, while the park’s creation is viewed as an attempt to erase remaining Indigenous land claims. Although advocates continue legal and community efforts to reclaim rights, Indigenous residents remain largely excluded from decision-making over their ancestral territories. |
| Rapa Nui National Park - Easter Island | Chile | Rapa Nui | In Rapa Nui National Park (Chile), the Rapa Nui people continue to fight for full sovereignty and collective ownership of their ancestral lands. Though the Chilean state handed park management to the Ma’u Henua Indigenous Community in 2018—covering 43% of the island—this shift followed decades of displacement, police repression, and violations of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Earlier, Rapa Nui leaders were arrested for asserting Indigenous control over sacred sites, and the Chilean government retained ultimate authority over land rights. Corruption scandals, resource shortages, and the 2022 wildfire that damaged moai statues have deepened internal tensions. While management by Ma’u Henua marked progress toward autonomy, Rapa Nui demands for self-determination and collective property remain largely unfulfilled. |
| Sai Thong National Park | Thailand | BAN SAB WAI COMMUNITY - OR SAPWAI | In Sai Thong National Park (Thailand), the Ban Sap Wai Indigenous community faces criminalization and displacement under the country’s aggressive conservation and carbon credit expansion policies. Though residents have lived there since the 1970s, 14 villagers were convicted between 2018 and 2021 for “encroaching” on park land, with prison terms, heavy fines, and eviction orders upheld by the Supreme Court. Park officials have continued harassment and threats despite communities’ historical claims. The Thai government’s REDD+ and carbon credit initiatives, backed by the World Bank, have intensified fears of land loss, as locals warn carbon projects could block their access to ancestral farmlands. Rights groups denounce the case as emblematic of “green grabbing”—where conservation and carbon schemes strip rural and Indigenous people of land and livelihood rights. |
| Conkouati-Douli National Park | Republic of the Congo | Baka, Banbongo, Bantu | In Conkouati-Douli National Park (Republic of the Congo), the Baka, Banbongo, and Bantu Indigenous communities face ongoing abuses tied to conservation, carbon offsetting, and oil exploration projects. Managed under a 20-year agreement by the French NGO Parcs de Noé, the park is being developed as a REDD+ carbon credit site, while local residents report worsening food insecurity, displacement, and violence from eco-guards. Despite legal protections, the Congolese government in 2024 granted an oil exploration permit to a Chinese state-owned company inside the park’s buffer zone without community consent, breaching both domestic and international law. Rights groups describe Conkouati-Douli as a case of “green colonialism,” where conservation and carbon schemes—backed by major donors like the EU, USAID, and GEF—enable land grabs and human rights violations against Indigenous custodians of the forest. |
| Ob Khan National Park | Thailand | Karen | In Ob Khan National Park (Thailand), the Karen Indigenous communities are resisting government plans to expand the park’s boundaries, which threaten their ancestral lands, food sovereignty, and spiritual traditions. Established in 1992 on Karen territory, the park’s proposed expansion—revived in 2022—would absorb community farmlands and sacred sites, despite villagers’ centuries of sustainable stewardship. Karen leaders argue that officials manipulated surveys and withheld key information, prompting a National Human Rights Commission investigation in 2023. Local representatives have called for 3,891 hectares to be legally recognized as Indigenous land, emphasizing their role as “forest caretakers, not encroachers.” Rights groups warn that the expansion reflects Thailand’s broader trend of fortress conservation, where state-led preservation undermines Indigenous autonomy and violates the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). |
| Taman Negara National Park of Peninsular Malaysia | Malaysia | Batek, Orang Asli, Temiar, Jakun | In Taman Negara National Park (Malaysia), the Batek and Orang Asli Indigenous peoples face ongoing displacement, pollution, and repression tied to conservation and industrial projects. Established in 1939 under British rule, the park’s creation and later carbon and logging initiatives have excluded Indigenous communities from ancestral lands. In 2019, 14 Orang Asli died after suspected mining pollution, while Temiar villagers resisting deforestation were arrested and attacked despite court rulings affirming their rights. Conservation groups warn that Taman Negara exemplifies “fortress conservation”—where environmental protection and carbon schemes advance at the expense of Indigenous survival and sovereignty. |
| Tengis Shishged National Park | Mongolia | Dukha Mobile Indigenous People | In Tengis Shishged National Park (Mongolia), the Dukha Indigenous reindeer herders face severe restrictions on their traditional livelihoods following the park’s establishment in 2011 without their consent. Once free to roam and hunt across the taiga, the Dukha were confined to limited grazing zones and banned from hunting or using dogs to protect their reindeer. These policies—framed as conservation—have undermined their food security, culture, and nomadic traditions. In 2016, five Dukha hunters were arrested and threatened with prison for hunting to survive, highlighting the criminalization of subsistence under Mongolia’s “green protection” regime. Rights groups warn that the Dukha’s way of life, one of the world’s last reindeer-herding cultures, is being erased through fortress-style conservation imposed without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). |
| Kaziranga National Park (KNP) and Tiger Reserve | India | Mising/Mishing, Karbi, Assamese | In Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (India), Indigenous Mising, Karbi, and Assamese communities face violent displacement and killings under militarized conservation policies. Once traditional custodians of the land, many have been evicted since the park’s expansion, often without notice or compensation. A 2010 state order granted legal immunity to park guards who routinely employ “shoot-on-sight” tactics—over 100 people have been killed in the last two decades, including villagers accused of poaching or crossing park borders for firewood or cattle. Evictions in 2015 and 2019 destroyed hundreds of homes, leaving families landless despite the Forest Rights Act. Supported by major donors such as WWF, UNESCO, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kaziranga has become a global symbol of “fortress conservation,” where militarized wildlife protection overrides Indigenous rights to life, land, and livelihood. |
| Nagarhole National Park and Nagarhole Tiger Reserve | India | Jenukuruba, Bettakurubaa, Yerawa, Soliga | In Nagarhole National Park and Tiger Reserve (India), the Jenu Kuruba, Yerava, Bettakuruba, and Soliga peoples have endured decades of violent displacement, killings, and cultural repression in the name of wildlife conservation. Since the 1970s, thousands of Indigenous families have been evicted without consent or compensation, and recent years have seen escalating abuse—including custodial deaths, shootings, and harassment of Jenu Kuruba leaders resisting removal. Despite filing claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), their rights remain unrecognized, while forest officials block access to sacred sites and ancestral burial grounds. Supported by both Indian and foreign conservation groups, Nagarhole has become emblematic of India’s “fortress conservation” model—where tigers are protected, but the Indigenous custodians of the forest are criminalized, displaced, and silenced. |
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