Participation Artifacts: Conservation and Climate Governance with Indigenous Amazonian Communities

Abstract

Indigenous participation is increasingly recognized as critical for effective climate change governance. However, a gap persists between global commitments and their implementation at local levels. This paper examines the challenges of participation in forest conservation initiatives, particularly how “participation artifacts”—tools, methodologies, and mechanisms designed to facilitate participatory processes—shape Indigenous inclusion in climate governance. Drawing on Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, we investigate how these artifacts mediate power dynamics and influence decision-making processes. Through a mixed-methods approach including interviews, participatory observation, and document analysis, we find that participation artifacts often create the appearance of inclusion while reproducing the marginalization of Indigenous communities. Despite the presence of advanced participatory mechanisms, these processes fail to address Indigenous priorities and perspectives effectively, perpetuating political and social exclusion. Instead of contributing to climate justice, such mechanisms maintain power imbalances, undermine Indigenous autonomy, and jeopardize access to forests, which are essential for Indigenous livelihoods. Findings highlight the urgent need to move beyond mere technical compliance with participatory norms toward a more genuine engagement with Indigenous knowledge, leadership, and priorities.

La participación indígena es cada vez más reconocida como un componente fundamental para una gobernanza climática efectiva. No obstante, persiste una brecha entre los compromisos asumidos a nivel global y su implementación en los ámbitos locales. Este artículo analiza los desafíos que plantea la participación en las iniciativas de conservación forestal, con especial énfasis en el modo en que los “artefactos de participación” —herramientas, metodologías y mecanismos diseñados para facilitar procesos participativos— configuran la inclusión indígena en la gobernanza del clima. A partir de la teoría del actor-red de Bruno Latour, se examina cómo dichos artefactos median las dinámicas de poder e inciden en los procesos de toma de decisiones. Mediante un enfoque metodológico mixto que incluye entrevistas, observación participante y análisis documental, se observa que los artefactos de participación suelen generar una apariencia de inclusión que, en realidad, reproduce la marginación de las comunidades indígenas. A pesar de la existencia de avanzados mecanismos participativos, estos procesos no logran incorporar de manera efectiva las prioridades ni las perspectivas indígenas, perpetuando así su exclusión política y social. En lugar de promover la justicia climática, dichos mecanismos tienden a preservar los desequilibrios de poder, socavar la autonomía indígena y poner en riesgo el acceso a los bosques, fundamentales para sus medios de vida. Los hallazgos evidencian la necesidad urgente de trascender el cumplimiento meramente técnico de las normas de participación y avanzar hacia un involucramiento genuino con los conocimientos, el liderazgo y las prioridades de los pueblos indígenas.

Indigenous participation in climate change governance is increasingly recognized as crucial for effective policies and actions aimed at conserving forests and mitigating environmental impacts (IPCC, 2023; Carmona, Carril, and Yon, 2023). Efforts have been made to incorporate Indigenous perspectives and demands into key international agreements such as the Paris Agreement (Sarmiento Barletti, Prouchet, and Larson, 2023). Indigenous organizations have actively engaged in global climate governance processes, leading to the establishment of initiatives like the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and the Indigenous Pavilion at the Conferences of Parties (Schlosberg and Collins, 2014; Claeys and Delgado, 2017). However, challenges persist for Indigenous organizations to exert real influence within a climate governance framework dominated by states (Tormos-Aponte, 2021; Whyte, 2020).

In the domain of climate change conservation, initiatives to mitigate its impacts involve protecting habitats, promoting biodiversity, and implementing sustainable practices, particularly in ecosystems like the tropical Amazon. However, climate action carried out in these territories is criticized by Indigenous peoples’ organizations—not because it neglects local participation, including that of Indigenous communities, but because this participation fails to meaningfully incorporate their perspectives on transformative climate justice (Newell et al., 2021). The paradox highlighted by these mounting critiques from Indigenous organizations is that even as the sophistication of participatory mechanisms has advanced, the substantive inclusion of their perspectives in climate action remains deficient.

Indigenous organizations such as the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP) and the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) advocate for more inclusive processes that genuinely incorporate their voices and integrate solutions based on their knowledge and perspectives. One example is the development of the Amazonian Indigenous REDD initiative (Espinoza, 2014; Dupuits and Cronkleton, 2020), which was established to address concerns regarding emerging market schemes like REDD+ (Aguilar-Støen, 2017; Espinoza, 2022). However, despite a growing global consensus on the importance of Indigenous participation, their actual contribution to mitigation and adaptation efforts depends on the extent to which states facilitate their engagement and effective involvement at national and sub-national levels (IPCC, 2022). It is at these levels that significant challenges persist in how participation processes are finally implemented (Paredes and Kaulard, 2023; 2020; Merino and Gustafsson, 2021).

This paper examines the translation of participation values from global rhetoric to local practice within the context of climate change conservation, as well as its consequences on effective political participation of Indigenous peoples in the climate governance of their territories. It emphasizes the pivotal role of “participation artifacts” in shaping participatory processes. Drawing on Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, the concept of “participation artifacts” refers to tangible elements that mediate actor networks, influencing social interactions and shaping the reality and efficacy of participatory processes (Latour, 2005). These artifacts encompass a wide array of objects, tools, methodologies, and devices used in participatory processes, significantly impacting power dynamics and the nature of participation (Latour, 2005).

In the case of conservation areas, a variety of participation artifacts (including participatory appraisal studies, multi-actor platforms, and prior consultation protocols) act as intermediaries, facilitating interactions among state, non-governmental actors, and Indigenous communities in decision-making processes related to forest conservation management and climate change adaptation and mitigation programs in these areas. This study specifically analyzes how these participation artifacts influence Indigenous participation in the context of the San Martín region of the Peruvian Amazon Rainforest. We argue that participation artifacts “reify” the value of participation, creating a misleading impression that participation is valuable and meaningful when, in fact, it often falls short of addressing the genuine concerns of Indigenous communities. This situation impedes the authentic, meaningful, and equitable involvement of Indigenous communities in decision-making processes within protected areas and climate change governance. Ultimately, this study aims to contribute insights that can inform the development of more inclusive and effective policies and practices in forest management and climate change adaptation within the Peruvian Amazon.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach—comprising qualitative interviews, document analysis, and participant observation with indigenous communities in the Cordillera Escalera Regional Conservation Area (CE-RCA) in San Martín—to illuminate the intricate interplay between participation artifacts, Indigenous inclusion, and climate governance. We selected the San Martín region because it exemplifies the implementation of advanced participation mechanisms supported by significant budgets, methodologies, and capacities, facilitated by a relatively capable regional state and the presence of international cooperation. San Martín represents an “extreme case” (Seawright and Gerring, 2008), allowing us to focus on the impact of these mechanisms without overly concerning ourselves with their administrative execution.

Data was collected over the course of 5 years through five field trips to San Martín. The 77 qualitative interviews and workshops conducted with approximately 70 participants in the area capture the nuanced perspectives and experiences of key stakeholders within this particular protected forest. Document analysis provides insights into existing policies and practices since the creation of the conservation area, while participatory observation offers understanding of the dynamics within participatory processes. The research team followed ethical protocols approved by a certified ethics committee and ensured the anonymization of all testimonies.

The paper is divided into six sections. Apart from this introduction, section 2 discusses the literature on climate change governance and the participation artifacts embedded in it. Section 3 then explains the context of participation in climate conservation in the Peruvian Amazon, while section 4 analyzes the implementation of participation artifacts in CE-RCA. Finally, section 5 presents a discussion and conclusions.

Participation Artifacts In Climate Change Governance

The establishment of global climate governance, formalized with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, coincided with a notable shift in the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, particularly in Latin America. Indigenous organizations and their allies have actively shaped the “global public sphere” (Sassen, 2007) through networks, negotiations, and lobbying efforts, challenging the prevailing assimilationist view of Indigenous Peoples under International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 107 (Shawoo and Thornton, 2019; Wallbott, 2014). This convention aimed to “include” Indigenous “populations” without acknowledging them as distinct “Peoples” with their own collective cultures and territories (Mereminskaya, 2011). The efforts along these lines led to the passage of ILO Convention 169 in 1989, a landmark global legislation that formally recognized Indigenous Peoples as rights-holding Peoples and guaranteed specific collective recognition commitments from states within the international system (Kania, 2016: 20).

Although there is a growing acknowledgment of the importance of Indigenous participation in the global fight for climate justice, the challenge lies in transferring the idea of participation from global discourse into local implementation. Criticism is aimed at participation processes rooted in the “new public management” paradigm, which emerged in the 1990s to address democratic governance challenges (Baiocchi and Ganuza, 2017). Despite claiming to enhance citizen engagement, these approaches often fall short of fully integrating people into decision-making processes. As a result, the effectiveness of these approaches remains uncertain, and they frequently reinforce existing authority structures (Walker, McQuarrie, and Lee, 2015: 4). Challenges are particularly notable for participatory mechanisms designed for Indigenous peoples. While many Latin American countries ratified the ILO Convention 169 in the 1990s, implementation varies, offering limited genuine opportunities for Indigenous decision-making (Merino, 2018; Flemmer and Schilling-Vacaflor, 2016; Wright and Tomaselli, 2019). Local Indigenous organizations face additional barriers, including intercultural differences, unequal resource access, and limited access to unbiased information (Zaremberg and Torres-Wong, 2018).

In the context of climate change mitigation and forest conservation, participation has become increasingly prominent, particularly in the governance of natural protected areas. Funding driving conservation programs in the Amazon regions is tied to demands for enhanced participatory processes (Sarmiento Barletti, Prouchet, and Larson, 2023). Initiatives like the IUCN’s Green List and established safeguards underscore a “participatory mandate,” requiring processes like prior consultation and participatory planning (Mannigel, 2008). Despite the allocation of significant resources—including modern materials, specialized human capital, and sophisticated methodologies (Rodríguez et al., 2018; Engen et al., 2018)—participation in practice remains inadequate.

The literature assessing the implementation of the participatory mandate in the conservation context highlights ongoing obstacles. The dominance of the “fortress conservation” model, based on the creation of strictly regulated protected areas, has resulted in disproportionate power held by state or NGO administrators of protected areas, hindering the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent (Sarmiento Barletti, Prouchet, and Larson, 2023: 6; Paredes and Kaulard, 2023). Safeguard implementation rarely adjusts to local realities; participation standards have scarce financing and are thus reduced to minimal “do no harm” requirements (Duchelle and Jagger, 2014). While co-management models aim to address power imbalances and involve Indigenous peoples based on their knowledge systems, they remain limited in scope and pose operational and representational challenges (Palacios Llaque and Sarmiento Barletti, 2021). All this literature argues that Indigenous communities often face limited involvement or inclusion from state-led conservation initiatives, despite the deployment of participatory processes, leading to severe consequences such as ancestral land dispossession and restricted access to forest resources, undermining Indigenous Peoples’ autonomy and livelihoods (Rasmussen, 2018; Naidu, 2013; Ojeda, 2012).

In this paper, we argue that participation artifacts, such as participatory appraisal studies (PAS), multi-stakeholder platforms (MSP), and prior consultation protocols, play a crucial role in shaping participatory processes within climate change conservation programs, acting as intermediaries between global discourses on participation and its often ineffective implementation. These tangible, registrable, and verifiable artifacts (Latour, 2005; Li, 2015) enable governance bodies at the local level to manage the flow of programs and funding from the global to the local scale. They create the impression that participation has been diligently carried out, projecting a symbolic representation of technical processes (Ferguson, 1990) containing verifiable products like meeting records, participant lists, and photographs. The artifacts appear to reflect comprehensive participation but usually fail to address the needs and perspectives of all the parties involved, particularly those with less power.

The fact is that these artifacts define how, when, under what model, and in what manner participants should behave (Li, 2015; Quaghebeur, Masschelein, and Nguyen, 2004). They also authorize a specific body of knowledge, reinforcing enabling assumptions while constraining critiques of hegemonic ways of knowing (Li, 2015) and of alternative forms of organization and participation.

Furthermore, by “reifying” participation, the execution of these artifacts can mistakenly convey the idea that participation is comprehensive and impactful when in reality, it may perpetuate existing power dynamics without addressing the genuine concerns of marginalized stakeholders. This is particularly the case for vulnerable groups such as the Amazonian Indigenous peoples, whose livelihoods are tied to ancestral forest lifestyles, and whose access and autonomous control are undermined by a governance system that conducts participative processes in a largely symbolic manner.

Although our study focuses on Indigenous peoples, the implications of the limitations and problems of participatory artifacts are by no means restricted to them. Yet Indigenous groups have taken the lead in politicizing such problems, articulating their struggle for the forest as part of their collective survival as peoples and as an integral part of a larger struggle for territorial rights. Non-Indigenous local actors, who are normally referred to as mestizos or colonos due to their migration into these areas, usually seek an individual defense of their rights to local participation. In economic terms, those organized into cooperatives receive more attention, especially ones involved in crops such as coffee, cacao, and palm. This is particularly visible during election periods since mestizos constitute a demographic majority. Nevertheless, political attention is often directed toward large organizations, which results in the continued exclusion of small groups. It is this politicization of identity and belonging that has better equipped them to voice their concerns more explicitly and loudly regarding effective participation.

While artifacts play a significant mediating role, we highlight the fact that they are of human creation, inscribed in configurations of unequal social relations and subject to the wielding and manipulation of power. Drawing on Marcuse (2004), we suggest that these artifacts are not neutral and are surreptitiously steeped with the power relations and dominant ideologies of the society in which they are created. They can therefore mirror and reproduce structures of domination and exclusion, especially in contexts of stark inequality. Consequently, their use and perpetuation (while not meeting the demands of Indigenous communities) serves to reproduce the position and practices of other powerful actors, most notably states, broader systems of international cooperation, and climate governance.

Participation In Climate Conservation In The Peruvian Amazon

Conservation efforts in the Peruvian Amazon trace back to the 1960s (Orihuela, 2020), but the emergence of climate change governance in the 2000s revitalized these efforts, particularly within the Amazon rainforest (Paredes and Kaulard, 2020). Despite challenges, Peru gradually embraced new environmental institutions, norms, and programs with substantial international support. In the 1990s, however, conservation governance remained ineffective due to a lack of enforcement capacity and autonomy from the productive sectors—including the 1992 creation of the National Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) within the Ministry of Agriculture. During the 1990s and 2010s, the environmental sector in Peru lacked the resources and capacity to effectively manage newly established protected areas (Pulgar-Vidal, 2008; Gamboa, 2022). As a result, a top-down, yet largely unenforced approach to conservation was adopted (Dourojeanni, 2018; Rodríguez Castañeda, 2018), leading affected Indigenous populations to refrain from lodging complaints or protests given the nominal establishment of protected areas.

The Ministry of Environment (MINAM) was created in 2008 through the restructuring of environmental governance and, according to Orihuela and Paredes (2017), it attempted to achieve a degree of autonomy. This process merged the National Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) into the newly created National Service of Protected Natural Areas (SERNANP), currently in charge of the management of Peru’s 246 natural protected areas. These comprise 66 National Protected Areas (NPAs), 32 Regional Conservation Areas (RCAs), 138 private conservation areas, and only 10 communal reserves co-managed with Indigenous communities (SERNANP, 2024). With the introduction of early climate financing initiatives and international support (Che Piu and García, 2011), climate conservation gained momentum: within six years of MINAM’s establishment, 55 protected natural areas were designated, surpassing the 69 created in the preceding 46 years between 1961 and 2007.

Indigenous Peoples’ rights to consultation were largely ignored in the establishment of most conservation areas in the Amazon until the formal enactment of the Prior Consultation Law (PCL, 29785) in 2011. The Law and the agency tasked with its implementation, the Vice Ministry of Interculturality within the Ministry of Culture, came only after a violent clash between Indigenous organizations and the state, famously known as the “Baguazo” (Paredes, 2023). Since its enactment, the PCL has facilitated the formal involvement of Indigenous Peoples in national climate and conservation policies, such as the Forestry Law (N°29763) regulations and the Climate Change Law (N°30754) regulation, leading to the establishment of the Indigenous Peoples’ Platform to Address Climate Change (PPICC) in 2020. Yet, the PCL has faced significant controversy, with scholars highlighting various implementation deficiencies (Flemmer, 2023; Diez, 2021). A key issue is the PCL’s failure to amend prior legislation on Indigenous affairs, which categorizes individual Indigenous communities as distinct entities rather than cohesive Peoples, thus perpetuating a fragmented state approach to consultations.

At the regional level, Peru has decentralized forest and agricultural functions to regional governments since 2002. The regional government of San Martín established a robust institutional framework for environmental conservation, including the creation of the first Regional Environmental Authority (ARA), the development of Economic Ecological Zoning, and the establishment of Regional Conservation Areas (RCAs) (Chinchay, 2022; Kaulard, 2021; Augusto, 2018). As a result, the government allocated 65% of regional land for ecological protection and conservation zones (GORESAM et al., 2009: 10). Unfortunately, Indigenous land titling remains insufficient in San Martín, with only 54% of native communities holding formal collective titles (IBC, 2025). Moreover, only 11 prior consultation processes have been conducted in protected natural areas in Peru, with just 5 occurring in Regional Conservation Areas and none in San Martín (MINCUL, 2024).

In response to the increasing capacity of the regional government to enforce and administer protected areas, local restrictions were imposed on land use by Indigenous peoples for family agriculture, hunting, and titling of ancestral territories, often overlapping with current and proposed protected areas. To address these and other needs, they organized into federations: the Coordinator for the Development and Defense of Indigenous Peoples of the San Martín Region (CODEPISAM) is the regional federation, consisting of eight local federations. Notably, three local federations play an important role in the demands and complaints against the creation and functioning of the CE-RCA: The Ethnic Council of Kichwa Peoples of the Amazon (CEPKA), founded in 2001, represents 42 communities; the Federation of Kichwa Indigenous Peoples of Chazuta (FEPIKECHA), established in 2010, represents 11 communities from the Lower Huallaga area; and the Federation of Kichwa Indigenous Peoples of the Lower Huallaga Region of San Martín (FEPIKBHSAM), founded in 2013, represents 9 communities (GIZ, 2016; interviews with their respective presidents, October 2022).

Participation Artifacts And Ineffective Indigenous Engagement In The Cordillera Escalera Regional Conservation Area (Ce-Rca)

The Cordillera Escalera Regional Conservation Area (CE-RCA), established in 2005, covers an area of 149,870 hectares and five river basins across the provinces of Lamas and San Martín. Part of a wider environmental policy by the regional government of San Martín, the leadership of regional governor Cesar Villanueva established the CE RCA as Peru’s first RCA. Accordingly, regional authorities argued that “the park is a water-producing ecosystem for 300,000 people and therefore biodiversity can be converted into a great landscape beauty investment” (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023). The creation of the CE-RCA marked a significant shift in the region’s stance on extractivism, specifically the opposition to Oil Block 103 located in the Amazon rainforest near Indigenous territories, which was targeted for exploitation by the central government (Merino and Chinchay, 2022). Concerns about potential water scarcity in urban centers prompted the formation of an environmental coalition between civil society organizations and regional authorities (interview with local NGO, September 23, 2019). The coalition was mainly formed by urban residents, environmentalists, and members of Tarapoto’s civil society (as the main city and economic center of San Martín), with some involvement of Indigenous communities. The coalition was successful in opposing the extractive agenda, resulting in the suspension of oil activities in the block.

Despite this celebratory spirit, the authorities who created the CE-RCA did not consider it necessary to conduct an Indigenous prior consultation. Although Peru’s international commitment to respecting the right to consultation for Indigenous Peoples was formalized in 1994 with the ratification of the 169 ILO Convention, it was not until 2011 that specific regulations were implemented in Peru to comply with this commitment. In addition, the establishment and administration of the CE-RCA have sparked conflicts due to their overlaps with the ancestral territories of the Shawi and Kichwa Indigenous Peoples. Legal experts in Indigenous rights criticize the conservative interpretation of the Forest Law (29763), particularly its reluctance to grant land titles to Indigenous communities within conservation areas (interview with legal expert, September 12, 2023). ¹

NGOs and public officials in charge of the establishment and management of these areas have promoted participatory processes aimed at fulfilling international standards of participation. However, our ethnographic research shows that despite such participatory processes, Indigenous Peoples are dissatisfied with their implementation and results. In the following sections, we explain the mediating role of participation artifacts in shaping these outcomes: the participatory appraisal studies (PAS), the multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs), and attempts at implementing Prior Consultation Law (PCL) protocols in the development of the master plan. ²

Participatory Appraisal Studies (Pas)

PAS typically involves activities such as sensitization workshops, interviews, and collective information-gathering sessions for community engagement. The CE-RCA’s PAS was conducted by local NGOs from 2001 to 2002. Our research findings underscore the CE-RCA’s vital role as a water source, provider of ecosystem services, biodiversity hub, and avenue for sustainable economic opportunities. According to a representative from the San Martín Regional government, this PAS included both an inventory and a biological assessment (interview, September 23, 2019). The representative stated that the PAS was developed in collaboration with regional research institutions and through consultation processes with local populations, concluding on the necessity of establishing a CE-RCA. The PAS methodology aimed to engage local communities in the inventory process, with NGOs facilitating workshops to collect information from the communities (interview with a local NGO, September 23, 2019).

As a participation artifact, PAS offers a wide range of variable products and activities. However, it can constrain the active and uninhibited engagement of Indigenous communities. PAS tends to prioritize information collection and dissemination over deliberative dialogue and shared decision-making. Indigenous leaders traditionally find verbal agreements sufficient in meetings; they prioritize dialogue over formal documentation to reach decisions and agreements (interview with Kichwa leader 1, October 14, 2022). From the state’s perspective, however, participation is bureaucratic, driven by legal logic, and external to the negotiation itself. This discord can lead to uncertainty regarding the decision-making processes. Indigenous leaders express frustration with the bureaucratic nature of participation, where decisions are perceived to be ultimately made by higher authorities such as ARA or in Lima, rather than in collaboration with them, despite their part in prolonged participative sessions (interview with Kichwa leader 1, October 14, 2022). For Indigenous communities, engagements that lack negotiations and decision-making are often incomprehensible and unsatisfactory (interviews with Kichwa leaders 1 and 2, October 14, 2022; Kichwa leader, October 13, 2022; Member of technical team of Kichwa federation, October 15, 2022).

Furthermore, the PAS conducted for the establishment of CE-RCA presents a selective agenda, focusing on individual aspects of the forest while neglecting others, notably the full extent of the impact on Indigenous communities and lands. The study’s methodology only considered titled communities, effectively treating those without land titles as “non-existent” and thus overlooking their concerns and interests. This biased approach resulted in participatory activities with various actors taking place while systematically excluding Indigenous communities lacking formal tenure rights (interview with a legal expert, September 12, 2023, and CE-RCA specialist, September 23, 2019). Consequently, these marginalized communities were rendered invisible in the decision-making process, perpetuating their disenfranchisement (interview, September 20, 2019). Despite mounting criticism, authorities have defended this methodology, arguing that it strictly adheres to legal and technical parameters.

The initial 2007 CE-RCA master plan and its subsequent update in 2014 was crafted with the use of participatory appraisals and informational workshops. This is in accordance with Peruvian regulations mandating participatory consultation with local communities. As stated in the 2014-2019 Master Plan, it represents “the outcome of a systematic and participatory process - involving authorities and community residents, grassroots organizations, the Coordinator for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of the San Martín Region (CODEPISAM), as well as public and private institutions - of collecting, analyzing, disseminating, and validating information” (PEHCBM, 2014: 1). The problem lies in the selective criteria of this approach to participation: not all Indigenous communities were included in this participation process and therefore, many were not aware of the existence of the master plan and its update. This is important because the master plan marks the zoning of the special or restrictive use of land within and outside the park’s buffer zones. According to some Kichwa community members, the park seemed to materialize out of nowhere, catching them off guard regarding its creation plans (workshop with community members, September 4, 2023). While park rangers sought community input to identify vulnerable areas for protection within the conservation area, not all community members were informed through the participatory process. More importantly, most of these communities had never heard of this participatory justification study, nor were they aware that there was such a thing as a protected area and park rangers.

In sum, the PAS as a participation artifact facilitated systematic activities and efforts for a more participatory decision-making process (interview with ex-governmental representative, September 20, 2019). However, its primarily informative and legalistic nature served to reinforce existing power dynamics rather than facilitating genuine dialogue or recognizing Indigenous agency. Consequently, some communities questioned the legitimacy of the park and contested its establishment.

The Management Committee As A Multi-Stakeholder Platform (Msp)

MSPs are a pivotal participation artifact within the CE-RCA’s participatory strategy. These MSPs are proposed to bring diverse actors together for coordinated and collective decision-making towards sustainable land use and to empower and benefit local peoples through participation (Gonzales Tovar et al., 2020). For example, the management committee of the CE-RCA comprises diverse stakeholder organizations from buffer zones or within the RCA, including neighboring individuals and businesses (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023). However, literature suggests that the effectiveness of these artifacts in facilitating Indigenous participation may vary (Gonzales Tovar et al., 2020). Here, we analyze how the multi-stakeholder participatory strategy has failed to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities in the decision-making process.

Despite the formal structure designed to facilitate inclusivity, Indigenous communities have faced significant obstacles in achieving meaningful participation within the CE-RCA management committee, which initially adopted a representation model encompassing diverse interest groups, regardless of ethnicity (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023). Only in recent years was an interest group for Interculturality and Community Relations created within the committee. However, regional environmental authorities have consistently favored representation based on local residency over cultural identity, arguing that demographic shifts necessitate a more inclusive approach to representation. They contend that “over time, the population grows, people mix, they undergo certain transformations. The issue is how all of us, whether we are natives or mestizos, are clear about this space” (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023). Consequently, representation on the CE-RCA management committee is closely tied to the idea of “diversity” and a rather loose selection criteria employed by park authorities to determine who conservation concessionaires are and who must be represented.

The CE-RCA management recognizes only specific communities as conservation concessionaires and establishes individual conservation agreements with them (interview with the leader of an ecological Indigenous association, July 31, 2019). This approach involves selecting and inviting members of these individual communities or associations to participate in committees, rather than pursuing a more complex and political process of engagement with organizations such as Indigenous federations. The loose criteria hidden in the “diverse nature” of the MSP generate mistrust. While agreements with select families and organizations offer economic benefits to participating communities, they underscore disparities in representation within the committee and foster a general mistrust towards the intentions of the CE-RCA management (interview with a member of an ecological association in CE-RCA, June 2019).

The participation of Indigenous collective organizations such as federations is particularly significant given the role of the management committee in legitimizing the CE-RCA zoning process. Zoning holds paramount importance for Indigenous peoples’ collective livelihoods, who view the park as a source of essential resources vital for their traditional and collective lifestyles, akin to a pharmacy, supermarket, and hardware store (interview with the Indigenous leader, March 8, 2023). Our findings revealed substantial criticism regarding the committee’s discussion of zoning within the master plan, and above all, a pervasive sense of distrust, exacerbated by the absence of Indigenous collective representation in these discussions. A legal expert we interviewed highlighted that the CE-RCA management, with the backing of the committee, solely disseminated pre-determined information provided by the management’s technicians, failing to provide genuine opportunities for Indigenous voices to participate in this process (interview with legal expert, September 12, 2023). We find this to be an example of how these artifacts interact with the legacy of the past. The original Law on Native Communities and Agrarian Development of the Jungle and the Ceja de Selva (22175) shapes a common approach taken by states and NGOs that views communities as isolated entities rather than parts of a larger structure of Indigenous Peoples’. This perspective is reflected in participation artifacts, which often engage only selected communities based on state criteria, subsequently sidelining representative organizations and limiting broader Indigenous participation.

While formal representation of Indigenous communities was not required at the table, there was concern about the participation of some Indigenous neighbors from the buffer zone in the management committee. Initially, individuals from Shawi and Kichwa communities were included; however, following their departure, the committee did not replace them. Since there was no official representation for Indigenous peoples, Indigenous leaders identified the voluntary nature of individual participation in these committees as an issue. Furthermore, as there is no formal quota for Indigenous representation, their participation was not considered in the budget. The distances and mobilization costs in the Amazon, coupled with the significant financial inequalities faced by Indigenous leaders compared to other actors, were not accounted for (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023; interview with Kichwa leaders, September 4 and 23, 2023). As tensions escalated and the few remaining Indigenous members withdrew from the committee, the park leadership opted to appoint an interim committee mainly composed of local non-Indigenous residents.

The management committee’s use of a multi-stakeholder participation methodology committee has significant implications. At first glance, it creates the impression that all stakeholders are represented, but the fact is that the park leadership made the committee appointments. Additionally, this selective approach leads to divisions among Kichwa communities, as only individuals considered “less contentious” are included in discussions and identified as conservation concessionaires. Such negative experiences have fostered the perception that participation in the committee is unfavorable, with Indigenous voices inadequately represented. Kichwa federations now question the procedural and legalistic nature of this participation artifact, which, despite its formal structure, limits the substantive inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in climate justice and safeguards. Viewed through the prism of artifact functions, such as MSP, their application in the management of conservation areas emerges as influential in shaping the dynamics of participation and Indigenous representation within the context of CE-RCA.

Prior Consultation As The Master Participation Artifact

Although Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is celebrated worldwide as a crucial advancement for Indigenous rights and participation, its practical application at the local level involves specific protocols and methodologies that act as participation artifacts. These methodologies play a mediating role among various stakeholders during the consultation process. In Peru, FPIC has faced challenges in its local implementation (Flemmer and Schilling-Vacaflor, 2016). The relationship between the CE-RCA and FPIC illustrates how this artifact shapes the struggle for participatory processes within the CE-RCA, often perpetuating inequalities among stakeholders.

The absence of FPIC during the establishment of the CE-RCA in 2005 and subsequent unsuccessful attempts to implement it in the last two master plans (2014, 2017) has significantly shaped the participation process. Despite Peru’s earlier ratification of the ILO convention committing to upholding Indigenous rights, the state only recognized its obligation after the enactment of the PCL in 2011. Consequently, FPIC was not applied to the CE-RCA, like many other protected areas established before the PCL’s enactment (Paredes and Kaulard, 2020; Valderrama, 2017). In the case of the CE-RCA, this absence led to conflict between Indigenous federations and subnational state authorities, as the issue of meaningful participation remained unresolved. The lack of FPIC implementation escalated the conflict to the courts. While the regional government and environmental NGOs argue that the PCL and its regulations do not mandate prior consultation for the creation of the RCA, citing the non-retroactive nature of the PCL, Indigenous federations in San Martín have garnered support from national and international Indigenous rights organizations to challenge this stance. Through CEPKA, they argue that the Peruvian state, by ratifying the ILO convention in 1994, had already committed to respecting Indigenous land rights, irrespective of specific laws (Bravo Mego, 2019; Ruiz, 2017). This argument aligns with the Inter-American Court’s interpretation, emphasizing that formal recognition does not create Indigenous communities but rather acknowledges their pre-existing status (interview with legal expert, September 12, 2023).

Discussion on FPIC implementation resurfaced during the 2014 update of the master plan, albeit with a different approach. The ARA and the management committee initiated the PCL process to consult on the 2014 master plan, conducting extensive workshops that culminated in a vision for the CE-RCA (Medina Revilla, 2016). The Vice Ministry of Interculturality accredited and trained representatives from various Indigenous communities in the buffer zone of the RCA for this process. As a result, a roadmap was developed to identify all affected communities to ensure their inclusion and protection of collective rights (Inforegión, 2014). Additionally, Indigenous federation representatives proposed four meetings in order to become familiar with the consultation process before fieldwork began (Medina Revilla, 2016). However, the consultation was halted by the regional government during the identification stage of Indigenous Peoples (Chaparro, 2019; Inforegión, 2014; 2015) and it was never finalized.

A new attempt to conduct prior consultation for CE-RCA’s master plan renewal failed once again as the deadline to approve a new master plan in 2018 approached. The repetitive frustration of implementing this artifact, along with the expectations it had generated among the Indigenous population, shaped an increasingly conflictive relationship between the CE-RCA authorities and the Indigenous federations. In 2018, workshops were planned as part of the master plan update to engage Indigenous communities. The regional government expressed a willingness to listen to their concerns and mitigate conflicts, even for communities without previous land titles (interview with local NGO, September 23, 2023). However, the regional government, accused the oil company of also claiming prior rights in the CE-RCA area. With the support of former regional president Villanueva, who was serving as Peru’s prime minister, they legally excluded the oil company from the master plan approval process and published the 2018 master plan without consultation (interview with former environmental official, July 13, 2019).

While tensions rose and prior consultation failed to materialize, a growing recognition of the need to implement PCL before the master plan update began to develop within CE-RCA. However, Kichwa federations, especially those in the Bajo Huallaga valley, were unifying, informing themselves, and gaining a better understanding of participation artifacts like prior consultation. Some leaders were realizing that the consultation process proposed by the CE-RCA jefatura was a closed system, allowing dialogue and participation only within predetermined parameters; although the prior consultation specifically addressed the leadership’s master plan proposal, discussions about territory overlap issues or titles were excluded. This realization led several leaders to conclude that the predetermined protocols for prior consultation did not safeguard their rights but rather legitimized the protected areas established without their consent, adversely impacting their territory and livelihoods.

Such participation artifacts, as observed in other contexts (see Li, 2015, on the EIA in Conga), can provoke both acceptance and rejection behaviors, polarizing relationships among stakeholders. Resistance to participatory processes lacking genuine involvement has prompted some federations and communities to seek direct negotiations with national government sectors, such as the Ministry of Agriculture (interview with Indigenous leader, March 7, 2023).

Discussion and Conclusions

This article reflected on the intricate relationship between participation artifacts and their impact on participation processes with Indigenous peoples within the context of conservation and climate change initiatives. We examined how participation artifacts can inadvertently perpetuate historical inequalities rather than prioritize the inclusion of key stakeholders, notably Indigenous peoples. This presents a paradox given that the origin of these methodologies is based on Paulo Freire’s popular education movement (1968), which sought to empower marginalized communities by fostering participation and critical consciousness. Unfortunately, some of these methods have strayed from their emancipatory intent, becoming superficial procedures devoid of substantive content.

Nonetheless, these methods continue to exert significant influence, as we have shown. There are several key takeaways that our findings show: Firstly, one reason for this deviation may be the coopting of these methodologies by powerful actors who seek to comply with formal participation requirements of global climate governance without truly engaging in a meaningful process of transformative justice. This creates superficial participatory processes and participation artifacts that overlook the real needs and concerns of communities. Secondly, when these participatory processes produce tangible consequences for Indigenous peoples because they do not adequately reflect their voices, these artifacts have the effect of shaping additional processes that cause harm and reproduce inequalities. These artifacts serve to portray a diligent effort to include diverse stakeholders, when in practice, they often obscure or collect information rather than engage in collaborative decision-making processes where outcomes are not predetermined. Consequently, systemic inequalities are sustained under the guise of a deceptive narrative regarding participation. Not surprisingly, Indigenous Peoples question the legitimacy of the participation artifacts.

Thirdly, these artifacts appear to promote inclusiveness, but in practice embody practices that continue perceiving Indigenous participation through the lens of old frameworks of laws that recognize individual Indigenous communities, but largely pass over their broader organizational structures. By excluding rather than including, these artifacts also provoke stronger Indigenous contestation. Over time, Indigenous federations have gained strength and improved organization, enabling them to challenge these exclusionary methods of participation that undermine their representative authority.

Fourth, Peru’s development and implementation of participation processes through well-organized methods with visible and measurable results are desirable and commendable. However, following the analysis of the “anti-politics machine” proposed by Ferguson (1990), it is important to reflect on the extent to which these participation methodologies may be serving to depoliticize social and ethnic issues. They may do so by framing them as technical problems to be solved through bureaucratic, systematic, and legal procedures. Or, more importantly, they may aim to depoliticize Indigenous rights and grievances by channeling them into predefined processes that ultimately do not challenge existing power structures or address underlying issues of marginalization and injustice (Jones, Reid, and Macmillan, 2024).

While recognizing the significant mediating role of artifacts, our analysis finds that they operate within contexts of profound inequality, perpetuating discriminatory perspectives toward Indigenous communities. For instance, some argue that Indigenous communities have only recently identified as such in order to gain advantages over non-Indigenous people who believe they are denied the benefits of specialized legislation aimed at protecting their land rights (interview with jefatura, September 12, 2023). Additionally, the narrow agendas of artifacts often fail to consider the historical legacies of colonization in San Martín and their profound impact on the fragmented territories and ways of life of the Kichwa. Rather than being solely driven by economic interests, the recent organizational capacity and resurgence of Indigenous self-identification among communities reflect a deeper process of identity reconstruction (interview with a Kichwa leader, September 9, 2023). Consequently, stigma and discrimination against Indigenous communities persist through participation artifacts, undermining opportunities for meaningful engagement and negotiation towards just climate action.