Searchable database of alleged violations against Indigenous Peoples' human rights in protected areas and natural parks.
| Title | Country | Impacted Indigenous People(s) | Short Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chagos Marine Protected Area (British Indian Ocean Territory) | United Kingdom | ||
| Cherang'any Hills | Kenya | ||
| Amrabad Tiger Reserve | India | Chenchu, Lambadas | In Amrabad Tiger Reserve (India), the Chenchu and Lambada Indigenous peoples have faced forced evictions, violence, and criminalization under India’s tiger conservation and carbon offsetting programs. Established in 2014, the reserve sits on the ancestral lands of the Chenchu, who have been repeatedly told their rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) do not apply within the park. Families resisting removal have been harassed and denied access to traditional livelihoods while tourism and uranium exploration projects expand inside the reserve. In 2021, forest officials allegedly stripped and beat 16 Lambada villagers for collecting mahua flowers—an activity protected under the FRA. Despite ongoing protests, authorities continue to prioritize ecotourism and extractive projects, making Amrabad a stark example of “green colonialism”—where conservation and development proceed at the expense of Indigenous dignity and land rights. |
| Panna Tiger Reserve | India | Gonds, Kairuas, Yadavs, Kathari, Bilhata, Marha, Muthwa, Khamri, Koni, Majohli, Kudan | In Panna Tiger Reserve (India), Indigenous Gond, Yadav, and other Adivasi communities have endured widespread evictions, harassment, and loss of livelihood under India’s tiger conservation and carbon offset projects. Since 2009, over a dozen villages—nearly 1,000 families—have been displaced without genuine consent or adequate compensation. Those who resist eviction face threats, electricity cuts, and violence from forest officials, while women report extortion and abuse when collecting firewood or crops. Despite protections under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), authorities continue to deny Indigenous claims, often labeling residents as “encroachers.” Conservation in Panna also overlaps with illegal diamond mining and proposed irrigation projects, deepening displacement pressures. The reserve—hailed as a UNESCO Biosphere site—has become a case study in “green grabbing,” where environmental and commercial interests override Indigenous rights and survival. |
| Quedabra de los Cuervos | Uruguay | ||
| Hoh Xil Nature Reserve | China | Tibetan Pastoralists | In Hoh Xil Nature Reserve (China), the government’s ban on Tibetan pastoralism and herb gathering has led to the forced displacement and exclusion of Indigenous Tibetan communities from their ancestral lands. Declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2017, the reserve’s new conservation regulations prohibit traditional livelihoods and restrict access exclusively to officials and security personnel. These measures were implemented without consultation or compensation, violating Indigenous rights to self-determination, culture, and subsistence. Reports by the International Campaign for Tibet confirm continued surveillance and repression under the guise of “ecological protection,” effectively criminalizing Tibetan lifeways and reinforcing state control. Hoh Xil exemplifies China’s fortress conservation model, where environmental governance serves political authority at the expense of Indigenous autonomy. |
| Villarrica National Park | Chile | ||
| Tengis-Shishged National Park | Mongolia | ||
| Yasuní National Park | Ecuador | ||
| Embobut Forest | Kenya |
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