• 1 •
Anduli
Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales
ISSN: 1696-0270 • e-ISSN: 2340-4973
TERRITORIAL RE-EXISTENCES OF INDIGENOUS
MOVEMENTS IN THE ANDEAN-AMAZON REGION
REEXISTENCIAS TERRITORIALES DE MOVIMIENTOS
INDÍGENAS EN LA REGIÓN ANDINO-AMAZÓNICA
Pabel-Camilo López-Flores
Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, Bolivia
velpalopezo@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7180-6584
Abstract
Movements by indigenous peoples against
neoliberal extractivist processes in Latin
America have traditionally employed
strategies focused on territorial recognition
of their identity and culture. The issue under
investigation is the recent resurgence of
post-extractivist territorial-based social
movements that are using strategies based
on innovative economic models and creative
development. The objective is to study these
territorial social movements and socio-
ecological conicts by analyzing cases in
the Andean-Amazonian region in Bolivia and
Colombia. The methodology is qualitative
and ethnographic, based on interviews
and documentary analysis. In the case of
the Rositas River in Bolivia, indigenous
communities and producers have organized
to oppose the construction of a dam and
hydroelectric project. In the Colombian region
of Cauca, the dispute is over 20,000 hectares
of sugarcane monoculture where the local
community is ghting to grow corn, beans and
yucca. The common characteristics of these
movements are ecofeminist involvement,
autonomous forms of collective action and
political experimentation, new languages, and
patterns of struggle and mobilization including
the deployment of international alliances
Keywords: indigenous communities, socio-
ecological conicts, extractivism, Bolivia,
Colombia, collective action, economic
development
Resumen
Los movimientos de los pueblos indígenas
contra los procesos extractivistas neolibe-
rales en América Latina han empleado tra-
dicionalmente estrategias centradas en el
reconocimiento territorial de su identidad y
cultura. El tema que se investiga es el recien-
te resurgimiento de movimientos sociales de
base territorial post-extractivista que están
utilizando estrategias basadas en modelos
económicos innovadores y en el desarrollo
creativo. El objetivo es estudiar estos movi-
mientos sociales territoriales y los conictos
socio-ecológicos analizando casos en la
región andino-amazónica en Bolivia y Co-
lombia. La metodología es cualitativa y et-
nográca, basada en entrevistas y análisis
documental. En el caso del río Rositas en
Bolivia, comunidades indígenas y producto-
res se han organizado para oponerse a la
construcción de una represa y un proyecto
hidroeléctrico. En la región colombiana del
Cauca, la disputa es por 20.000 hectáreas
de monocultivo de caña de azúcar, donde
la comunidad local lucha por cultivar maíz,
frijoles y yuca. Las características comunes
de estos movimientos son la implicación
ecofeminista, formas autónomas de acción
colectiva y experimentación política, nuevos
lenguajes y patrones de lucha y moviliza-
ción que incluyen el despliegue de alianzas
internacionales.
Palabras Clave: comunidades indígenas,
conictos socio-ecologicos conicts, extrac-
tivismo, Bolivia, Colombia; acción colectiva;
desarrollo económico
Cómo citar este artículo/ citation: López-Flores, Pabel-Camilo (2024). Territorial re-existences of indigenous
movements in the Andean-Amazon region. ANDULI. Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales, (25), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.01
Recibido: 17.05.2023. Revisado: 25.10.2023. Aceptado 26.11.2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.01
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 2 •
1. Introduction
Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, South America has experienced many
symptoms of a generalized crisis, particularly of a socio-political character, visible
in social rebellions from 2019 to the present that exploded from as far and wide
as Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. In this region, over
the past two decades, the modalities of appropriation and exploitation of nature
have been directly related to the changes and recongurations of the dynamics of
capitalist accumulation expanding mainly from the consolidation and generalization
of development models and state policies based on neoextractivism1 (Svampa,
2019). Thus, processes of appropriation, commodication, and destruction of nature
have been accentuated, as well as the dynamics of alteration/affectation of the
natural cycles of reproduction of life to subject them to the demands of the capital
accumulation processes (Leff, 2018). Those dynamics have led to a double process
of pain and resistance since these multiple crises have had disproportionate social,
economic, territorial, and cultural impacts on more vulnerable territories or social
groups. However, the activation of social protest, the multiplication of socio-ecological
movements, and the increase of autonomic movements and processes in response
to the intensication of extractivism have situated Latin America as an important site
of socio-ecological movements, as well as ontological and epistemological struggle
(Escobar 2018).
A starting point, this paper reects on the current socio-ecological crisis (Svampa &
Viale, 2020) is part of a crisis of the hegemonic civilizational pattern (Lander, 2018),
based on the episteme of modernity and the paradigm of development and progress
without end, and that in short it can be characterized as anthropocentric, capitalist,
developmentist, patriarchal, classist, racist and terricida (ecocide), as some of its
main features on a global scale. As an unprecedented socio-ecological crisis and
emergency, of anthropic origins with effects on all forms of life on the planet, which
undoubtedly has been accelerated by the historical parameters of the dynamics
of capitalist accumulation, which presents various manifestations, depending on
the geography and particularly context. In the context that interests us here, this
socio-ecological dimension of the crisis presents characteristics and dynamics in
South America, where in the last two decades the modalities of appropriation and
exploitation of nature and the processes accentuate multiple forms of dispossession,
directly related to the changes and recongurations of the dynamics of capitalist
accumulation, were expanding and/or intensifying, mainly from the consolidation and
generalization of development models and state policies based on enclaves and neo-
extractivist enterprises.
In recent years, socio-environmental conicts and socio-territorial movements in Latin
America have unmasked the discrepancy between dependence on the conventional
neo-extractivist development model and the aspirations to decolonize and democratize
society-nature relationships and reconstruct a socio-territorial identity. This represents
an “eco-territorial turn” of struggles and social movements in the region (Svampa,
1 Extractivism refers to the intensive exploitation and exportation of nature in primary commodity
form, which remains at the core of Latin American development models (Gudynas, 2018; 2015).
The term neoextractivism has been used to highlight commonalities and novel dimensions of
extractivist regimes from across the political spectrum. Likewise, the neo-extractivism concept
is used by some authors, notably Gudynas (2018, 2015), to refer exclusively to leftist or pro-
gressive extractivist governments. However, I adopt Svampa’s (2019) broader denition in order
to highlight common drivers, dynamics and socio-territorial responses across politically diverse
extractivist regimes.
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 3 •
2015; 2019). This is associated with the defense of collective territorial rights as a base
where peoples produce and recreate their identity, structure their claims and demands,
and from where collective action is organized. This turn is comprised of a multiplicity of
socio-territorial resistances, and socio-community movements through which struggles
for territory and environmental justice are taking place, all of which are evidence
of territorialities in dispute. In this sense, a new language of valuation of commons
(Svampa, 2016) and processes of societal re-existence (Leff and Porto-Gonçalves,
2015) has emerged, with a focus on community logic, the autonomous management of
the territory and/or production in harmony with nature. Some of these social actors are
recovering community knowledge, recreating practices, and developing ecologically
sustainable production forms and territorial processes alternative to conventional
development, which have the potential not only to galvanize the resilience of a
community fabric but also the possibility of recovery and socio-ecology “healing” of
life’s territories (Escobar, 2014). These emergent modalities of territorial struggle,
together with ecological urban collectives, movements for environmental justice, and
women’s movements, are modifying the regional context.
Across the region, the state has exhausted its responses to socio-territorial and socio-
ecological movements, with repression, the criminalization of social protest, and
demobilization/bureaucratization of social organizations unable to stem the growing
wave of resistance to neo-extractivism. New social challenges have also catalyzed
community, ethnic, racial, and feminist movements. This article contends that there
is a need to reect, problematize, and discuss the processes of reorganization of
collective action and the political expression that Latin America as part of the Global
South is experiencing, against the persistence and/or intensication of forms of socio-
environmental injustice. As such, it tries to address the following questions: What
are the changes of social movements in Latin America today? What are their new
languages and horizons of meaning and what are the new expectations and forms
of dispute? How are politics and collective action reorganized against the advance of
the (neo)extractivist frontier?
This article specically analyzes the tensions and disputes of territorialities and of
the processes of societal re-existence contained in the current experiences and
processes of socio-territorial and community re-existence in the Andean-Amazon
region, particularly in Bolivia and Colombia, and the extractive models and multiple
dispossession processes they confront (Navarro, 2018), from the analysis of the
tension and disputes of territorialities and of the processes of societal re-existence (Leff
ad Porto-Gonçalves, 2016). We argue that entire territories have been transformed
into “sacriced territories” (Svampa and Viale, 2020) in these countries. In Bolivia,
somewhere with an important community organization tradition of an ethno-territorial
nature, extractive policies have been directly affecting or threatening Indigenous
territories and recognized collective rights, and affected areas ecologically in the
last decade. Through these processes, specically indigenous social movements
have been reactivated in parts of the Bolivian Amazon region in order to defend
their territories and other forms of agroforestry production against an extractive
territoriality. Colombia, despite recent peace agreements, continues to present a
scenario of violence against communitarian territories and murders of social and
environmental leaders, particularly in the North Cauca region, where communities of
the Nasa Indigenous people are developing a process called liberación de la Madre
Tierra (liberation of Mother Earth). Analysis of these socio-environmental conicts
illuminates the possibilitiy of community and socio-ecological alternatives formed
through disputed territorialities; as social emancipation and post-extractive horizons.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 4 •
This article is the result of research with a qualitative methodology and multi-method,
including case study, socio-historical method, and ethnographic research. For the
construction of empirical information, based on interviews and documentary analysis,
a combined schema was used of the following tools: multi-situated and multi-scale
ethnography (Marcus, 1995) and social cartography (Tetamanti, 2014). These strategies
and methodological tools were implemented predominantly in community territories
and with key social actors in the two countries where the study was carried out.
2. Context and Theoretical Framework: Ecological Inection,
Societal Movements and Territorial Re-Existences
The ecological current crisis has been intensied by the entrenchment of the neo-liberal
economic model and neo-extractivism (Svampa and Viale, 2020), which has led to a
dispute over common goods. In this sense, the deep social and environmental crisis in
Latin America constitutes two dimensions of a broader and multiple crises at the global
level. The dimensions of this crisis have deepened during the last two decades in South
America thanks to development models based on the extraction and exportation of
natural resources (Svampa, 2016). This has been accompanied by the intensication
of the commodication and appropriation of the natural dynamics sustaining the
reproduction of life, cultural practices, and ontologies of different peoples (Escobar,
2019), subordinating them to the demands of capitalist accumulation and accentuating
socio-environmental injustices in already vulnerable territories (Lander, 2019).
The current expansive extractive dynamics in and to territories, including multiple
dispossessions in much of Latin America (Navarro, 2018), have generated a
multiplicity of reactions in the form of socio-territorial resistances, socio-community
movements and struggles for territory (Leff and Porto Gonçalves, 2015), social
mobilization and a phenomenon of reconstruction of a socio-territorial identity, this is
an “eco-territorial turn” of the struggles and social movements in the region (Svampa,
2015). Understanding the eco-territorial shift as a trend means that it is necessary
to analyze the struggle processes on a case-by-case basis to see what forms eco-
territorial struggles assume. The different aspects of the eco-territorial turn form an
account of the emergence of a new grammar of social struggles, of the dissemination
of an alternative language with strong resonance within Latin American politics, of a
new framework of meanings that articulates Indigenous and territorial rights, but also
ecological and feminist activism, in clear opposition to the dominant model (Svampa,
2019), whether in a language of defense of the territory and common goods, of the
Derechos de la Naturaleza (rights of nature), the demand points to democratization of
decisions, in the face of projects that seriously affect living conditions in the territories.
Those territorialities in dispute show a new political ecology as well as new languages
of valuation and processes of true societal re-existence (López and Betancourt, 2021;
Svampa and Viale, 2020).2 Some social groups not only resist dispossession and
de-territorialization (Haesbaert, 2011), they redene their forms of existence through
emancipatory movements and the reinvention of their identities, their ways of thinking,
2 Some social actors emerge from their resistance to being absorbed (de-territorialized) by globali-
zation and their claims to redene their environments and their cultural identities in order to build
their sustainable worlds. In this perspective, these resistance processes turn to be movements of
re-existence. These populations do not only resist against dispossession and de-territorialization:
they redene their forms of existence through emancipation movements, by reinventing their
identities, their ways of thinking, their modes of production and their livelihoods.
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 5 •
and their modes of production and livelihood (Leff and Porto-Gonçalves, 2015). At
the same time, some of these community-based socio-territorial actors, beyond their
demands and contestation, are recovering knowledge, recreating practices, and
developing ecologically sustainable production experiences and/or socio-territorial
forms alternative to conventional development. These experiences, in some cases,
focus on community logic, on the autonomous management of the territory, and/or on
production in harmony with nature: such as agro-ecology, Indigenous or community
forestry, minga (communitarian work), or simply the defense of ancestral forms of
production and reproduction.
In this sense, Routledge (2016) labels the places of contestation in the context of
the multiplicity of relations between power and hegemonic and counter-hegemonic
discourses, between forces and relationships of domination, submission, exploitation,
and resistance ‘places of resistance’. This approach allows us to understand how
social movements challenge state-centered political territorial and power conceptions
and their attendant extractivist development models, whether in physical spaces or
discourses and narratives. In this context, movements endow their demands with
countless meanings, simultaneously unifying the environmental contestation, of
gender or ethnic claims (Routledge, 2016). It is necessary to identify the specic
expressions of each movement and its languages about forms of socio-environmental
injustice for evaluating concrete forms of discontent, as well as the production of
alternative knowledge and practices. Although localized, experiences of resistance
are increasingly regional and international in their objectives, forms of organization,
as well as the interaction between local and global struggles and processes,
characteristic scholars have coined as ‘glocal’ (Dietz and Engels, 2020).
From this perspective, a territorialized reading of social movements which re-emerge
in the region allows us to conceptualize the dynamics of dispossession and forms
of socio-environmental injustice as an effect of certain state policies, particularly
in movements with claims based on the defense of their territoriality. Enrique Leff
(2018) frames these emergent territorialities as ‘worlds of life’, understood both as a
collective right and as a condition for the reproduction of their ways of life. For these
social movements, territory appears as a space of resistance, gradually becoming
a place of re-signication and creation of new social relations and new political and
cultural identities (Svampa, 2016). It is then possible identify how socio-territorial
movements in Latin America are constituted as political actors in resistance and
deploy their repertoire of mobilization and territorialized collective action, in the face of
de-territorialization processes deployed by activities of extraction of natural resources
in their territories.
Thus, territorial spaces of extractivist exploitation and dynamics of dispossession
congure so-called sacrice zones (Bolados and Sanchez, 2017), denying the social,
ecological, economic, and productive activities already existent within historically
constructed territories that contain a set of collective identities, and social relations
and cultural practices. They threaten the ecological web of territories, as well as their
social and material conditions for the reproduction of life (Svampa, 2016). This has
led to increasing and sometimes violent confrontations between local communities,
companies, and governments, and to a rising number of socio-ecological conicts.
Likewise, there is ample evidence on how social movements can lead to environmental
policy changes that promote greener and fairer governance (Bullard and Johnson,
2002) and strengthen the governance of local commons (Villamayor & García López,
2017). A part of the problematic nucleus in this work refers, precisely, to the relationship
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 6 •
of certain types of social movements to their inscription in the territory – what have
been called socio-territorial movements (Fernandes, 2005). The territorialization
of some social movements would appear as a displacement that challenges the
consolidation of an externally imposed ‘territoriality of domination’.
In the last three decades in Latin America, a plethora of demands by social actors have
developed and materialized through processes of socio-territorial re-existence (Leff
and Porto-Gonçalves, 2015). Several of these societal processes simply manifest
through experiences in which social actors not only activate specic, spatially situated
forms of resilience in the face of the new scenarios of multiple dispossession and
modalities of socio-environmental injustice (Navarro, 2019), but also through forms
and strategies that allow them to construct or reconstruct socio-territorial relations
of their collective life. Thus, the theme of territoriality represents the center of many
social imaginaries and dynamics of collective action.
In this sense, Svampa (2016) proposes some dimensions that allow us to characterize
social movements in Latin America: territoriality, disruptive direct action, the demand
for autonomy, and the development of direct democracy mechanisms as the main
forms of organization. These characteristics, which we can update with the formation
of global protest organization networks (Pleyers, 2019) and the observation of
the different counter-hegemonic experiences through racial, gender, and class
intersectionality within the framework of power relations that give the region its
particularity (Crenshaw, 2019). This points to the need to conceptualize territories as
spaces of social construction, amid disputes of domination and resistance, between
antagonistic actors that give meaning and re-signify space. Thus, territories are formed
as material and symbolic spaces, crossed by tensions and conicts, which are not
only dimensioned as a substance that contains natural resources and a population.
Following Porto-Gonçalves (2010), the territory is not only a substance that contains
natural resources and population, but a dense sociological and geographical
category that ‘presupposes a process of appropriation/territorialization which conform
territorialized identities, that is to say, “territoriality”, and a determined order, a social
topology’ (Porto-Gonçalves, 2010: 230). These conceptions allow us to characterize
and explain the multiplicity of ways in which socio-territorial movements interact
with their spatiality, constituting disputed territories, creating practices and ways of
thinking, territorializing their lives, and social reproduction in political terms. Processes
of territorialization, deterritorialization and reterritorialization continually take place,
which entail transformations in the territory as well as in the social actors that inhabit
it (Haesbaert, 2011).
Thus, many social movements revolve around defending, constructing, and gaining
autonomous control over territory, therefore of socio-environmental justice, which
points to the territorial anchor of social actors. In that context, the territory is discussed
as a space of social construction and a basis for the reproduction of collective life
(Porto-Gonçalves 2010). In this sense, for example, the Indigenous and peasant
movements constitute an incomparable case of socio-territorial movements, as their
traditions are rooted in the defense of territory and the multiple relations with land.
Also, the concept of territoriality has served as an instrument of resistance against
the expropriation of natural resources, unequal power relations, and the various
modalities of socio-environmental injustice, as well as, against economic territoriality
that is being imposed by the state and extractive companies. That way, many socio-
environmental conicts address the preservation of territoriality that is not submitted
to the logic of capital and challenge the consolidation of a territoriality of domination
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 7 •
(Martinez Alier and Walter, 2016). These processes of socio-territorial construction and
recreation are open and not denitive processes that potentially congure alternative
forms of social-environmental relations. As such, they are experiences marked by
uncertainty and contingency, as processes constructing these experiences anchored
in the territory are themselves constantly transforming.
Moreover, Tapia (2008) proposes consideration of societal movement conguration
where collective action begins to overow the stable places of politics, both within
society and the state. Thus, in multi-societal countries, like in the Andean-Amazon
region there are congurations of social and political mobilization that have a denser
character than that of a classical social movement. In this sense, it is a ‘societal
movement’ since it would be social and political forms of non-modern origin that
mobilize against the expropriation of their territory and destroyers of their communities
caused by modern processes of exploitation of nature and people, proposing another
socio-political horizon (Tapia, 2008).
3. Methodology
This article is part of a recently conducted research through an articulated and
dialogical combination of macro and micro-social perspectives that problematizes the
socio-territorial processes under study. It analyzes the macro-social characteristics
of the socio-political settings of the economically dependent societies Bolivia and
Colombia. It also develops an analysis of the social actors’ perspectives: namely, the
perceptions and visions of the social subjects. These subjects are conceptualized and
evaluated as collective political actors by using a micro-social analysis focusing on
the inter-subjective relationships of individual social actors and the meaning that they
grant to territory and collective action. These collective actors are studied through
a predominantly qualitative and horizontal methodological strategy that develops a
socio-historical analysis, building the macro-social level of the socio-political context
from micro-social analysis (Noiriel, 2011). At the micro-social level, a theoretical and
methodological approach based on the “actor perspective” is used (Long, 2007).
Thus, the study also focused on the meaning of the actions of diverse social actors
in the eld of conicts. In this sense, the methodological strategy was multi-method,
including case study, socio-historical method, and documentary analysis.
Regarding data collection work, it used two collection and analysis techniques:
interviews and documentary analysis. Firstly, it was specically used in-depth
interviews to obtain information on the different social and political actors. Also,
it was carrying out a review of primary and secondary sources, which includes a
review of ofcial documents (laws, projects, etc.). Methodologically, the research was
innovative not only in the use of different techniques but also in their combined use.
4. Results: Some experiences of re-existence and alternatives
in the Andean-Amazon region.
4.1. The Rositas case: Indigenous organization and communities in the Bolivia
Lowland
During the previous decade, the lowland region in Bolivia witnessed a period marked
by the articulation of a counter-hegemonic horizon (Tapia, 2011, Thwaites and Ouviña,
2019). In this case, some of the components of that counter-hegemonic horizon
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 8 •
included: the possibility of a plurinational state; decolonization of state structures;
and recognition of Indigenous autonomy in community territories. The transition to
a plurinational state with autonomies (specically of an ethnic-original type) implied
breaking with the monopoly of politics present throughout the history of the state in
Bolivia. It contained the promise of the establishment and development of a plurality of
spaces for self-government and Indigenous autonomies, even though their denition
and implementation would become ambiguous and contested in the following period
(Tockman, et. al., 2015). The rst half of the current decade will move from constituent
processes generated by Indigenous movements to a period in which the last MAS
(Movimiento al Socialismo) governments (2009-2014; 2015-2019) intensied to
deploy a policy of extractivist expansion over Indigenous territories (Postero, 2017).
Paradoxically, it is during this time of retrenchment that a truly counter-hegemonic
horizon would be fundamentally articulated around the community territorial resistance
of Indigenous peoples, movements, and organizations, which manifestly demanded the
defense of their territories and respect for the exercise of their collective rights of self-
determination as peoples through the organizations that articulate and represent them.
Consequently, the context in Bolivia in recent years would be marked, among other
aspects, by the reactivation of societal movements, mainly of a socio-territorial and
Indigenous nature, in the face of dynamics and extractive activities on protected
areas and/or Indigenous territories, and their consequent dynamics of dispossession.
In particular, the lowlands of Bolivia has witnessed a series of socio-environmental
and territorial conicts, intensied as a result of government policies aimed at
deepening and expanding exploitation/export of natural resources as commodities
– most notably hydrocarbons, minerals, agribusiness, and more recently energy
through hydroelectric plants – without the prior consent of Indigenous communities.
This is the scenario where some socio-territorial conicts have forcefully manifested
in recent years, which account for strong tensions and disputes between the state
and Indigenous movements, despite the declaration of several protected areas
and/or the recognition of Indigenous lands as collective property in recent years. In
this context, various Indigenous and peasant peoples and organizations are taking
collective actions of resistance against the effects and impacts of extractive policies
on their communities and the ecosystems of their territories, as well in the face of the
persistence and accentuation of forms of socio-environmental injustice.
In 2015, the government gave a change in direction to the policies of exploration and
exploitation of hydrocarbons. Through three consecutive Supreme Decrees (2298,
2366, and 2400), the entry of oil activities in protected areas – which in many cases
are superimposed on Indigenous territories – was allowed through the relaxation of
environmental protection measures and the erosion of recognized rights of Indigenous
peoples, such as the right to prior consultation. The unprecedented growth of the
oil frontier, the agrarian measures that favor deforestation and the large soy agro-
industry, as well as the execution of the rst phases of construction of mega-dams
such as El Bala-Chepete and Rositas in the Bolivian regions of the Amazon and the
Chaco (lowlands), began a time of confrontation of the Indigenous communities with
the state. The main contradictions exploded around the different projects, promoted
by the MAS government, such as building a hydro-electrical dam along the Rositas
River which would ood a big part of the territory of Gutiérrez municipality and
directly affect the communities of Tatarenda and Yumao. The project of constructing
a hydroelectric dam along the Rositas River is part of a bigger plan that seeks to dam
the Rio Grande, part of the Amazon basin: originating in the Andes mountains, this
river crosses Santa Cruz and joins with the Rositas River (CEDIB, 2017).
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 9 •
In 2012, the Bolivian government restored the Rositas project, justifying the will to
construct a hydroelectric power station to make Bolivia the “energetic heart of the
continent”, but this project was the result of the increasing Chinese inuence on the
country, and of the extractives processes it conveys to pursue a reprimarization of
Bolivian economy functional to transnational neoliberal market (CEDIB, 2017). The
plan is extensive and complex but, for the aims of my analysis, I will now focus on the
little data we have about the dam on the Rosita’s River, as it is this dam that will directly
affect the territory of the municipality of Gutiérrez (Fundación Solón, 2019). This
project will then destroy the environment and the biodiversity of the Chaco and put at
risk 570 species of fauna and 2.415 species of ora, revealing the inconsistencies at
the heart of the Bolivian government rhetoric of vivir bien (“living well”). The treatment
of organizations and people who oppose mega projects like Rositas as “enemies”
by MAS ofcials is central to understanding territorial disputes here. It is part of
government discourse, which justies the government’s confrontation with popular
Indigenous resistance in recent years through the notion of national development.
However, opposition to the Rositas hydroelectric plant does not come from “enemies
of development”, but from Indigenous communities and producers, as well as other
organizations, which were not consulted about the dispossession of their lands and
territories, nor informed about the hydroelectric plant and its consequences. These
facts are reproduced when these types of projects are executed. The oods caused
by the reservoir of the dam would damage productive areas of several communities.
Figure 1: Location map of the Rositas Hydroelectric Project;
Source: ENDE Corporation
The communities of Tatarenda and Yumao then asked their leaders to speak about
the hydroelectrical project and to create a rm union to contrast the entrance of
the industries in their territory and to enforce their right of consulta previa following
Indigenous norms and not as promoted by the government. The formal leaders
(mburuvichas or captains) of Gutiérrez, not only refused to accomplish the requests
of the population but, together with APG leaders, signed an agreement to give them
access to the territory to start the studies for the hydroelectrical project, without
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 10 •
informing the communities, violating the 2009 Constitution, and without holding
an Indigenous assembly to ask to the other mburuvichas their opinion about this
agreement. Following this betrayal from their representatives and lacking the
possibility of articulating their demands under the Guaraní leadership, the population
of Tatarenda and Yumao began to organize the resistance together with the other
peasant communities affected by the project, forming the Comité Defensa de Tierra
y Territorio (Land and Territory Defense Committee). Through this new organization,
they then succeeded in articulating a strong oppositional movement, to confront both
the central government and the Guaraní leaders who betrayed them (De Ambroggi,
2019). Subsequently, thanks to the help of different activists and in some cases
NGOs, they spread information about the Rositas project to all the communities of
the territory but also on a national level, where they nd allies in other communities
affected by the extractivist agenda of the MAS. Finally, they started to form international
alliances, contacting other Latin American and world communities who are suffering
the consequences of the implementation of a hydroelectrical power station in their
territory.
Figure 2: Manifestation against the Rositas project
Source: Camilla D’Ambroggi, 2020
Nonetheless, this context has conveyed a new form of political opposition and a re-
articulation of social movements. The Committee in Defense of the Land and Territory
case I analyze here demonstrates how the ones who are ghting against the always
stronger deployment of neoliberal extractivist processes in Bolivia today do not base
their strategy on identity or cultural recognition, as Indigenous movements had done
in the past, but are deploying national and international alliances to globally tackle
the structure of contemporary transnational capitalism. However, essentialisms are
hard to avoid, and this new global form of resistance is sometimes still conceived and
explained deploying essentializations and naturalizations of the subjects involved,
especially women.
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 11 •
In Bolivia, women have historically played a game fundamental role, sometimes
invisible, in the Bolivian social struggles, which is reected today in the struggles
against extractive projects. Because the lack of information about the projects
is a state strategy that seeks to generate uncertainty and weaken resistance, the
affected communities organize to obtain information and be able to make informed
decisions and be better able to demand respect for their collective rights. An
important component of the struggle for women is participation in spaces that allow
them to train, create alliances with other women, and claim their autonomy. For the
president of the Organization of Guaraní Indigenous Women of Bolivia (OMIGB) of
the Committee in Defense of the Land and Territory, Lourdes Miranda, belonging to
this organization allows women to be autonomous and assert their rights. The words
of Lourdes Miranda, the mburuvicha of Tatarenda, can help us to grasp how the
situation is far more complex than this idealized narrative:
“Con el tema de la resistencia al proyecto Rositas, hemos podido conocer
muchas personas y ha crecido nuestra fuerza gracias a la articulación con otros
movimientos de afectados por proyectos extractivos. Y allí me he dado cuenta
de que nos faltaba organizarnos como mujeres, y así hemos hecho una alianza
entre mujeres afectadas de procesos extractivos, y los hombres nos apoyaron
porque es importante que estemos unidos en la batalla en contra de la explotación
de nuestros territorios. Y de allí salen muchos eventos organizados por NGOs,
activistas e intelectuales en los que nos invitan a exponer nuestras problemáticas:
nos invitan come mujeres indígenas en resistencia, pero yo siempre aprovecho
para informar las personas sobre lo que está pasando con Rositas, porqué yo
tengo la suerte de haber estudiado y entonces tengo bastante conocimiento y
capacidad de acción política” (Lourdes Miranda, interview, 01/11/2019).
Figure 3: Women of Tatarenda’s community
Source: Camilla D’Ambroggi, 2019
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 12 •
The participation in these spaces, in addition to consolidating the resurgence of a
Bolivian movement that responds to the development policies of the government of
Movement to Socialism (MAS), has allowed many Women who defend the territory
have a platform to make the Bolivian situation known abroad. A transcendental
exercise in a Latin American context is still seduced by the discourse of the so-called
progressive governments that (consciously or not) continue to obscure and hide the
extractive policies that consolidated the MAS government and, mainly, the violation
of rights.
“Ahora, el problema adentro de las comunidades indígenas es diferente, porque
aquí estos proyectos extractivos afectan más a las mujeres porque ellas son las
que cuidan la familia, pero eso es un problema de la comunidad adonde los varones
no se encargan de cuidar a los hijos. Entonces a causa de este rol impuesto a
las mujeres, ellas siempre han sido más preocupadas de los hombres sobre el
tema del territorio; pero como esta sociedad patriarcal les hacía pensar que los
varones son más fuertes y valiosos, siempre han relegados a ellos el rol de luchar
políticamente por el territorio. Honestamente yo es desde años que insisto en que
las mujeres guaranís se organicen, poro en la sociedad guaraní es muy difícil
hacerlo, ya que el varón tiene un poder tan dominante; por eso muchas mujeres
guaranís apoyaron todos los hombres que ahora son mburuvichas de la APG,
porque a ellas siempre se le impide organizarse políticamente” (interview with a
woman leader of the Yumao community 10/11/2019).
As a result of their resistance in defending the territory, the members of the different
organizations against dams, as in Rosita’s case have been attacked differently by the
state. In the last decade, one of the tactics used by the Bolivian state to delegitimize
the defenders of the territory has struggled to label them as workers of environmental,
conservative, foreign NGOs and to question their Indigenous identity. During the
government of Evo Morales (2006-2019), the women were seen as a problem for
the state because they demanded that he justify his actions and coherence with his
international discourse on climate issues and the rights of Indigenous peoples. In
this way, the demands of Indigenous and peasant women leaders constitute calls of
great importance because they seek to mobilize, on the one hand, the communities
affected by these projects and, on the other, Bolivian society and the international
community.
4.2. The Indigenous struggles in the Colombian Cauca region: The Liberation
of Madre Tierra
In the north of the Department of Cauca in Colombia, the process known as Liberación
de la Madre Tierra (Liberation of Mother Earth) constitutes one of the resistance
movements in the region with the greatest visibility. It realizes socio-territorial actions
through struggling for land, defending territory and mounting a legal dispute (Vargas
and Ariza 2020). The historically predominant economic and political model in the
department of Cauca has been based on large estates, the hacienda regime and
monoculture, leading to the fact that disputes between landowners, businessmen,
peasants, black communities and Indigenous people have been a constant since
the beginning 20th century. Currently, Cauca is the department with the largest
Indigenous population, corresponding to 21% of the national total and 65% of the
Nasa people. In this context, the historical trajectory of the Indigenous movement is
fundamental to addressing the historical and current processes of land recovery by
Nasa communities in the Colombian department of Cauca.
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 13 •
The social organization of Indigenous, black, and peasant communities that among
their demands historically demanded a comprehensive agrarian reform in which the
right to land for those who work it was a fundamental premise. At the beginning of
the 1970s, the Indigenous movement gave rise to the emergence of organizations
such as the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) in 1971 and later the
National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) in 1985 (Lemaitre, 2009). This
trajectory of struggle and resistance against the traditional model of land tenure has
been maintained until today, sustaining other demands by the Indigenous movement
through the defense of Mother Earth. Indigenous peoples here are confronted with
the capitalist model of production and logic that exploits, pollutes and destroys the
very nature that is the material, spiritual and cultural sustenance of their communities.
Disputed lands are equivalent to approximately 20,000 hectares, occupied with sugar
cane monocultures by sugar mills. These hectares are strategic in agro-industrial
production since they are located in the most fertile at areas of the inter-Andean
valleys of Cauca. Faced with this accumulation of land, the collective process of
Liberation of Mother Earth has mobilized about 8000 Indigenous people through the
minga (communitarian work) among the Indigenous communities of Corintio, Caloto,
and Toribío with the support of the CRIC and the Association of Indigenous Councils
of Northern Cauca (ACIN). The actions within this process are occupying the land,
cutting the sugarcane, burning it, and later planting crops of corn, beans, and cassava
for the community. In addition, protest and social movements have a transcendental
identity and cultural character for Indigenous peoples, since, as has been evident in
this case, social action through mobilization is a constitutive element of resistance
and the political platform of Indigenous organizations (Lemaitre, 2009). This type of
action also generates a mode of social integration based on collective identity traits
in the face of the modern-capitalist project, forging these communities as subjects
in resistance with projects and emancipatory political positions that challenge the
capitalist logic based on the exploitation of nature, industrialization, inequality and the
accumulation of wealth (CRIC, on-line).
Although the land reclamation process was the precursor to the liberation process
of Mother Earth, the name change given by the communities that participated in it
was not in vain. This new way of naming the liberation strategy implies a change
and adaptation of the actions to the mandates of the CRIC: a) recover the land of
the reservations and carry out the defense of ancestral territory and the living spaces
of the Indigenous communities; b) recover, defend and protect living spaces in
harmony and balance with Mother Earth (CRIC, on-line). Another reason why the
Indigenous movement continues in the process of liberation of Mother Earth is to
demand the right to exercise its government and be able to apply its justice, as well
as implement its economic forms based on respect for Mother Earth, aspects that are
consolidated in the rst objective that the CRIC raises in its ght platform: “Recover
the land from the reservations and defend the ancestral territory and the living
spaces of the communities Indigenous peoples” (CRIC, [online]). In this sense, it is
pertinent to consider that this mechanism of de facto exercise of rights by the Nasa
people is illegal (from the state perspective), it is also legitimate, valid, and effective,
in response to the cultural, political, and legal conditions that historically they have
denied or subordinated the rights of Indigenous communities to the hegemonic state
right. The expectation of Nasa people when liberating Mother Earth constitutes a
space for vindication due to the scourges since the conquest, colony, through the
republic, and the constitution of the new state / Capital form and its processes of
dispossession. Thus, they have ve important reasons for Mother Earth’s Liberation:
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 14 •
“a.) The rst is that she has been seized for extraction and sugarcane estates, a
production model that poisons and destroys, destroying human beings bit by bit;
b) The second reason is for the ancestral rights to reclaim their territories and for
restitution on behalf of the state; c) The third reason is that the government and
the state together (above all the Colombian Institute for Rural Development [IN-
CODER]) have methods of titling and distributing lands that will never resolve the
problem; d) The fourth reason is because the government entangles in INCODER’s
bureaucratic procedures as they deny the land titling their already have and prefer
to leave them in the hands of the National Agrarian Fund, as all of this happens
the sugarcane industry advances like a plague through the at lands that are the
ancestral property of Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples; e) The fth reason
is all of the armed actors are appropriating the lands to defend this model of displa-
cement indicated and to position themselves if things should change if eventually
end this conict” (Solidarity Collective, 2015)3.
5. Discussion of Results: the new political languages of social
movements in Latin America
Since the beginning of this 21st century, strong waves of social mobilization in Latin
America have marked and recongured the general context. These waves of social
mobilization have been characterized by the protagonist role of social movements
mainly of an Indigenous-peasant character, their popular or community matrix. The
presented cases concern social movements with a cultural and community matrix
and a rural territorial base that have been questioning and challenging the models of
development of a capitalist nature and with an extractivist base, as well as political-
territorial arrangements designed and implemented by nation-states with a direct
impact on historically constructed community territorialities and their environments of
coexistence with ecosystems and forms of life.
Within the pluriverse of alternative visions (Escobar, 2018), there exists an integral
environmental perspective, linked to the notion of strong sustainability and post-
development; an Indigenous perspective, with emphasis on the territory and Buen
Vivir; but also an eco-feminist perspective, associated with the ethics of care and
depatriarchalization; an eco-territorial perspective, linked to social movements the
criticizing “bad development” and emphasizing the concept of territoriality and the
defense of common goods. Beyond the differences, all these perspectives are based
on a critique of extractivism (Svampa, 2016: 371). As Svampa (2016) points out,
the eco-territorial shift is not exclusive to countries with a presence of Indigenous
or native peoples, but it rather covers a large part of Latin America, where peasant-
Indigenous resistance and socio-territorial and environmental movements have been
multiplying, resulting in an organizational framework. This plurality of actors opens
the doors to dialogue and valorization of different knowledge and accounts for an
articulation of languages and alternative concepts. Women have been central actors,
playing a crucial role both in large organizational structures and in small collectives
(Svampa, 2016: 374).
Further, the criticism of extractivism is linked to the eco-territorial shift, visible in the
emergence of common frameworks of collective action, which function as schemes of
global interpretation and as producers of an alternative collective subjectivity. At the
3 https://www.solidaritycollective.org/post/mother-earth-s-liberation-the-end-of-the-armed-conict-
and-peace-building
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 15 •
same time, the critique seeks to place what Svampa (2016) calls horizon categories
into debates, among them, common goods, eco-feminism, ethics of care, Buen
Vivir (good living), and rights of nature and Madre Tierra (mother earth) (Svampa,
2016); whether in a language of defense of territory and common goods, of the
collective rights of native peoples, of the rights of nature, the action of the mobilized
populations is inscribed in the horizon of a participatory democracy, which includes
the democratization of decisions.
Likewise, in the last decade the multiplication of resistances shows an increase
in ancestral struggles for land and territory, mainly by peasant and Indigenous
movements, as well as the emergence of new forms of mobilization and citizen
participation, centered on the defense of natural environments (as common goods),
biodiversity and the territory. It is precisely the activation of other languages of
valuation of territories of life (Escobar, 2014) that gave rise to the eco-territorial turn
of social movements (Svampa, 2013) and to a common grammar that illustrates the
connection between an Indigenous-community matrix, defense of the territory and
environmentalist discourse. In this scenario, the struggles for self-determination and
the processes of autonomy in all Latin America assume vital importance since they
constitute, in turn, as Porto-Gonçalves & Leff (2016) underscore, territorial resistances
and re-existences in the face of the expansion and deepening of multiple forms of
dispossession, hyper-marketing and destruction of nature (Navarro, 2019).
In turn, in some countries of the region, socio-territorial movements managed to
install demands and proposals in the social imaginaries and political agendas
that challenged and disrupted the very character of the nation-state as a modern-
eurocentric-colonial matrix construction, largely alien to the multi-societal realities
(Tapia, 2002), as on Bolivia and Colombia. These questions and responses by
territorialized social movements (Porto-Gonçalves, 2010) are largely manifested
either through social rebellions or claiming and building autonomy, both locally,
within and outside the frameworks and logics of the state (Esteva, 2011) sometimes
manifested through forms of socio-territorial re-existence or as forms of Indigenous
self-government. Several of these societal processes, manifest themselves as
processes of socio-territorial re-existence, that is, through experiences in which
social actors not only activate specic, spatially situated forms of resilience in the
face of the new scenarios of multiple dispossession and territorial reconguration
(territorialisation/deterritorialization/reterritorialization of capitalism) in their living
environments and material bases of social reproduction but also through forms and
strategies that allow them to construct or reconstruct socio-territorial relations of their
collective life. Their great majority are also processes that are historically presented
as modes of organization of collective life, in some cases, as pre-existing forms of
capitalism as a civilizing order that persists, resists, and is continually recreated.
Within this perspective, these processes of resistance become movements for re-
existence. These groups not only resist dispossession and de-territorialization, they
redene their forms of existence through emancipatory movements and the reinvention
of their identities, their ways of thinking, and their modes of production and sustenance
(Leff and Porto-Gonçalves, 2015). Thus, these processes of re-existence display a
diversity and plurality of cases in Latin America. They are presented, for example,
in the experiences of community agro-ecology practiced by peasant or Indigenous
communities, in certain forms of community management of the territory, Indigenous
agroforestry and integrated management of recognized community territories,
ancestral forms of forest protection (guardians of the river in the Bolivian Amazon or
guardians of the forest in the Brazilian Amazon) and management of the commons.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 16 •
Further experiences are socio-community re-appropriation of land for collective work,
such as the case of the liberators of Mother Earth in the Cauca region of Colombia
and the peasant and agro-ecological cooperatives present throughout Latin America,
among other socio-territorial experiences and societal processes.
6. Conclusions
In Latin America, during these last years, the processes of appropriation,
commodication, subjugation, and destruction of nature have been particularly
accentuated, altering/affecting of the natural cycles of reproduction of life to subject
them to the demands of the capital accumulation processes in the region. Therefore,
a comprehensive, contextual, and temporal analysis framework was carried out,
contextual and temporal analysis, based on current approaches and discussions,
mainly from or about Latin America, linked to the interdependent relationship between
neo-extractivist processes and the political regimes with socio-ecological conicts.
Those within the framework of the current processes of capital accumulation in the
territories, which in this work is identied as the neo-extractivist face of the current
socio-ecological crisis in the region.
This text analyzed and problematized how socio-ecological conicts, which are
inherent to those accumulation processes and their consequences, manifest
as phenomena that converge, diverse actors, some of these in open tension and
opposition. From a critical perspective, this multi-actor perspective of the conicts
allows a more complex reading of the multiple relationships and the different visions
and interests compatible or contrasted between different actors, but also the diverse
imaginaries, discourses, strategies, and political and societal horizons of these
actors. This, on the one hand, allows us to account for the different perspectives,
interpretations, and responses around the current socio-ecological crisis. On the
other hand, this multi-actor reading of conicts is interesting when analyzing the
probable scenarios, trends, and possible horizons about the alternatives of a societal
nature that are proposed, built, defended, or currently disputed in the region. The
actors involved vary in their positions, orientations and actions, their interests, their
greater or lesser roles, agency modalities, and commitments. Also, it was considered
that to account for socio-environmental conicts, mainly located in specic territorial
enclaves, it is necessary to link processes on a local, national/regional, and global
scale (glocal conicts).
The socio-ecological movements have a key role, complex, contentious, and
sometimes contradictory, manifested in struggles but also negotiation and tensions
with the other three mentioned actors, mainly with the state and extractive companies.
Therefore, also in light of the current crisis, the dimension that stands out highlighted
the most from the cases studied is the role of the socio-ecological actors and their
capacity for resistance, proactive and pregurative re-existence of alternative horizons
to the current neo-extractivism in the region. In sum, a more detailed problematization
of the interrelationship between these three roles that were explored may allow a
greater understanding of the complexity of the current context in which the socio-
ecological crisis unfolds in the region.
Thus, this work presented the way that in recent years in Latin America socio-
environmental conicts and struggles to re-conquer territories have proliferated. It
has been argued how socio-ecological movements show the discrepancy of societies
between dependence on the conventional (neo) extractivist development model
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 17 •
and the aspirations to decolonize and democratize society-nature relationships and
reconstruct a socio-territorial identity. It represents an “eco-territorial turn” (Svampa
2013) of struggles and social movements in the region. It is associated with the
defense of territories as a base where peoples produce and recreate their identity,
structure their claims and demands, and from where collective action is organized, a
multiplicity of socio-territorial resistances, socio-community movements and struggles
for life territories and environmental justice are taking place, which allows accounting
of territorialities in dispute. Precisely, account was given of how the socio-ecological
dimension of the crisis, the current phase of neo-extractivism in much of South
America, the processes of multiple dispossession that it generates, and the socio-
territorial conicts that are manifested, are not only interrelated but are inherent to
each other.
Funding: Please add: “This research received no external funding” or “This research
was funded by NAME OF FUNDER, grant number XXX”.
Acknowledgments: In this section you can acknowledge any support given which
is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include
administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for
experiments).
Conicts of Interest: Declare conicts of interest or state “The authors declare no
conict of interest.” Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances
or interest that may be perceived as inappropriately inuencing the representation
or interpretation of reported research results. Any role of the funders in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the
manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results must be declared in this section.
If there is no role, please state “The funders had no role in the design of the study; in
the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results”.
References
Andreucci, Diego; Radhuber, Isabella (2017). “Limits to ‘Counter-Neoliberal’ Reform:
Mining Expansion and the Marginalisation of Post-Extractivist Forces in Evo Morales’s
Bolivia.” Geoforum 84 (August): 280–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.
Bolados G., Paola; Sánchez C., Alejandra (2017). “Una ecología política feminista en
construcción: El caso de las “Mujeres de zonas de sacricio en resistencia”, Región
de Valparaíso, Chile”. Psicoperspectivas, 16, 33-42.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol16-Issue2-fulltext-977
Bullard, D. Robert & Johnson, S. Glenn (2002). “Environmentalism and Public Policy:
Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision
Making”. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00184
CEDIB (Centro de Documentación e Información Bolivia) (2017). Proyecto múltiple Río
Grande – Rositas: Proyectos hidroeléctricos en áreas protegidas de Bolivia. Revised
may 6, 2018. (https://cedib.org/post_type_mapas/proyecto-multiple-rio-grande-
rositas-proyectos-hidroelectricos-en-areas-protegidas-de-bolivia/).
Composto, Claudia; Navarro, Mina (2014). “Claves de Lectura Para Comprender El
Despojo y Las Luchas Por Los Bienes Comunes Naturales En América Latina.” In
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 18 •
Territorios En Disputa. Despojo Capitalista, Luchas En Defensa de Los Bienes
Comunes Naturales y Alternativas Emancipatorias Para América Latina, edited by
Mina Lorena Composto, Claudia; Navarro, 33–75. México, D. F.: Bajo Tierra
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (2019). “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics”
[1989]. In Feminist Legal Theory; By Katherine Bartlett (ed.) (pp. 57-80). Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/Feminist-Legal-Theory-Readings-In-Law-And-Gender/
Bartlett-Kennedy/p/book/9780813312484
CRIC-ACIN (2005) Libertad para la Madre Tierra. Revised, October 7, 2020. (https://
liberaciondelamadretierra.org/libertad-para-la-madre-tierra)
De Ambroggi, Camilla (2019). “Plurinationalism, constitution, power: The Bolivian
Indigenous Autonomies and Modern Politics in a Global Frame”, Thesis degree in
Historical Anthropology and Early Modern Globalization. University of Bologna.
Dietz, Kristina; Engels Bettina (2020). “Analysing Land Conicts in Times of Global Crises.”
Geoforum 111 (February): 208–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.019.
Escobar, Arturo (2014). Sentipensar con la tierra: nuevas lecturas sobre desarrollo,
territorio y diferencia. Medellín: UNAULA. https://doi.org/10.17561/at.v0i9.3485
Escobar, Arturo (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and
the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371816
Esteva, Gustavo (2011). “Otra autonomía, otra democracia”, en Pensar las Autonomías,
Alternativas de emancipación al capital y el Estado. México DF: Bajo Tierra, 117-143.
Fernandes, M., Bernardo (2005). Movimientos socio-territoriales y movimientos socio-
espaciales. Observatorio Social de América Latina OSAL, N. 16, 273-284.
Fundación Solón (2019). Comenzar por el nal. La historia del megaproyecto
Rositas. Revised, December, 8, 2020. (https://fundacionsolon.org/2018/07/02/
comenzar-por-el-nal-lahistoria-del-megaproyecto-rositas/)
Gonzáles Casanova, Pablo (1969). Sociología de la explotación. Siglo XXI: México.
Gutiérrez A., Raquel (2015). Horizonte comunitario-popular: Antagonismo y producción de
lo común en América Latina. Cochabamba: SOCEE / Autodeterminación.
Harvey, David (2004). “The ‘new’ imperialism: Accumulation by dispossession”. Socialist
Register. 65-87. https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5811
Harvey, David (2007). Espacios del Capital. Hacía una geografía crítica. Madrid: AKAL.
https://doi.org/10.14507/er.v0.1564
Haesbaert, Rogerio (2011). El mito de la desterritorialización: del “n de los territorios” a la
multiterritorialidad. México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Lemaitre R., Julieta (2009). El derecho como conjuro. Fetichismo legal, violencia y
movimientos sociales. Bogotá, Colombia. Siglo del Hombre Editores y Uni versidad de
Los Andes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263536512
Lander, Edgardo (2019). Crisis Civilizatoria. Experiencias de Los Gobiernos Progresistas
y Debates En La Izquierda Latinoamericana. Guadalajara: CALAS. https://doi.
org/10.14361/9783839448892
Artículos • Pabel Camilo López Flores
• 19 •
Leff. Enrique (2018). El fuego de la vida. Heidegger ante la cuestión ambiental. Madrid:
Siglo XXI.
Leff, Enrique; Porto-Gonçalves, Carlos Walter (2015). “Political Ecology in Latin America:
the social reappropriation of nature, the reinvention of territories and the construction
of an environmental rationality”. Revista Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, n° 35, 65-
88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.44381
Lemkow, Louis; Espluga, Josep (2017). Sociología ambiental. Pensamiento socio-
ambiental y ecología social del riesgo. Barcelona: Icaria editorial, s. a.
Long, Norman (2007). Sociología del desarrollo: una perspectiva centrada en el actor.
México: COLSAN - CIESAS
López Pabel; Betancourt, Milson (2021). Conictos territoriales y territorialidades en
disputa: Re-existencias y horizontes societales frente al capital en América Latina
(Introducción), 1a ed. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Makaran, Gaya; López, Pabel (2018). Recolonización en Bolivia. Neonacionalismo
extractivista y resistencia comunitaria. México, Bueos Aires, La Paz: Bajo Tierra, El
Colectivo, Plural.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). “Ethnography in /of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-
Sited Ethnography”. In Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through Thick and Thin.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press: 79-104.
Martinez-Alier, Joan; Walter, Mariana (2016). “Social Metabolism and Conicts over
Extractivism. In: de Castro F., Hogenboom B., Baud M. (Hg.): Environmental
Governance in Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan, London: 58-85. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-137-50572-9_3
Navarrro, Mina (2019). “Despojo múltiple y separaciones del capital sobre el tejido de la
vida” en Teoría del valor, comunicación y territorio. Francisco Sierra (Editor). Madrid:
Siglo XXI. 277 – 296.
Noiriel, Gérard (2011). Introducción a la sociohistoria. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Hoetmer, Rahael (2013). “Minería, Movimientos Sociales y Las Disputas Del Futuro: Claves
de Lectura y Pistas de Reexión-Acción.” En R. Hoetmer, M. Castro, M. Daza, J. de
Echave, & C. Ruiz (Eds.). Minería y movimientos sociales en el Perú: instrumentos y
propuestas para la defensa de la vida, el agua y los territorios (pp. 265-280). Lima:
PDTG, CooperAcción, AcSur Las Segovias y Entrepueblos.
Pleyers, Geoffrey. (2019). Movimientos sociales en el siglo XXI. Perspectivas y herramientas
analíticas. Barcelona: Icaria & Antrazyt. https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.65723
Porto-Gonçalves, Carlos Walter (2010). Territorialidades y lucha por el territorio: Geografía
de los movimientos sociales en América Latina. Caracas: IVIC
Postero, N. (2010), The Indigenous State: Race, Politics, and Performance in Plurinational
Bolivia. Oakland, California: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/
luminos.31
Routledge, Paul (1996). “Critical geopolitics and terrains of resistance”. Political Geography,
Vol. 15, n° 6/7, 509-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(96)00029-7
Svampa, Maristella (2015). “Commodities consensus: Neoextractivism and enclosure of
the commons in Latin America”. South Atlantic Quarterly, 114 (1), 65–82. https://doi.
org/10.1215/00382876-2831290
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 20 •
Svampa, Maristella (2016). Debates Latinoamericanos. Indianismo, Desarrollo,
Dependencia, Populismo. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Edhasa.
Svampa, Maristella (2019). Las Fronteras Del Neoextractivismo En América Latina.
Conictos Socioambientales, Giro Ecoterritorial y Nuevas Dependencias. Guadalajara:
CALAS. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839445266
Svampa, Maristella; Viale, Enrique (2014). Maldesarrollo. La Argentina del extractivismo y
el despojo. Buenos Aires: Katz.
Svampa, Maristella; Viale, Enrique (2020). El colapso ecológico ya llego. Una brújula para
salir del (mal)desarrollo. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Tapia, Luis (2008). Política Salvaje. Buenos Aires: Muela del Diablo-CLACSO.
Tapia M., Luis (2011). La conguración de un horizonte contrahegemónico en la región
andina. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 16(53), 119-125. Recuperado a partir de
https://produccioncienticaluz.org/index.php/utopia/article/view/3423
Tetamanti, Diez, J. M. (2014). Hacia Una Geografía Comunitaria. Abordajes desde la
cartografía social. Argentina: EDUPA
Tockman, Jason; Cameron, John; Plata, Wilfredo (2015). New Institutions of Indigenous
Self-Governance in Bolivia: Between Autonomy and Self-Discipline, Latin American
and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10:1, 37-59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2015
.1034442
Thwaites Rey, Mabel; Ouviña, Hernan (2019). “El ciclo de impugnación al neoliberalismo
en América Latina”. En Estados en disputa, Hernán Ouviña Y Mabel Thwaites Rey
(Comp.). Buenos Aires: El Colectivo, Bajo Tierra, Desde Abajo, Editorial Zur, pp. 17-63.
Ulloa, Astrid (2017). Perspectives of environmental justice from Indigenous peoples of
Latin America: A relational Indigenous environmental justice. Environmental Justice,
10(6), 175-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/env.2017.0017
Vargas, R., Bryan; Ariza S., Rosembert (2019). “Liberación de la madre tierra: entre la
legitimidad y los usos sociales de la ilegalidad”. Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, vol.
22, 1, 203-231. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/sociojuridicos/a.7641
Villamayor, T., Sergio; García López, Gustavo (2017), “Environmental justicemovements
and CPR management.” IASC, July 11.
© 2024 por el autor. Licencia a ANDULI, Editorial Uni-
versidad de Sevilla. Es un artículo publicado en acce-
so abierto bajo los términos y condiciones de la licencia
“Creative Commons Atribución-No Comercial-Sin Derivar
4.0 Internacional.