50 Bayano Hydroelectric Project does not benefit the indigenous peoples who were evicted from their lands and moved to make this construction possible who must purchase electrical generators at their own cost 272 to have electricity. 186. In addition, as has been noted, the construction of the hydroelectric project and the Pan American Highway led to the arrival in the Bayano region of groups of non-indigenous persons who 273 began to establish themselves at the ends of the basin. Once the highway running through indigenous lands was completed, this new road facilitated the internal migration of settlers who appropriated the 274 indigenous lands, producing drastic changes in the social composition of the area. The possession of lands and the use of natural resources by non-indigenous persons generated a climate of permanent tension that persists to this day. The IACHR observes that confrontations have even occurred on several occasions between indigenous persons and settlers, which impede the normal development of the 275 alleged victims. Accordingly, the presence of non-indigenous persons represents a constant threat to 276 the traditional way of life and cultural identity of the Kuna and Emberá peoples. 187. When they arrived the settlers began deforesting wooded areas to grow crops, engaging in extensive agriculture by which, through slash-and-burn practices, they have converted forests to pastureland, expanding the agricultural frontier and removing their natural resources from indigenous 277 lands to convert them to pasture. Indeed, according to the information produced by the parties, many settlers do not live in the lands of the comarca, but carry on economic activities in their territory or rent 278 them to other persons to obtain better earnings. The practice of eliminating the natural plant cover to grow crops is “diametrically opposed to the modes of conservation and protection of the petitioners’ 279 natural resources.” …continuation 271 Petitioners’ brief of September 21, 2001, received by the IACHR September 24, 2001. p. 7; and petitioners’ brief of January 19, 2007, received by the IACHR the same day. 272 In this respect, the Cacique General of the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí noted: “with this problem of the reservoir that appeared, new diseases also appeared affecting the population, and of late I wish to tell you the lack of electricity in the indigenous area, because the benefit is for the Panamanian people….” IACHR, Public hearing, March 23, 2012 on “Case 12,354 -Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Panama,” 144th regular period of sessions. Testimony of Manuel Pérez, Cacique General of the General Congress of the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí. See hearing at http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/. See also petitioners’ brief of September 21, 2001, received by the IACHR September 24, 2001. p. 7. 273 Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 22. 274 The petitioners state: “At the time the dam was built, nearly 2,000 settlers had already settled in the Bayano region. Drawn to the zone by the extension of the Pan American Highway in the 1950s, these settlers had come to the Bayano region from western Panama in search of lands to cultivate.... The additional construction of the highway in the 1970s accelerated the invasion.” Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 15 and pp. 25-26. 275 Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 21, pp. 29-30. 276 Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. 277 Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. IACHR, Public hearing, March 23, 2012 on “Case 12,354 -- Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Panama,” 144th regular period of sessions. Testimony of Bolívar Jaripio Garabato, member of the Emberá community of Piriatí and of the Emberá General Congress of Alto Bayano; and Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 22. 278 Annex 93. Survey done in the community of Curtí, November 21, 1998. Annex 17 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001, received by the IACHR July 2, 2001; and IACHR, Public hearing, March 23, 2012 on “Case 12,354 -- Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Panama,” 144th regular period of sessions. Expert testimony of Ultiminio Cabrera Chanapi. 279 Petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2002, received by the IACHR September 25, 2002. According to information produced by the parties: “As there is an intimate relationship between the natural life processes, flora and fauna coexist and reproduce. With exuberant and rich vegetation, animal life is equally varied and abundant. If the flora is destroyed, the animal species also succumb. The jungle provides refuge and food to the fauna in its environment. This symbiotic and functional union is only altered by man…. Flora and fauna were for centuries a source of sustenance for the life of the indigenous groups that inhabited the basin, nonetheless their presence did not cause a rupture of the ecosystem given their low technological level, which enabled them to conserve the jungle.” Annex 1. Esther Urieta Donos, thesis “Ipeti-Choco: Una comunidad Indígena de Panamá afectada por una Presa Hidroeléctrica”. Universidad Veracruzana, School of Anthropology, 1994. pp. 30-31. Annex C to petitioners’ brief of additional observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on December 18, 2009.