NGO WORK
Documenting killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders
Published
6 months agoon

Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Giles Clarke / Global Witness
Every year, Global Witness works with partners to gather evidence, verify and document every time a land and environmental defender is killed or disappeared. Our methodology follows robust criteria, yet undocumented cases pose challenges when it comes to analysing data
Global Witness documents killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally. In partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, we produce an annual report containing these figures, and we have done so since 2012.
Our methodology involves a year-long process of cross-referencing data from different sources to ensure its credibility. Over 2,200 killings or long-term disappearances of defenders appear in our database since 2012 – with 146 cases documented in 2024.
Every year, we maintain a database to keep a record of these crimes and create a comprehensive global picture of the systematic violence defenders face.
The data provides a snapshot of the underlying drivers behind reprisals and indicates how some defenders and their communities face increased risks. Exposing these trends is the first of many steps to ensure that defenders and their communities are protected and can exercise their rights without fearing for their lives.
Killings and disappearances documented between 2012 and 2024
-
2,253
defenders have been killed or disappeared since 2012
Global Witness
-
146
of these attacks occurred in 2024
Global Witness
Classifying defenders’ cases
Most of the cases recorded in our database are killings – including assassinations by illicit actors, state murder and death in detention.
Our database also includes disappearances of defenders, where the individual has been missing for six months or more.
All reports prior to 2025 have combined killings and long-term disappearances into one single headline figure. For greater clarity, our latest report indicates a distinction between these two types of attack, and our reports will continue to make this distinction in future.
Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024. Tamara Merino / Global Witness
Cases from prior years or those already included in our database are not continuously monitored. Where we receive updated information on an attack, we may retrospectively include or remove cases.
We document the killing or disappearance of a defender when there is a reasonable and suspected link to an individual’s activism or where the individual played a role in defence of the land or the environment.
As well as individuals directly involved in activism, we also document tangential violence against families, community members or others caught up in attacks.
Our definition covers a broad range of people and encompasses different types of land and environmental leadership. Crucially, this involves people who work in any capacity to protect rights linked to the exploitation of land or the environment.
How we define land and environmental defenders
Land and environmental defenders are a specific type of human rights defender – individuals or groups of people who act to promote, protect or strive for the realisation of human rights through peaceful action.
Their role as human rights protectors is recognised by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, principles also enshrined in other legally binding international instruments. This includes those working to protect human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.
We define defenders as people who take peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment.
Land and environmental struggles take different forms and are shaped by local contexts. For example, in every region of the world, communities strive against systematic land dispossession and environmental destruction from extractive industries.
For some the threat to territories is intimately connected to the degeneration of their sovereignty, culture, livelihoods and homes. Others are caught in wider conflicts which exacerbate land, environmental and climate injustices.
Defenders often live in communities whose land, health and livelihoods are threatened by the operations of mining, logging, agribusiness or other industries.
Some defend our biodiverse environment, while others support such efforts through their roles as lawyers, politicians, park rangers, journalists, or members of campaigns or civil society organisations.
Others are holders of traditional or Indigenous knowledge, working as Indigenous guards or community knowledge keepers.
Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer who disappeared with Indigenous leader Antonio Díaz Valencia after attending a community meeting in San Miguel de Aquila, Mexico. Luis Rojas / Global Witness
Identifying and documenting cases
We learn of killings and disappearances through reliable sources of online reporting, tip-offs and wider documentation efforts from civil society organisations.
We set up search engine alerts using keywords and conduct other searches online to identify relevant cases. We also share information with international and national organisations who report on attacks against human rights defenders.
We then research each case to assess whether the person killed or disappeared was a land and environmental defender, according to our definition.
Desk-based research has its limitations. Many attacks on land and environmental defenders receive little or no media attention, due to the remote location of attacks, stigmatisation by investigating authorities, or widespread government repression of the media.
In most instances, we supplement identified cases with additional research. This includes working closely to share information with trusted civil society organisations and communities who have gathered evidence through their own investigations.
Communities affected by the East African Oil Pipeline report receiving threats after refusing to leave their homes without adequate compensation. Jjumba Martin / Global Witness
Verifying information
We work closely with in-country partners to verify whether there is a reasonable and suspected link between the killing or disappearance and the person’s activism.
Testimony from families, communities and organisations working with targeted defenders often provides key information. Sometimes we review official documentation, including police reports or legal documents. This information is documented by Global Witness and not made public.
Navigating toxic narratives
Year after year, we are confronted with cases where the very nature of what it means to be a land and environmental defender is questioned.
Often governments, corporations and media outlets propagate a narrow view of land and environmental activism, excluding individuals and communities whose role defending land or environmental rights is less recognisable.
Across the world, defenders and their communities are often labelled as “criminals”, “agitators” or “communists”. These toxic terms are sometimes employed by the institutions and authorities that claim to uphold people’s rights.
Media can often repeat damaging narratives or even simply ignore reporting on these cases, making it difficult to verify whether an attack could be linked to a persons’ activism.
In these situations, we work closely with local organisations to clarify the contexts in which defenders work, and the patterns of stigmatisation they face, and gather more evidence of the role they played in environmental and land rights protection.
An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project. James Rodriguez / Global Witness
We also work alongside other organisations gathering national, regional and international reprisal-related data. This includes official UN sources of data collection as well as civil society initiatives.
Every data collection project has its own definitions and methodologies, which create challenges in collating this data into a global dataset on attacks against defenders. Some existing datasets overlap with ours, but often do not fully coincide.
For every case documented, we research and evaluate whether it fits our definition of a land and environmental defender.
Often, public reporting on attacks is circumstantial or lacks information. In some cases, attacks go unreported, particularly in rural areas and in certain countries.
In these cases, countries with restricted civic space – where civil society organisations, NGOs and other groups that monitor the work of defenders are less present, for example – are not able to fill the reporting gap.
This is further exacerbated by repression of the media, authoritarian governments and active political conflicts. Documenting massacres or reprisals in active conflict zones, areas under occupation or where organised crime groups have social or territorial control is also challenging.
These contextual challenges mean that our data is likely to underreport killings and disappearances in certain countries and regions of the world – particularly in areas of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Spotlighting our criteria
To meet our criteria, a case must be supported by the following available information:
- Credible sources of information. This can include online publications, official documentation on a case or collating information from families, colleagues and civil society organisations linked to a case.
- Details about the type of act and method of violence, including the date and location.
- Name and biographical information about the victim.
- Clear, proximate and documented connections to the protection and defence of environmental and land rights. This includes evaluating the various roles of defenders play and the wider contexts and underlying conflicts that affect them.
Many of the defenders working to protect land and environment also speak out against the harmful impacts of the climate crisis either because of the direct impact on their livelihoods and communities or in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. Matheus Alves / Sumauma / Global Witness
Analysing the data
We seek to understand the most dangerous repercussions defenders face in the context of the territorial and environmental disputes taking place in their countries.
We also look to understand the characteristics of defenders and their communities – who they are as people and whether some face greater, more targeted risks.
Focusing on the most serious harms (killings and disappearances) enables us to confidently verify the threats defenders face and allows us to analyse geographical trends at regional, country and local level – though with recognised limitations.
We record whether a defender belongs to a marginalised group – Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants or rural communities – or if they act as a defender in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. This enables us to understand more about the characteristics of defenders working to protect land and the environment.
We try to gather information on the rights defenders are striving to protect, such as whether they are engaged in a territorial dispute or preventing environmental damage.
Violence is often connected to wider territorial disputes linked to the expansion of extractive projects, devastating the homes and livelihoods of families and communities. Andrew Ball / Panos / Global Witness
We also aim to identify the underlying driver of the harms that led to their acts of protest – for instance, land disputes or industries linked to destructive practices or rights infringements.
Where possible, we record the alleged perpetrator of the crime – both the direct offender and the suspected intellectual authors.
Our dataset is reviewed and updated annually. Before we publish our data, documented cases from the previous year go through a rigorous fact-checking process to ensure confidence in the veracity of our data.
We do not proactively review historic cases in our database. If there are changes in the status of a case or if more information about an individual defender comes to light, we revise and amend our database accordingly.
In the weeks before the publication of our Annual Defenders Report, we temporarily halt the inclusion of new cases – any new cases or information received are kept on file and later added to the database.
Despite efforts to overcome the data access and verification challenges outlined above, our data is likely incomplete. The figures presented in Global Witness reports are therefore probably an underestimate and should be considered as only a partial picture of the extent of killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders.
Read full article: globalwitness.org
Related posts:

Human rights defenders show remarkable courage in the face of attacks and killings – new report
#COP27: HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES URGE PARTIES TO INCREASE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND DEFENDERS.
Toxic platforms, broken planet: How online abuse of land and environmental defenders harms climate action
Defending tomorrow: The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders
You may like
NGO WORK
Two dead as Siaya protests against gold mining firm turn tragic
Published
2 weeks agoon
April 7, 2026
Ikolomani residents protesting against eviction plan to pave space for British mining company Shanta Gold on November 12, 2025. Two people died in similar protests in Gem, Siaya County. Isaac Wale | Nation Media Group
Two people were shot dead on Monday in Gem–Ramula, Siaya County, after villagers staged a protest over an alleged eviction they linked to Shanta Gold Kenya Limited.
Area police boss Charles Wafula confirmed the incident, stating that the victims were among a group alleged to have attacked a police post after the officers moved in to disperse the demonstrators.
According to Mr Wafula, the demonstrators, angered by what they described as an illegal resettlement by the company, stormed the station during the protest, prompting officers to intervene.
“The individuals had organised a demonstration but they did not notify the police. Our officers moved in to contain the situation, but the group began attacking both officers and Ramula Police Post, damaging several items, including vehicles,” Mr Wafula said.
However, a local rights organisation has sharply contested the police account, portraying the killings as unlawful and unprovoked.
In a statement, the Community Initiative Action Group Kenya said the two victims identified as Henry Otieno and Jack Omenda were part of a peaceful protest against what they termed a forced eviction from their ancestral land.
“The community had gathered peacefully to demonstrate against Shanta Gold Limited’s attempt to relocate them without their consent,” said the lobby’s Executive Director Chris Owalla.
The group further alleged that police officers opened fire without warning following a confrontation with residents at Ramula Market.
“Witnesses state there was an exchange between the community and police after which officers opened fire, killing Henry and Jack on the spot,” Mr Owalla said.
The rights group also accused senior police officers including Mr Wafula and Charles Emodo of Directorate of Criminal Investigation, of disregarding a court order that had halted evictions and mining operations in the area.
According to Mr Owalla, the Environment and Land Court in Siaya had, on February 5, 2026, issued conservatory orders barring any involuntary resettlement of residents in Ramula and its environs, pending the hearing of a petition.
The organisation is now calling for investigations by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the the Director of Public Prosecutions, alongside an independent autopsy on the victims.
Fear of evictions
The unrest is rooted in long-standing tensions over planned gold mining operations by Shanta Gold in the region. The company is seeking to establish a large-scale extraction project – one that residents fear could uproot communities and erode livelihoods carefully built over generations.
Similar scenes of unrest were reported in November 2025 in Ikolomani, where locals protested against possible relocations linked to the same company.
Shanta Gold has previously signalled its intention to invest in a multi-billion-shilling project in western Kenya, targeting high-grade gold deposits expected to yield significant output over several years.
Source: nation.africa
Related posts:

Amidst Failed US Sanctions, the Indigenous Pay the Price for Nicaragua’s Gold Rush
DR Congo oil palm company bankrolled by development banks unleashes wave of violence against villagers after peaceful protests
Artisanal gold miners defy government on mercury use
Njuba’s Gold Mine victims: A violent Eviction that Opened Wounds That May Never Heal Forever
NGO WORK
Tanzania: Commissions call for mass eviction of Indigenous Maasai from world-famous tourist destinations.
Published
1 month agoon
March 19, 2026
Two presidential commissions have recommended the mass eviction of Maasai people from some of East Africa’s most iconic conservation areas and tourist destinations.
The commissions were established by Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan following previous evictions of Maasai pastoralists from parts of the world-famous Serengeti ecosystem, and large-scale protests in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2024.
Now, despite a global outcry at the earlier evictions, the two Commissions have:
- Backed the previous evictions and called for them to continue, including in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Ngorongoro and neighboring Lake Natron.
- Described the long-standing Maasai presence in the area as an “environmental pressure” that needs to be reduced.
- Threatened local NGOs that support the Maasai, accusing them of “spreading misinformation or propaganda” because they “conflict with government interests.”
- Called for the “relocation” of all “non-conservation activities” [in other words, Maasai occupancy of the land] outside the conservation areas.
- Called for existing recognition of the Maasai people’s right to live in the Ngorongoro area to be removed.
An anonymous Maasai spokesperson said today: “We are blamed for environmental degradation while the unchecked expansion of tourism is ignored. Forced relocation, disguised as policy, has deprived our people of basic rights and dignity. We reject any continuation of these measures and condemn the Commission’s failure to reflect the voices, realities, and rights of our people.”

The authorities maintain that these are “voluntary relocations.” However, the Maasai have overwhelmingly rejected being moved.
The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When it was established, the ancestral right of the Maasai to live there with their cattle was explicitly acknowledged. But UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has backed the so-called “voluntary relocations”, and UNESCO endorses the “fortress conservation” model that underpins Tanzania’s approach.
Survival International Director Caroline Pearce said today, “These commissions were a sham, a gimmick designed to give Tanzania’s violent persecution of the Maasai a veneer of respectability. It was widely predicted that they’d back further evictions: the whole saga just confirms that colonial-style fortress conservation is alive and well in Tanzania today, and enthusiastically endorsed by UNESCO.
“These recommendations give the green light to more evictions, in Ngorongoro and beyond. And while the Maasai are robbed of their lands and livelihood, the government, tour operators and so-called conservationists will enrich themselves from a landscape emptied of its original owners.”
Source: survivalinternational.org
Related posts:

The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai
Worldwide Condemnation Over Violence against the Maasai by Tanzania Security Forces
US Luxury Safari Operator Tightens Stranglehold Over Maasai Land in Tanzania
NGO WORK
Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Published
1 month agoon
March 18, 2026
- March 12, 2026, Presidential commissions’ reports recommend dismantling longstanding Maasai rights in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) – rubber-stamping the Tanzanian government’s plans for widespread evictions to expand tourism.
- President Hassan pursues a so-called “voluntary” relocation program, despite extensive evidence that communities are being forced to leave through the withdrawal of essential services and livelihood restrictions.
- The government announced a crackdown on civil society groups critical of its plans, raising concerns of further repression of land defenders and NGOs speaking out against forced displacement.
- Maasai communities remain steadfast in the defense of their land, livelihoods, and way of life, vowing to continue resistance against attempts to force them from their ancestral territories.
Oakland, CA – In reports submitted on March 12, 2026 to Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan, commissions tasked to assess land disputes in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) and review resettlement plans, dismissed rights of the Indigenous Maasai to their ancestral lands. They instead advance recommendations that further marginalize their rights in order to expand safari tourism.
“The commissions’ recommendations are based on outright lies about the environmental impacts of the Maasai, while completely ignoring the real damage caused by rapid tourism expansion,” said a Maasai elder. 1 “If these extremely biased and reckless recommendations are implemented, it will be the end of our people in Ngorongoro.”
Immediately after the reports were submitted, park rangers started harassment of residents in the grazing areas of Ndutu with the intent to force them to leave for tourism expansion. Three community members were reportedly beaten and arrested while others received notices to vacate.
Recommendations are a crafty attempt at changing 1959 legislation that created the NCA as a multiple land use area – explicitly enshrining the right of the Maasai to live and graze cattle in the area. The Maasai were promised that “should there be any conflict between the interests of the game [animals] and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.”
The President has accepted the recommendations and stated she “will act on them” – a decision that will have a catastrophic impact on Maasai communities. The government has signaled its intention to drastically reduce Maasai presence in the NCA and relocate what it calls “non-conservation activities” outside the area. Towards this goal, the President has indicated an expansion of the “voluntary” relocation program.
For years, the Oakland Institute has shattered government myths about “voluntary” resettlement –exposing serious flaws with relocation plans that are being forced upon communities. To pressure residents to leave, the government has stopped basic medical, education, and water services while restricting access to grazing land for pastoralists. Massive mobilizations by the Maasai against this forced resettlement expose the government’s lie that people are leaving willingly.
Beyond the NCA, the commissions also recommend further restrictions on livelihoods, threatening the future eviction of Maasai communities living near Lake Natron and Loliondo. “These sham findings are the latest attempt by the government to rapidly expand its brutal fortress conservation model across the country, threatening hundreds of thousands of Indigenous lives in blind pursuit of tourism dollars that have failed to trickle down to improve the lives of the poor Tanzanians and the local communities,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.
In another alarming development, the government is attempting to silence local NGOs by reviewing their registration status and monitoring their activities to force them to operate “in alignment with national conservation objectives.” The move reflects the regime’s ongoing persecution of civil society and broader crackdown on dissent, carried out through state violence and arbitrary detention. Major opposition parties remain outlawed in Tanzania, while government critics have routinely disappeared. Following the rigged October 2025 national elections, the government violently suppressed pro-democracy protests and state security forces killed thousands of civilians.
As previously warned by the Oakland Institute, both commissions lacked independence given they were dominated by government personnel and had very limited Maasai representation. The commissions’ reports – which have not been made public – were orally presented to the government nearly one year after they were due to provide findings.
“These commissions have no credibility. From the start, they were tasked with rubber stamping the government’s plans to evict the Indigenous Maasai so their land can be a safari and hunting playground for the rich foreign tourists. One cannot be fooled by their “findings” and international solidarity must be mobilized to uphold Maasai’s rights to their ancestral land,” warned Mittal.
Source: oaklandinstitute.org
Related posts:

Tanzanian Government’s Sustained Campaign Against the Maasai in Loliondo and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government on a Rampage Against Indigenous People
Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai
Breaking: Ugandan Court jails eight Anti-EACOP activists as crackdown on dissent deepens.
Govt launches war on land fraud, illegal evictions
Agroecological farming: EAC Bill moves to Parliament to establish a regional legal framework to protect and promote sustainable farming and food systems.
African women are rising for climate justice and reparations on the inaugural continental day of action.
The South African High Court concludes hearing a landmark case challenging TotalEnergies’ Deep-Water Drilling project and offers to deliver its ruling on notice.
Oil-affected residents and civil society organizations reject TotalEnergies’ Tilenga Progress Report, citing unfairness in their operations.
U.S. Peace Efforts in the DRC: Protecting Communities or Minerals?
African women are rising for climate justice and reparations on the inaugural continental day of action.
Innovative Finance from Canada projects positive impact on local communities.
Over 5000 Indigenous Communities evicted in Kiryandongo District
Petition To Land Inquiry Commission Over Human Rights In Kiryandongo District
Invisible victims of Uganda Land Grabs
Resource Center
- Land And Environment Rights In Uganda Experiences From Karamoja And Mid Western Sub Regions
- REPARATORY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE MUST BE AT THE CORE OF COP30, SAY GLOBAL LEADERS AND MOVEMENTS
- LAND GRABS AT GUNPOINT REPORT IN KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
- THOSE OIL LIARS! THEY DESTROYED MY BUSINESS!
- RESEARCH BRIEF -TOURISM POTENTIAL OF GREATER MASAKA -MARCH 2025
- The Mouila Declaration of the Informal Alliance against the Expansion of Industrial Monocultures
- FORCED LAND EVICTIONS IN UGANDA TRENDS RIGHTS OF DEFENDERS IMPACT AND CALL FOR ACTION
- 12 KEY DEMANDS FROM CSOS TO WORLD LEADERS AT THE OPENING OF COP16 IN SAUDI ARABIA
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK3 days agoAfrican women are rising for climate justice and reparations on the inaugural continental day of action.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoUgandan Farmers Sue EACOP in London in Last Minute Effort to Stop Crude Oil Pipeline
-
NGO WORK2 weeks agoTwo dead as Siaya protests against gold mining firm turn tragic
-
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS6 days agoAfrica is capturing just 2% of its carbon credit potential
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK3 days agoAgroecological farming: EAC Bill moves to Parliament to establish a regional legal framework to protect and promote sustainable farming and food systems.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoMinister Cancels Contested 12-Square-Mile Land Title in Mubende
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK3 hours agoBreaking: Ugandan Court jails eight Anti-EACOP activists as crackdown on dissent deepens.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK22 hours agoGovt launches war on land fraud, illegal evictions
