Write a summary, in your own words, in no more than 200 words, of the previous excerpt adapted from John Crabtree's…

A 700-kilometre march by indigenous protesters in Ecuador lasted two weeks before reaching the capital Quito on 22 March 2012. It echoes previous marches in both Peru and Bolivia against policies that pose a threat to indigenous communities.

The governments of all three Andean countries face criticism for policies designed to boost investment but that fail adequately to address the concerns of local people, who claim these projects threaten their physical and social environment.

Earlier in 2012, protesters from the northern Cajamarca region in Peru marched on Lima, repudiating plans to build a giant new copper and gold-mining plant at Conga, a project they say will affect water supplies to local communities.

These events are set against a background where, in all three countries, governments elected with the support of indigenous populations have taken steps to enshrine indigenous rights in their respective legal codes.

In Peru, these rights have recently been passed into law. Soon after his inauguration as president in July 2011, Ollanta Humala passed a law making prior consultation a legal obligation. Elected on a leftwing ticket that supported indigenous rights, Humala was obliged to enact a law vetoed by his predecessor, Alan García Perez. In 2009, García had faced down protests in the northern town of Bagua as indigenous groups protested against plans to facilitate hydrocarbons exploration and exploitation in the Amazon jungle. Some thirty people, including police, were killed in the fray.

The governments of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador reflect aspects of what has been called the "pink wave" in Latin America, a reversion of the free-wheeling neo-liberal policies in vogue up until the early years of the new millennium — albeit to varying degrees. Bolivia and Ecuador belong to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (Alba), spearheaded by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Both countries have pursued policies highly critical of the United States and its policies towards Latin America. For his part, Peru’s Humala came to power having previously established and led a highly nationalistic party which, in the elections of 2011, made common cause with the parties of the Peruvian left. Since taking office, however, Humala has abandoned much of his earlier leftist rhetoric.

In Peru traditional party elites had failed conspicuously to resolve the country’s chronic economic and political problems, and were largely swept aside under the governments of Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000). But Fujimori’s departure from the scene did not lead to the resurgence of partisan organisation. Even the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (Apra), which dates from the 1930s and was once Peru’s largest mass party, remained but a shadow of its former self; in the 2011 elections it won only four seats in the 130-seat unicameral legislature.

All three presidents have had scope, therefore, to refashion their country’s electoral politics since taking power. In Bolivia, despite some defections, the MAS has a clear majority in both houses of the legislature, now known as the "plurinational legislative assembly". With only a modest presence, the opposition parties are effectively powerless to stop legislation.

Rafael Correa’s party, Alianza Pais (AP), has likewise enjoyed a working majority in Ecuador’s national assembly, although it has suffered some damaging defections in recent times. The situation is different in Peru, where Humala’s Gana Peru grouping did not win a majority in the 2011 elections, but has since entered into alliances with centrist and centre-right groupings which have (at least so far) afforded him parliamentary majorities.

All three presidents have managed to fashion good working relationships with their armed forces, still an important factor of power in this part of Latin America. In each case, they have used their electoral prowess to push through changes at senior levels to garner support in the barracks.

Opinion-polls suggest support for Humala has risen strongly since his election in 2011; admiration for his young and attractive wife, Nadine, who has displayed some consummate political skills since becoming the first lady, makes her a political factor. It is too soon to say what will happen when the president’s term ends in 2016. Humala has said he will not stand, and he lacks the parliamentary strength to change the constitution to be able to do so; but there are many who argue that he will seek to perpetuate his power by supporting the candidacy of his wife. This would be to emulate the Argentine model, whereby Néstor Kirchner was replaced as president by his wife, Cristina.

The future of mining and extractive industries more generally in Peru has become a major source of political discord, of which the Congas dispute is but the latest of a series of bitter confrontations. The Congas project involves the expansion of activities by Yanacocha, Latin America’s largest gold producer. It is formed by a consortium of Newmont Mining (of the United States), Buenaventura (a large Peruvian miner) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank. There has been a history of conflict between Yanacocha and local community groups and farmers stretching back over most of the past decade. The latter claim their livelihoods will be irretrievable damaged by the project.

Environmental impacts have been a major source of conflict between mining companies and communities throughout the Peruvian highlands. Several important projects have been halted owing to local pressure, including Yanacocha’s Cerro Quilish scheme near Cajamarca city. Peru has seen an unprecedented expansion in mining and hydrocarbons projects in recent years, attracting more investment than most other Andean countries. Often these investments take place in remote areas where the state is virtually absent and where no other legitimate entities are on hand to mediate disputes.

The president previously sided with local communities against extractive industries. But Humala has found himself under huge pressure from pro-mining lobby groups and other interested parties to shift his ground. Since his election victory, he has publically acknowledged the need to continue to support mining investments but argued that the resources generated thereby should be used to improve the living conditions of the poorest, including those living in the areas surrounding mining camps. In December 2011, he dismissed many of the more leftwing voices in his cabinet.

However, traditionally, the Peruvian state has proved unable to respond effectively to such social needs, lacking the administrative machinery to achieve its ends. While social spending has increased in recent years, the conditions of poverty in Peru’s interior have not improved substantially. Considerable doubt thus remains as to whether Humala will succeed where his predecessors failed.