Executive summary

Indigenous Rights and Institutions in Panama.

The law affords indigenous people the same political and legal rights as other citizens, protects their ethnic identity and requires the government to provide bilingual literacy programs in indigenous communities. A law on bilingual education was passed in 2005 but is not implemented. Only the Kuna seem have organized, largely on their own initiative, some bilingual primary education curriculum.
The Ministry of Government and Justice contains an Office of Indigenous Policy and the Ministry of Social Development is creating a Direction for Indigenous Peoples. Although the federal law is the ultimate authority, local groups especially in the comarcas maintain considerable autonomy. For example, the GoP recognized traditional Kuna marriage rites as a civil wedding and the Kuna started a project on clarifying the domains of communal vs. federal law. The law also protects indigenous property rights on artwork (the Kuna are developing their own brand name for clothing) and establishes regulation for artisan fairs.
Despite formal equality and legal recognition, indigenous people suffer from astonishingly higher and sometimes worsening rates of poverty, disease, malnutrition, maternal mortality and illiteracy than the rest of the population. Because a lot of them do not have an adequate command of Spanish, they often misunderstand their rights and fail to employ legal channels when threatened.
Social and employment discrimination are rampant. Indigenous laborers in coffee, sugar and banana plantations work under worse conditions than their non-indigenous counterparts. They are less likely to receive quality housing or food and their children are more likely perform long hours of heavy farm work. Employers also often do not afford indigenous workers basic rights such as minimum wage, termination benefits, job security, etc… especially in domestic work.

Operational Definition of Ethnicity in the LSMS

Two general definitions are used to identify ethnicity in the ENV 2003 household Survey. The first one considers that a person is indigenous if s/he speaks an indigenous language as first or second language. The survey only collects language information for the population aged 6 and older. We thus assigned the ethnicity of children according to the following criteria: a child is assigned his or her mother’s answer on language if the mother is present in that household. In the absence of his/her mother, the child is assigned the language of the household head.
The second definition identifies a person as indigenous if s/he lives in a territory that is mostly populated by persons from certain ethnic groups. (The interviewer always answers the question regarding “region”).
Using the first definition tends to increase the number of indigenous people (302,850) since it provides a finer identification measure and also since indigenous households tend to have more children than non-indigenous households (Table A.3.5.1).

Table A.3.5.1: Distribution of the Indigenous Population by Maternal or Second Language

Source: Own estimate based on 2003 ENV data.

Table A.3.5.2 presents the distribution of indigenous people by province. Less than 6 percent of residents of comarcas are non-indigenous. The Ngobe-Bugle are mainly concentrated in their comarca (68 percent) and in the provinces around, mainly in Bocas del Toro. In contrast, a significant share of the Kuna (48 percent) and the Embera-Woonan (70 percent) live outside of the comarcas. The Kuna mainly migrate to Panama City while the Embera-Woonan are found in all areas of the country.

Table A.3.5.2: Geographic Distribution of the Indigenous Population by Maternal or Second Language

Source: Own estimate based on 2003 ENV data.

Migration in both groups is most often a household strategy to increase income through the migration of one or several members (typically the father as well as secondary school age students among the Kuna). While Embera-Woonan are traditionally semi-nomadic tradition, their migration patterns today are also driven by safety issues in the Darién area. Poverty seems indeed lower among indigenous people in urban areas, as shown in Table A.3.5.2

Language Abilities of Indigenous Groups

Command of Spanish among indigenous groups. Limited command of Spanish may limit access to employment, education, health services, social programs and justice. Under both definitions, only 43 percent of the indigenous population is monolingual indigenous speaker. While the Embera-Wounan has the highest proportion of bilingual speakers (75 percent), the Kuna with the lowest one (47 percent) seem to preserve more their own language (Table A.3.5.3).

Residents of the comarcas are more likely to not speak Spanish, especially among the Ngobe-Bugle and the Kuna. Indigenous women in all groups are more likely to be monolingual. Older people are also more likely to speak only their indigenous language. Children are increasingly exposed to Spanish through preschool and primary schools.

Table A.3.5.3: Indigenous Population Who Speaks Spanish

Source: Own estimate based on 2003 ENV data.

Loss of indigenous languages. Reflecting migration patterns to urban areas, the Kuna have the highest share of monolingual Spanish speakers, especially among school-age children (up to 45 percent in Panama City). The share is lowest among the Ngobe-Bugle probably reflecting both the fact that they mostly live in the comarca but also their lower access to schools. The Kuna authorities are well aware of this phenomenon and are pushing for bilingual education in the comarca. To be successful, a well-designed conditional cash transfer program, with a co-responsibility linked to school attendance, should work in coordination with education providers so as to promote bilingual education at the pre-school and primary school levels.