From 2019 to 2022 over 125 interviews realised with women affected by the implementation of the CIIT infrastructure project, members of NGOs or civil society organisations, public officials, journalists, academics, and Indigenous intellectuals and artists, among others. The interviews were transcribed and the data systematised and analysed with the open source software QDA Miner Lite.
This research found widespread discontent regarding the information about the Interoceanic Corridor infrastructure project that was disseminated by state agencies. Local residents felt they received more adequate and reliable information through social networks or civil society organisations. Whilst a series of information events regarding the project was carried out by government agencies, in 2019 and 2020 especially, there were reports of procedural flaws, violations, and exclusions of rights holders. Thus, these events cannot count to fully comply with the ILO standards for Indigenous consultations according to C169. There was a strong sense among a large part of the population in the Isthmus region that there would not be any concrete benefits for them from the project. Local business owners and unions with connections to the political elite were seen as principal future beneficiaries. There was a diverse range of negative impacts that were already experienced by some residents, among them eviction and displacement, loss of livelihood resulting from removal of vegetation, and disruptions of herding schemes through the construction work. A range of conflicts have emerged between different population groups, some to do with access to work or supplier contracts, and others with disputes over changes of land use, the latter leading to the most serious clashes. Even in its initial stage, the infrastructure project has caused security-related impacts among particular communities and actors. In particular, oppositional actors and social movement leaders suffered from verbal and physical threats, as well as rights violations. There were fears around the social, cultural, economic and environmental changes that this infrastructure project will entail. Among them were, in particular, the industrialisation and urbanisation of the region, which could lead to contamination and water scarcity, an increase in extractive megaprojects, and possibly even to cultural extinction of Indigenous populations. Different communities have existing, previous and historic grievances that they want addressed and remedied before agreeing to a new development project. These include oil spills, contamination from sulphur-mine waste, untreated wastewaters from a refinery, and loss of land and displacement resulting from past infrastructure projects.
Respondents expressed a range of desired infrastructures and community visions. Among them were, in particular, a desire for improved basic and agricultural infrastructure, but also investment into health, education and housing fit for climate change. Overall, there was a strong aspiration to establish infrastructures that allow stewardship (of nature) and care (for others). Community infrastructures have the greatest chances of acceptance and sustainability. As genuine community infrastructure, we understand those that are designed, realised and maintained by the community, and of which the entire community benefits. Community infrastructures, based on diverse social, cultural and economic life projects, can enhance humanity’s overall resilience in the face of climate change.
