CAMPAIGNS
[Briefer] Offshore Wind Energy Projects in South India: Indigenous Coastal Communities Left in Dark
The Government of India has begun implementing plans to install 450 wind turbines in the ecologically rich Gulf of Mannar region in Tamil Nadu in the south of the country. In February 2024, the Government invited bids for the development of 4 GW (in four blocks of 1 GW each) offshore wind energy projects off the coast of Tamil Nadu, specifically in the Mannar Islands, through international competitive bidding. In June, it approved 1 GW offshore wind energy projects (500 MW each off the coast of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu) – first ever such projects in the country – with a total outlay of 7,453 crores Indian rupees.
However, the Indigenous coastal communities of the Gulf of Mannar, such as the Paravar and Mukkuvar, have been left in the dark about the offshore wind projects. They have protected and sustainably used marine ecosystems and resources in the Gulf for generations and depend on them for their livelihoods, cultures and lives. Their Indigenous knowledge has not been taken into account in conducting studies for developing the projects in Tamil Nadu, including with support from the European Union.
This briefer documents the concerns of the Indigenous coastal communities with the offshore wind projects in Tamil Nadu, which include:
– Commodification of Mother ocean
– Loss of ocean rights
– Impacts on livelihoods
– Destruction of marine life
– Disruption of migratory species and other environmental impacts
– Effects on food security and leisure activities
The communities have accordingly stressed that no energy project in the Gulf of Mannar should proceed without their meaningful engagement and consent.
This briefer was produced through collaboration of the Association of Artisanal Fishers (AAF), the Neithal Protection Council and the BlueGreen Coastal Resource Centre with assistance from the Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE).
Read the full briefer below or click here to download.
Recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group for review of the Accountability Mechanism Policy Of the Asian Development Bank
We, members of Indigenous Peoples of Asia and the Pacific, Indigenous rights defenders, and representatives of Indigenous Peoples Organizations, having engaged in the ongoing review of the Accountability Mechanism (AM) Policy (2012) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) through the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) present the following preliminary recommendations for the Policy review.
Firstly, we appreciate the dedicated consultations undertaken with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives for the Policy review through the IPAG, including our virtual sessions with the AM Policy Review secretariat as well as the in-person consultation with the joint Board and Management Working Group held on 27 June 2025 at the ADB Headquarters in Manila. The following recommendations are based on the discussions during the sessions and the consultation:
1. Awareness-raising efforts on ADB safeguards and accountability mechanism should commence from the earliest stages of project conception and planning, ensuring they are conducted in Indigenous languages, where possible, and with full cultural sensitivity. The revised AM Policy should include proactive awareness raising function for the AM.
More importantly, the ADB management and the borrower/client should be liable to ensure that the project affected communities know about ADB financing, the applicable Safeguards and the AM as an avenue for voicing concerns. That can be undertaken such as by installing public signages in local languages at construction sites and across the impact area of the project. Further, they should effectively engage Indigenous Peoples’ communities and their representatives since the design of the project itself.
2. Requirement of prior good faith effort (GFE) is among the biggest hindrances to accessing the AM. Addressing the complaint to the ADB management at national or regional levels and the project implementing agency before it can be escalated to the AM often poses risks to the communities and their leaders/defenders. That exposes them to direct or indirect reprisals, including harassment and pressure, when their identities become known. That also usually causes delays in the communities’ grievances being addressed independently and effectively.
The GFE requirement should be removed. Affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities or others must retain the right to file complaints directly with the AM. We agree that there is merit in strengthening project level and management level grievance mechanisms. However, our experiences show that project level grievance mechanisms have been far from effective while ADB management often are also very close to the project implementing agency or the borrower/client to ensure independence in them handling complaints. So, the AM should NOT be a mechanism of last resort. The affected communities or persons should be able to file complaints to the AM whenever they feel appropriate.
3. The two functions of the AM should be retained and strengthened. Currently, they suffer from a structural flaw in sequencing, whereby complainants can opt for compliance review after problem solving (dispute resolution) but the reverse is not allowed. This limits the flexibility and overall effectiveness of the AM. The revised AM Policy should address this flaw so that affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities or others can opt to first establish non-compliance of ADB policies and then engage in dispute resolution after the truth about wrongdoing has been established. This would be in line with principles of justice of Indigenous Peoples, whereby acknowledgement of wrongdoing should happen first. The complainants should be able to which function they wish to opt for at whichever point of the complaint process.
4. Limited powers of the AM deters Indigenous Peoples’ communities from filing complaints. Often, Indigenous Peoples’ communities affected by an ADB-assisted project seek suspension of the project itself. However, the AM lacks sufficient authority to recommend suspension of financing even temporarily and even when it finds the project non-compliant of ADB Safeguards/policies. Projects are allowed to continue during dispute resolution or compliance review, which escalate harms. On the other hand, complaint processes are dragged for years.
The revised Policy should thus firstly provide the AM authority to recommend suspension of financing, at least temporarily, to prevent further harms from a project during dispute resolution or compliance review. Such suspension is particularly important when there are reprisals against the complainants or communities’ leaders/defenders.
Secondly, the AM should also be provided the authority to recommend remedy for the affected communities from the project implementing agency or the borrower/client as well as the ADB. This would also bring the AM and the ADB in line with the evolving standards of other multilateral development banks as well as align with the right to remedy of affected communities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Thirdly, the revised Policy should also give the AM authority for taking up complaints suo moto based on credible reports of impacts from ADB-assisted projects. Such self-initiation power would particularly be important for the AM as most developing member countries of the ADB where its assisted projects are implemented have closed or shrinking civic space. So, it is often difficult or risky for affected Indigenous or other communities to file complaints.
Further, problem solving function of the AM should be strengthened to give the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) powers to require parties to take necessary actions for dispute resolution within a defined timeframe. Repeated failures to respect such timeframe by the project implementing agency or the borrower/client should also be grounds for suspension of project financing. Or, if the complainants are dragging the process, the OSPF should be able to decide to end the process. However, while we see the merit to limit the timeframe of a dispute resolution process, the complainants should be able to decide if they wish to end the dispute resolution.
Similarly, during the dispute resolution, the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities should be free to decide on their representation. Their representatives can be from their communities in any number or from their supporting defenders and NGOs. To address the power imbalance between Indigenous communities and the project implementing agency or the borrower/client, the OSPF should allow for the complainants from the Indigenous or other communities to decide on their representation.
Finally, the AM should also be provided advisory function to provide advice on policies/policy reforms and technical aspects of projects.
5. Under the revised Policy, the AM should be required, in its processes, to respect the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the project affected Indigenous communities, particularly for complaints related to land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples. Adequate time and information must be provided for consultation within the communities before setting agenda, timing/location of meetings; hiring of consultants and facilitators; and in determining the outcomes of the meetings. Imposing meeting times and predetermined agendas without consultation marginalizes their participation and weakens trust in the process. For this, the AM processes should follow community or FPIC protocols of Indigenous communities where they exist.
Further, the AM processes must be culturally appropriate and gender responsive. They must respect or follow customary laws and practices of Indigenous Peoples or their customary justice institutions where they exist. They must support equitable participation with Indigenous communities to ensure participation of vulnerable members.
6. AM processes should be further simplified it is more accessible and effective. Many Indigenous communities in remote areas may face barriers such as limited access to technical support or lack of experience in preparing formal written complaints, particularly in the absence of supporting NGOs. So, they should be able to file complaints verbally or in other forms and through various channels. The current system is overly complex, creating barriers for communities to submit grievances independently without supporting NGOs.
7. The revised AM Policy should provide for stronger coordination with other IAMs when multiple IAMs of different multilateral development bank are involved to address complaints in case of co-financed projects. Such coordination should prevent duplicative processes for the complainants while following the highest standards of procedures among the IAMs.
8. The revised AM Policy must provide the AM to recommend responsible exit when the ADB withdraws assistance from a project. This should particularly be ensured to avoid risk of reprisals against complainants or communities’ leaders/defenders, or to prevent implementation of the project based on outcomes from the earlier ADB assistance without respect for the rights of the affected Indigenous and other communities.
9. ADB should seriously look into the cases of reprisals resulting from raising concerns on ADB funded projects. The Accountability Mechanism should provide a safe and effective avenue for receiving the reporting and timely addressing of such cases of reprisals. Handling cases of reprisals emanating from ADB funded projects should be addressed even in post project scenarios.
We hope for your positive consideration to above initial recommendations from the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group and its associated organizations for the AM Policy review so that the AM under the revised Policy can be truly community centered. We expect that these recommendations will be reflected in the revised draft of the AM Policy. Upon receiving the revised draft, we will come back with further comments during the forthcoming Phase 2 of the review. We finally call on that the Phase 2 of the review also involves additional dedicated consultations with Indigenous Peoples as part of a broad, public and meaningful consultative process, and that a Board-led process is continued in the drafting of the revised AM policy, which also effectively involves the AM itself as the offices in the AM have been the channels for Indigenous Peoples to raise concerns with the ABD-assisted projects.
Sincerely,
Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group
Including on behalf of its following members
Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE)
Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP)
Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)
Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC), Philippines
Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal
Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), Philippines
Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS), Malaysia
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) ANGSANA, Indonesia
Lembaga Bentang Alam Hijau (LemBAH), Indonesia
Indigenous Peoples Organizations urge International Finance Corporation to establish dedicated consultation process and mechanism for its Sustainability Framework review
Indigenous Peoples’ organizations have urged the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the private lending arm of the World Bank Group – to establish and implement a dedicated consultation process and an Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group as part of the ongoing update to IFC’s Sustainability Framework, which consists of its Sustainability Policy, Performance Standards and Access to Information Policy.
In a letter submitted to the IFC via email, the organizations emphasized the need for meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples directly impacted by IFC-financed activities. They highlighted the limitations of the IFC’s efforts for consultations at international events like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which often exclude affected communities due to logistical and financial barriers. They have stressed that Indigenous Peoples serve as stewards of lands critical to sustainable development and climate goals, and thus meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples reduces risks of conflict, delays, and reputational harm, enhancing the legitimacy of IFC investments.
Accordingly, the organizations have proposed practical measures modelled on precedents, such as the engagement of Indigenous Peoples’ representatives with the Asian Development Bank through an Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group during its Safeguards Policy review. They have thus urged the IFC to:
- Co-design, resource, and implement, in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, a dedicated, meaningful, and time-bound consultation process with Indigenous Peoples for the ongoing update of the IFC’s Sustainability Framework;
- Co-develop, support, resource, and establish, in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, an Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group to ensure consistent and informed engagement of Indigenous Peoples in the update, implementation, and monitoring of the Sustainability Framework.
- Ensure the consultation process and mechanism are Indigenous-led and grounded in the following principles:
- Independence from the influence of the IFC and its borrowers.
- Zero tolerance for reprisals against participating Indigenous leaders, including measures to ensure safe spaces for dialogue and provide accessibility support
- Representation from diverse Indigenous territories and regions, particularly from those countries where the IFC operates.
- Representation from Indigenous women, youth, and other marginalized groups within Indigenous Peoples, and
- Establish a clear, substantive mandate to provide independent advice on FPIC implementation across IFC‑financed activities/projects, monitor and enforce compliance with the IFC Sustainability Framework, strengthen public accountability of the IFC, and advance Indigenous Peoples’ self‑determined, Indigenous‑led development strategies.
In the letter, the organizations have also noted that meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples is a mater of respect of their rights, including under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration requires that the the organs and specialized agencies of the UN system and other intergovernmental organizations, including the World Bank Group, should contribute to the full realization of the Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance, and achieving this goal requires establishing mechanisms to ensure the participation of Indigenous Peoples in decisions on issues affecting them. They have thus called on the IFC to engage with Indigenous Peoples as not only stakeholders but as rights-holders.
The joint letter was submitted by Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE), Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI), Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP), Securing Indigenous Peoples Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE), and Tallgrass Institute.
Download the full letter here.
Indonesia’s Indigenous Cek Bocek demand immediate suspension of PT AMNT’s Copper Mark certification
Indigenous Cek Bocek/Selesek Reen Sury people (recognized as Berco tribe) have filed a complaint against Indonesia’s PT Amman Mineral Nusa Tenggara (PT AMNT) at the Copper Mark for violations of multiple criteria of the leading assurance framework for copper value chain at its Elang mining project in the island of Sumbawa in West Nusa Tenggara. They have demanded immediate suspension of the PT AMNT’s Copper Mark certification and a full and independent investigation into the complaint submitted on 9 August – the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.
Opposition to mining in Sumbawa originated in the early 2000s when the PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara – a subsidiary of USA-based mining company, Newmont Corporation – commenced exploration activities in the concession it received overlapping with ancestral lands of the Cek Bocek people.[1] Despite persistent objections, operations proceeded without substantive consultation or consent in Batu Hijau mine now operated by PT AMNT that acquired the mine in 2016. Batu Hijau mine is the second largest copper and gold mine in Indonesia and one of the world’s top and one of the world’s top five copper-equivalent contained reserves.[2] In July 2024, PT AMNT received the Copper Mark for the Batu Hijau mine while it “partially met” the Copper Mark’s criterion on Indigenous Peoples’ rights as per independent assessment to receive the certification.[3]
In 2025, PT AMNT commenced Phase 8 mining operations at Batu Hijau, which will continue through 2030. Operations will then transition to Elang deposit – one of the world’s largest undeveloped copper-gold resources discovered in 1991 – which is expected to be mined through 2046.[4] In parallel, they restarted exploration and drilling efforts across their concession areas while drilling efforts are ongoing at the Elang deposit.[5] PT AMNT is currently finalizing the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) – a vital phase preceding the commencement of full-scale mining operations. For the Cek Bocek people, this stage represents a decisive moment that will determine their future.
“Our future is being determined at this stage. Without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, the DFS serves only as a superficial exercise of legitimacy,” said Febriyan Anindita, Chairperson of Sumbawa chapter of Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) – the national level federation of Indigenous Peoples of Indonesia. AMAN had earlier opposed the 2022 stakeholder mapping study for Batu Hijau mine, which had stated that the existence of Indigenous Peoples in Sumbawa was still a matter of debate, during the assessment of Batu Hijau mine for the Copper Mark certification.
In the complaint, the Cek Bocek people have noted their formal legal recognition as Indigenous People through a local regulation adopted in 2020. They have thus asserted that the PT AMNT has operated on their ancestral lands without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) descecrating their culturally significant sites, including ancestral graves.
As Indigenous leader Datu Sukanda stated, “Our ancestral lands embody not only physical territory but the soul and history of our people. To disregard our voices is to undermine our very existence.”
Further, as per the complaint, PT AMNT has engaged in deliberate “greenwashing” by omitting information about conflict with the community from its reports, and even violated a formal mediation agreement facilitated by Indonesia’s National Commision on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) between the company and the Cek Bocek people. Those actions constitute not only the breach of criteria of Copper Mark on FPIC, Human Rights, Stakeholder Engagement and Grievance Mechanism, but also clear violations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, among other international human rights laws and standards.
“If our concerns in the complaint are disregarded, Copper Mark risks becoming a mere instrument of greenwashing for corporate interests,” added Febriyan Anindita of AMAN. “This is a call for recognition, respect, and justice that must be realized before it is irrevocably delayed.”
[1] https://sukuberco.com/berco-indigenous-community-challenges-pt-amnt-at-global-certification-forum-examining-the-commitment-to-sustainable-mining/
[2] https://www.amman.co.id/amman-mineral-nusa-tenggara
[3] https://coppermark.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Copper-Mark_AP_PT-Amman-Mineral-International-Tbk_summary-report_2024.07.23.xls
[4] https://www.amman.co.id/article/phase-8-batu-hijau-amman-s-strategic-transition-for-sustainable-mining-and-national-competitiveness#:~:text=This%20extension%20plays%20a%20critical,to%20be%20mined%20through%202046.
Indigenous Peoples in Nepal file complaint over IFC advice to devastating Pathivara cable car project
NEPAL 26 August 2025: A construction company supported by a World Bank advisory project is building a cable car up the sacred Mukkumlung mountain in the Himalayas and has already felled over 10,000 trees in forests inhabited by highly endangered snow leopards and red pandas. Indigenous communities who have been protesting against the Pathivara cable car project have been violently repressed by armed police including by live fire.
Today, Indigenous leaders from the Limbu (Yakthung) nation – supported by lawyers and NGOs – are filing a formal complaint against the Bank for breaching its own safeguarding standards, resulting in human rights abuses and the destruction of cultural heritage. The Bank’s private sector lending arm – the International Financial Corporation (IFC) – gave advisory support to one of Nepal’s biggest conglomerates, the IME Group, to build four cable car projects, including the highly controversial $22m Pathivara cable car on Mukkumlung mountain.
IME Group is involved in energy, manufacturing, infrastructure and trading, as well as running the largest commercial bank in Nepal, Global IME Bank. The IFC has provided over $50 million to IME Group over the past decade, plus a $500 million trade finance guarantee. IFC continues to invest in Global IME Bank today, providing ongoing leverage and influence.
The mountain, its forests and its biodiversity are of paramount importance to the Indigenous Limbu people’s culture and religion. These communities have been resisting the project.
In response, the Nepalese government, in support of IME Group’s powerful owner, who is also the President of Nepal’s Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, has sent in the Armed Police Force (APF) and Nepal Police who have violently repressed protests, with beatings and live fire.
The complaint alleges that the IFC did not ensure that the IME Group applied IFC’s safeguards to the project, which are meant to provide Indigenous Peoples with protections against environmental and human rights abuses.
“The IFC’s own Performance Standards say that Indigenous Peoples have the right to give their Free Prior and Informed Consent to projects on their lands. But no one ever asked us whether we want this cable car project.” said Saru Singak of Mukkumlung Conservation Joint Struggle Committee. “The project is destroying our forests, mountain and nature sacred to us. It disrespects our cultural heritage and our religion. Yet no one came to talk to our religious bodies or our cultural associations,” she added.
No impact assessment for harmful Pathivara cable car
The project encroaches on an area of Kanchanjunga Conservation Area, which is home to endangered species such as the Red Panda, Snow Leopard and Himalayan Musk Deer. These animals are under threat of extinction due to forest clearance and the construction of the Pathivara cable car – however, no study has been carried out on the project’s impacts on these and other endangered species.
Although the Pathivara cable car project has extensive social and environmental impacts, no formal Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out. Instead, a much more limited Initial Environmental Examination was completed and only done after project approval – in breach of national laws. Section 6 of Nepal’s Environment Protection Act 1997 requires an EIA for any project that has a significant environmental impact.
“We have challenged this project in the Supreme Court on the grounds of violations of our lands, territories and resources as well as environmental destruction – where the case is sub judice,” says Advocate Shankar Limbu, Vice-Chair of Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP). “It is a clear case of violations of constitutional and 1774 Treaty rights of Indigenous Limbu nation, which is tantamount to cultural genocide.”
“Nepal’s government authorities and some parliamentarians have sacrificed the rights of Indigenous Limbus for the vested financial interests of a powerful business consortium by promoting the cable car project” says Prabindra Shakya, Convenor of Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE). “In advising this business group, the IFC – that has a mandate to improve lives of people – has added insult to injury, furthering this injustice against the Limbu nation.”
The IFC exited the project last year, which would normally block a complaint from being accepted. However, the complainants say they have a clear argument for eligibility given IFC’s lack of transparency about its involvement.
The IFC only disclosed the advisory project publicly in July 2024 – nearly two years after investing – and only confirmed its involvement in the Pathivara cable car in writing to affected communities on 19 May 2025, nine months after it had exited the investment.
“The IFC is currently consulting on its review of its Performance Standards and it clearly needs to improve the way it engages with Indigenous Peoples. It can start by meeting with them on their terms and learning from experiences like these where things have gone so badly wrong,” says Kate Geary, Programme Director for Rights and Accountability at Recourse.
In the complaint, Indigenous leaders and supporting organisations call on IFC to release all project documents, and urge that all encroachment on sacred sites ceases, security forces are withdrawn and the violence ends, an independent investigation into human rights abuses is commissioned, and construction is stopped until the project is brought into compliance and grievances are resolved, including through peacebuilding and reconciliation.
CONTACT:
Advocate Shankar Limbu, LAHURNIP: shankar1database@gmail.com, +977 9851 007932
Prabindra Shakya, AIPNEE: prabin@aipnee.org, +977 9860 980745
Kate Geary, Recourse: kate@re-course.org, +44 7393 189175
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Complainants to the case are leaders from the Indigenous Peoples Organisation of Limbu (Yakthung) nation, Kirat religious organisation and the Mukkumlung Conservation Joint Struggle Committee, supported by their legal counsel Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP) and advised by Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) and Recourse.
The formal complaint on the Pathivara cable car has been filed to the accountability mechanism of the International Finance Corporation, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).
Photo: A current cable car in Nepal. Image by Bhaskar Pyakurel via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0).
The Unfolding Crisis In Kaziranga: A Report On Illegal Land Acquisition For Luxury Tourism
This report examines the contentious land acquisition and development plans for a five-star hotel by Juniper Hotels (operating under the Hyatt global brand), and its associated partners in the immediate vicinity of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR), in the state of Assam, northeast India. The Kaziranga National Park is a globally significant UNESCO World Heritage Site.
This report highlights the inherent conflict wherein large-scale commercial tourism initiatives are ostensibly framed as catalysts for economic development. They are often seen to prioritise corporate interests over fundamental Indigenous rights and environmental sustainability, thereby challenging the normative principles of responsible tourism in ecologically sensitive domains.
This study details the impending displacement of forty-five Adivasi families of the Hatikhuli Bagicha village near the Kohora range of Kaziranga National Park, who are in imminent danger of the loss of their ancestral lands. These are portions of land, which they have cultivated and been taxed for generations at Inlay Pathar (‘pathar’ meaning agricultural field), situated near their village at Kohora, Kaziranga.
These lands that are on the periphery of the Kaziranga National Park were forcibly acquired by the Assam Tourism Development Corporation in June 2024. Subsequently, the Assam government announced that a five-star luxury hotel and cultural centre would be built on these lands. The acquisition at Inlay Pathar was forced upon by uninformed perimeter fencing, deployment of a police battalion to deter access to the affected farmers, and the commencement of building of a permanent structure in the demarcated area.
These actions signify a violation of established land rights and procedural justice, which the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Protection Committee (GKLHRPC) has been fighting for since 2022. The report highlights the systematically unlawful land acquisition process, the issues of human rights violations and displacement through case studies of the Adivasi families, and the absence of requisite clearances from the Forest Department and the State Board of Wildlife for the construction of a hotel of this magnitude on the immediate periphery of a National Park.
This briefer was produced by the GKLHRPC with assistance from the Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy.
Read the full report here: https://tinyurl.com/yn2xbbpy
