David Hill's Response to: 'Repsol response re impacts of its Block 39 project on indigenous peoples' rights'
'. . . the assumption that there are people living in voluntary isolation in that area fails to be supported by any evidence shown in standard scientific conditions.'
Repsol-YPF doesn't say what it means by 'standard scientific conditions.' The fact is, as my article in Truthout and Survival International's report makes clear, a great deal of evidence for the existence of 'uncontacted' indigenous peoples in the region where Repsol-YPF is operating has been collected over the years. Numerous anthropologists support this view.
'We have asked the independent conservationist entity Smithsonian Institution to conduct a research study on the area which objectives specifically included the determination of the existence of the alleged uncontacted tribes.'
The Smithsonian Institute can't be called 'independent' in this case. Repsol-YPF paid it to work in Block 39.
'We have sent a copy of Smithsonian's report to Survival International, organization for which Mr. Hill has worked until 2010, so we assume he knows the findings of the research. . .'
Repsol-YPF assumes wrong. No copy of the Smithsonian Institution's report was received by Survival International while I worked there.
'Survival's report. . . says that 'anthropologists have collected a great deal of evidence demonstrating the existence of uncontacted tribes in Lot 39', and then lists those 'evidences' in a vague way: 'abandoned gardens, paths, crossed spears belonging to the tribes, and direct sightings. . .'
This list is not 'vague' at all. It is a concise summary of the types of evidence collected by anthropologists and collated in reports by indigenous organizations in Peru. Since those reports were already publicly available, there was no point in Survival repeating what had already been said.
'No anthropologist would support such a groundless statement.'
This is totally untrue. As stated above, numerous anthropologists support the view that the evidence collected demonstrates the existence of 'uncontacted' indigenous peoples' in the area where Repsol-YPF is operating.
'Later in (Survival's) report, reference is made to '23 sworn testimonies', without giving any references on the identity of the declarers. . .'
Survival's report made it clear that these '23 sworn testimonies' were part of a report written by local indigenous organization ORPIO. Again, since that report, which lists the names of the interviewees as well as their national identification numbers, was already publicly available, there was no point in repeating what had already been said.
'. . . statements like 'Survival estimates that at least 75 people are on record providing evidence of uncontacted tribes in the region of Lot 39' again without any documentary evidence attached.'
Almost all of the '75 people. . . on record' can be found in the documents mentioned or discussed in my Truthout article, either in the text of the article itself or in the bibliography.
'Mr Hill's article recycles old alleged testimonies, most unavailable to formal contrast, and personal judgments and beliefs that are deserve all our respect but are of limited scientific value.'
As far as I'm aware, my Truthout article was the first concerted effort to speak to as many of the researchers as possible who were employed by an environmental consultancy, Daimi, by another oil company, Perenco, working in Block 67, which is in the same area as Block 39, to research the existence of 'uncontacted' indigenous peoples in that region. Daimi's report concluded no evidence was found. Again, Repsol-YPF doesn't say what it means by 'scientific value', but the fact is, as my article shows, several of the researchers I spoke to, including three anthropologists working at Peru's National Amazon University, said evidence was found.