Marian Ahn Thorpe

Marian Ahn Thorpe

Doctoral Candidate
Department of Anthropology
Rutgers University

What does it mean to for an Indigenous group to be consulted about a development project? Activists have long lobbied for states to recognize Indigenous peoples’ right to be consulted about projects that affect their lands and livelihoods. But consultation—and its stronger counterpart, consent—are ambiguous, with multiple uses and stakes for Indigenous peoples and states alike. My research examines how Ngäbe Indigenous leaders and the Panamanian state deploy the concepts of informed consultation and consent in negotiations over mines, hydroelectric dams, and other types of development in western Panama. By highlighting the versatility of these concepts, I aim to broaden our understanding of human rights, and contribute to interdisciplinary debates about natural resource conflicts, economic development, and environmental justice movements.

Learn more here

In August of 2016, Panama’s National Assembly passed a law entitled, “Establishing the right of prior, free, and informed consultation and consent of Panama’s original peoples.” The new law, known as Law 37, exemplifies an international Indigenous right called Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), which holds that governments, developers, and other entities must seek the informed, un-coerced consent of Indigenous peoples regarding projects and policies that affect their communities. While Law 37 has been hailed as an important advancement for Panama’s Indigenous peoples, the actual text of the law reproduces many of the practical and conceptual problems that activists and scholars have identified as undermining the effectiveness of FPIC policies worldwide.

Examining Law 37 through a wide theoretical lens informed by gender studies, development studies, Indigenous studies, and medical anthropology, I argue that the law ostensibly offers Indigenous peoples greater self-determination and increased state accountability while also setting in place the conditions for greater state control of Indigenous populations. Given Law 37’s apparent multiplicity of purpose, I encourage activists and scholars to ask not why FPIC legislation fails, but what such legislation does accomplish and how.

Controversies of Consent: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent as a Form of State Control in Panama