Day 5
Friday AM, July 26, 2002
Morning Session 11:00 a.m.

Continuation of Item 4(a) The WGIP: Achievements in the UN and vision for the future

Erica Irene Daes
Congratulates Alfonso Martinez on his election as Chairperson, and the other Members of the WGIP. In 1971 the UN Sub Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Former Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities) authorized a study by Special Rapporteur Jose Martinez Cobo on The Problem of Discrimination Against IPs. After many years of hard work by the SR and his secretary Augusto Willemsen Diaz, the study was completed, translated in all official languages and widely disseminated. One of the basic recommendations of this monumental study was the establishment of a Working Group. In 1982, ECOSOC authorized the Sub Commission to establish the WGIP, composed by five individual members of the above mentioned sub commission, representing the five geographical regions, recognized by the UN. It would meet annually, immediately before the annual sessions of the sub commission. The mandate of the WGIP was two-fold: The WGIP would review current developments affecting the rights of IPs, but its main mandate was to draft standards.
The establishment of the WGIP was a great success for the world’s IPs. For the first time IPs had a specific access to the UN. They had their own forum. But the WGIP had no adjudicatory powers and was at the lowest level in the UN system. Its recommendations would have to be submitted to the sub commission, ECOSOC, the third Committee of the General Assembly, before any of its proposals or recommendations to be approved. However, the most important achievement of the WGIP should be considered the mobilization of the international movement of the world’s IPs. Above all it became the most important meeting point for IPs. The UN created a space where IPs felt free to speak frankly and felt safe to share their experiences without fear of retaliation. As it is well known everywhere else at the UN system, the right to speak is limited to states, specialized agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC.
Asbjorn Eide, became the first Chairman Rapporteur of the WGIP. As it was mentioned in the preceding paragraph the WGIP has become a significant international forum. Under his excellent chairmanship, the WGIP decided on a number of basic unwritten rules of procedure, which allowed any indigenous person to address the WGIP. In 1984 the member of the sub commission , Erica Irene Daes was elected chairperson rapporteurs of the WGIP. While the Chairperson has often stated and explained that the WGIP is not a “chamber of complaints” the annual sessions have become in certain cases a place for airing grievances. Although these complaints were formally unacceptable they created opportunities for the matters of these complaints to be discussed with the Governments and thus a constructive liberal dialogue has developed for the benefit of all concerned. Also the principles of mutual respect between all the participants to the WGIP including governments, and solidarity between IPs of the different regions of the international community, were developed. On the basis of a recommendation of the WGIP the General Assembly established a voluntary fund on IPs to enable IPs to attend the sessions of the WGIP, enhancing its character as an international forum and as a unique community within the UN system. For example, recent sessions have attracted between 850 and 1000 IP representatives, representatives of specialized agencies or other IGOs, governmental observers and NGOs.
Some delegations of the observer Governments argued that the WGIP would be a public forum of complaints; others did not. The majority accepted the correct interpretation of the mandate of the WGIP that it was not a mechanism for the examination of complaints or communications for violations of human rights, as it was repeatedly explained by the chair. In 1985 the WGIP began drafting standards, anxious, among others, to protect its existence from attacks by certain governments by demonstrating that concrete and important work was underway.

In 1986, general financial problems within the UN led to the cancellation of the sub commission meeting and of the WGIP session as well. However, the Chairperson Rapporteur, Mrs Daes, who was also the Chairperson of the sub commission at that session succeeded to organize a number of meetings with valuable assistance of IPs and other NGOs concerned and the WGIP resumed the pattern of annual meetings in 1987. The WGIP continued the consideration of a number of important items, including the right to life, to physical integrity and to security of the IPs, the right to land and to natural resources, the right to autonomy and self determination and political institutions and representation of IPs, the right to develop their own cultural traditions, language, religious practices and way of life, the economic and social rights of IPs. Also among the first issues, raised by several IP organizations and discussed by the WGIP was the subject of treaties. It was stated that treaties concluded in the past between IPs and Governments had not been respected and that in law suits filed by IPs, the judiciary only applied legislation and patterns imposed by the national society.

On the basis of the second part of its mandate the WGIP discussed the evolution of standards concerning the rights of IPs and in particular the substance of the standards, the kind of instruments to encompass standards and the procedure of their elaboration. In this respect, the view was prevailed that the elaboration of standards should be viewed in the dynamic context of the constantly changing international order. The WGIP also dealt with the question of the definition of IPs and there was a general understanding that no formal and rigid definition should be adopted at the present time and the definition suggested in the study by Martinez Cobo could be a useful working definition. With respect to the criteria for definition, observers for both government and indigenous groups stated that race should not be employed as a criterion because this would run counter to the principle of non-discrimination. It was also important that the concept of IPs should not be confused with that of minorities.

Within the framework of the resolution 1983/23 of the Commission of HR, which provides that the sub commission should “suggest means designed to ensure that the activities of the WGIP shall be better known in every country”, the WGIP proposed and the sub commission recommended to the commission and other parent bodies that 12 October should be proclaimed as international day of solidarity with IPs and that the international year of the IPs also be proclaimed by the UN General Assembly, so that all agencies of the UN system would devote programs and activities to educate and inform the public of the problems of those populations. Subsequently, the official launching of the International Year of the World’s IPs took place at the 47th session of the UN General Assembly on Human Rights Day, 10 December 1992.

Further, one of the basic achievements of the WGIP was its contribution to the proclamation of the International Decade which marked the beginning of the next 50 years of the UN and ought to set an unquestionable example for the new spirit of popular partnership and self determination in world politics. In this respect, the Chairperson Rapporteur expressed the hope that the UN in the next 50 years would begin to be truly a United Nations of all Peoples, including IPs and thus reflect within itself, at last, the equality and solidarity of humankind. An important role for the implementation of the objectives of the Decade is playing the Voluntary Fund for the International Decade.

In 1988, the Chairperson Rapporteur submitted her basic draft for a “Universal Declaration on Indigenous Rights”, which after certain additions and amendments made in close cooperation with IPs, constituted the final draft declaration tabled by her in 1993 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26). This draft, after a revision of certain provisions, was unanimously adopted by the members of the WGIP and submitted to the sub commission which approved it and submitted it to the Commission of Human Rights. Unfortunately, this very important international instrument, after almost 9 years is still before the Working Group established by the Commission for a further elaboration of a draft UN Declaration on Indigenous Issues. On the basis of the Cobo report the WGIP in 1987 recommended that Miguel Alfonso Martinez should undertake a study on treaties between IPs and states. The study, ‘Treaties, Agreements and other constructive arrangements” should be universal and future oriented. This study was approved by the Sub Commission, elaborated and completely successfully, in the capacity of SR, by Alfonso Martinez.
A number of other studies, reports, working papers, explanatory notes were prepared by the members of the WGIP with a view to contribute to the recognition of indigenous rights and to analyze certain concepts related to indigenous rights and to analyze certain concepts related to indigenous rights and fundamental freedoms. It is sufficient to mention the studies: Protection of the Heritage of IPs. The Working paper on IPs and their Relationship to Land. Mention should also be made to a number of technical meetings, seminars and consultations proposed by the WGIP and organized by the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The number of NGOs participating in UN activities had grown from just 42 in 1947, to just over 900 in 1990, to more than 2200 today. Thus the role and influence within the framework of the WGIP and the UN system in general, had greatly increased over the years. The nature of NGOs had also changed fundamentally, from chiefly professional, technical humanitarian organizations to increasingly grass-roots, community and social movement organizations.

Furthermore, the Chairperson Rapporteur was invited by a number of Governments or Indigenous Organizations and nations to visit certain remote areas, of the globe, in which IPs are living, in order to observe the situation of IPs to awaken an awareness and concern for IP issues, specifically to inform the IPs about the role and activities of the WGIP and to encourage them actively to continue to express interest for the WGIP. In connection with the future of the WGIP, with a sense of particular responsibility, I should like to suggest the following: Long formal and informal consultations between the members of the WGIP, IPs themselves, governments, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs concerned took place in particular in the last two years. To some of them I had the honor to participate.
It is my opinion that after the establishment of the PF the WGIP should continue to exist only:
a) if its mandate will be amended and supplemented, in order to continue to be the most important international forum for the worlds IPs and to consider a number of other issues, which are not falling within the mandate of the PF. In particular, certain aspects of subjects of education, health, environment should be discussed and considered in cooperation with the specialized agencies concerned. It will be useful that experts of the UN system or from the academic family be invited to participate to these discussions.
b) Duplication of work between the WGIP and the PF or antagonism should be strictly avoided. On the contrary, constructive cooperation between them on certain multiform issues should be encouraged. For example, organization of joint seminars or consultations.
c) the standard setting activities of the WGIP should be strengthened and continued. The Commission of Human Rights should be requested to approve the sub commission’s proposals for the elaboration of a number of important international instruments related to the adoption of standards concerning rights and freedoms of the world’s IPs.
d) New spirit, new ideas, modern thinking of effective solution of contemporary problems should be prevailed in the WGIP during its next sessions. In conclusion, it should be underlined that the collective work of the WGIP was done mainly with the IPs and for them and this approach must continue.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
As we said the first day, we should not express our satisfaction or otherwise through applause. There should be no exception.

Prof. Yokota
I apologize for joining in the clapping, but I did it out of my heart. Let me welcome you Madam Daes to the 20th session which has become your home ground after your successful contribution you have made for two decade for the protection and promotion of human rights of IPs which we members and IPs appreciate. As you correctly said, the WGIP under your guidance has made big strides so that the life and well being of IPs become a main issue in the UN system and the world. We have achieved a great deal but we also see a lot of work to be done in our future. And of course, one of the biggest results the WGIP contributed to was the creation of the PF. The first meeting does give us encouragement that this forum will be strong basis to promote human rights of IPs in the future.
There are some areas we have to work for betterment and life of IPs who have suffered for many centuries. WG is now facing a big issue. We are very much encouraged by your position stated clearly that the WG should continue to exist. I am also aware that you said it with conditions. I think those conditions are very, very important to consider. We have to discuss this with other UN mechanisms working for IPs to see where our work is overlapping and where we can compliment one another. Under Chair Miguel Alfonso Martinez we have already started consultations with SR, and PF chair. We can come up with results. We also must point out we had informal exchange of dialogue with government and indigenous representatives. We have already begun to have conversations to see how WG can continue to contribute to the rights of IPs throughout the world. Thank you very much for you many, many, many years of contribution. We will continue to work on the basis of what you have created.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
Applause is not my only feeling. When you applauded the chair we asked you not to continue you in this manner. It doesn’t refer to one case including the chair.

E.H. Guisse
I share the opinion of Yokota and I have to say that the applause that we are hearing in the room has two elements. There is applause for approval and applause that means thank you. I think what we heard this morning was a thank you. As we in the Subcommission heard when she mentioned she was leaving us I think in the flexibility you have always shown, this flexibility could include an acceptance of that. The WGIP owes a great deal to Daes. She has contributed to it in many ways using intellectual capacity and strength. Her encouragement continues. The work she has developed so well is very tangible. I must mention for a very long time she was the spokesperson of the IPs in this group but also for other groups. This is one thing that we should note. Many IPs applauded her activity. As regards to the future, I believe that the conditions she put forward have to be considered at this critical moment. We should consider the suggestions for the interest of the IPs. I should say that we thank Daes for the WG, for me in her training. When I came here I was a beginner. It was the two of you that trained me and I thank you most sincerely. We would ask for the continuation of work for this cause. I would ask you Mr. Chair in which I also participated was of thanks, not approval.

Kenneth Deer, IP Caucus
I am asking for the floor to respond and thank Madam Daes. We are always impressed by any report she has given. As usual, her report is thorough, clear and very constructive. We can see how much effort and her heart is in her work and report. I listened with great interest to her recommendations that the WG should continue. Working not in conflict, but in conjunction with the PF. We hope that Daes that your experience of knowledge of the UN system and the love of IPs will continue to flourish and creative expression in other means. Understand we are all clapping in our hearts for you.

Guatemala
Daes’s contribution should be recognized by all states and IPs. The government of Guatemala believes the WG has a prime role in promoting rights of IPs. One of the most important roles is the DDRIP. WGIP has importance to guarantee fundamental rights and development. Guatemala said it can adopt this declaration as it was adopted by the WG. This type of work is extremely important. We hope all of this will contribute so IPs are able to fulfill their identity and development. We hope the WG will continue although we have a PF. The representatives of the IPs particularly Guatemala believe this WG is a space for discussion for IPs and government. Neither the PFII or SR has this function. It is a fact that the WG has fulfilled its role. If we did not have this space for discussion it must continue.

Ruben Ortiz, Programa Kichin Konojel
To speak of IPs we have to think of the qualitative and quantitative. Initially there was certain mistrust of the UN. We the IPs considered the UN a huge white elephant. How come where governments represented, how could they not deal with human rights of IPs? We learned UN provides space where we can denounce our government who marginalized us and discriminated against us. For the first time we could speak out about our rights. The WG gave us a voice because many governments discarded us entirely. We have been waiting for this for many centuries. We could also express our sadness and our achievements. For the first time, IPs realized we were not alone and genocide was a common factor. It is not a bad system. It has allowed us to make progress. Maybe in a slow manner and full of frustration but this is the case in every process of this kind. We see every year there are more and more delegates and more indigenous leaders lead the way for in the claims of IPs. About the future, it depends on us. As Maya of Guatemala, we could rescue our legacy and redefine our role of IPs in the world. The UN should not consider us a static population, we should play a role in the modern world. We are still IPs. IPs should have a space because we deserve it and recognition.

N. K. Sonare, National Council of SCs/STs/OBCs and Minority Employees Welfare Association
All the IPs believe this WG should become the voice and also a reason. There are many UN mechanisms for the development of this forum such as documentation, research and serious study. The human rights violations of all IPs need to be recorded and this information needs to be given to SR and treaty bodies. HCHR function as a research center. This proposal was presented at the UN PF meeting. We strongly recommend to this body to give serious consideration. This will benefit the WGIP and also enable for UN and civil society.

FJ Hampson
Madam Daes welcome home. I also plead guilty to applauding. This is a most unique example of a collective crime. When we consider the future, the difficulty is we are not considering future of WG in a void. We are told there is a PF. It has no budget and secretariat. After what has happened to the Social Forum one has to be concerned about that baby. I am reminded very much of transfer of power in the old days of European monarchy. Nobody like the transfer of power from a powerful king to a baby. To suggest that the PF can replace the WG ignores the mandate of the PF and ignores its babyhood. Had the text of the DDRIP continued, there would be more to do there. SR’s task is to examine rights. Until there is a text, it will be interesting to put what is a violation. This is not the time to get rid of WG, even if there comes to be a transfer of power. The best tribute to WG would be the re launching of the WG. I appreciated the word renaissance of the WG and we need to show the Subcommission and Commmission we are ready. It is our responsibility to launch it.

Asian Caucus
The Caucus of Indigenous Peoples from Asia thanks you for this opportunity to speak on agenda item 4(a).
1. The Asian Caucus supports previous calls of Indigenous Peoples to culminate the UN Decade of the World’s IPs with a World Conference of Indigenous Peoples.
2. To facilitate the realization of this call, we propose that the meeting of the UN WGIP in 2004 which marks the end of the International Decade of the World’s IPs, be enhanced into a World Conference of Indigenous Peoples, thus accomplishing many objectives through one event.
3. We propose that the World Conference of Indigenous Peoples be a partnership even between the UN, the UNWGIP, governments, and indigenous peoples. A preparatory committee composed of all partners drawn from representatives from all global regions and including elders, women and youth should be formed to plan the agenda and details of the Conference.
4. For Asian Indigenous Peoples, among the important elements for the agenda would be Regional Workshops and Thematic Seminars to discuss regional priority issues as well as crosscutting themes.
5. Important topics for Asian indigenous peoples include the following:
Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development Agenda in Asia
Identities and Specific Characteristics of Indigenous Peoples in Asia
Territorial Rights, Recognition of Land Ownership and Land Tenure and Use Land and Natural Resources Alienation including Forests, Mines, Dams, Military Bases and Other Developments
Forced Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and Forced Assimilation
Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Development Process
Policies and Practices of International, National and Regional Development Agencies and Financial Institutions like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) as these affect Indigenous Peoples
Conflict Issues, Militarization and Refugees
Traditional Knowledge, Intellectual Property Rights and Biotechnologies
The Caucus of Indigenous Peoples from Asia respectfully submits these proposals to the UNWGIP for your consideration and action, including the necessary recommendation to the parent bodies of the Working Group, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and appropriate bodies responsible for the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

Judge Motok
I would like to thank Madam Daes and her name will never be forgotten in the history of IPs. Likewise I would like to say that both in the formal and informal sense that Daes still has a place in the present work. I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues and the IPs here. It is a historic moment since we began our work. We are the only existing international forum for IPs in that period. What we achieved for IPs over that period was achieved with experts and Julian Burger who worked for IPs. If we compare, we can see enormous progress has been made. Now, we are at an important moment. We must consider our future activities and what will happen. There is an enormous energy. IPs still need forum because it allows for IPs voice. We have this forum. We are not certain what the PF will do. We do not know what will happen. We cannot simply give up the WG. We must continue to work as long as states allow. It is an important moment in that sense We have a saying. When a woman is no longer beautiful they expect her to find another quality. We have not lost our beauty but we cannot continue to be the same thing we were. The SR is now with us. We have to work together because UN bodies tend to compete. We can change that characteristic. As regards to standard setting, I think we can concentrate all our energy. Standard setting is not easy. We need external experts and academics working on the subject. In that framework we can continue our work in order for the WG to survive.

France
I would like to congratulate you on the way you lead the WG in terms of applause. Though France’s position is quite clear, we always support the PF held in Geneva. It is more logical for the PF to be in Geneva where many NGOs working with IPs have links. Unfortunately, we are in isolation. What we find difficult to believe is that same groups saying they want to have PF in NY are calling for ending the WG. We support a general review of mechanisms existing today. We are in a historic situation. There are several mechanisms dealing with the UN. The worst thing we could do would be to allow UN WGIP not to continue. We must consider the future of WG with context of the PF in NY and the SR. There was discussion for a review. We feel we should not abolish but ensure a coherent continuation of the group in Geneva working in harmony with mechanisms existing now.

Lazaro Pary, Tupaj Amaru
I would like to join all speakers who have congratulated Daes for her important contribution of the advocacy of IPs for 20 years. In two decades, we have been able to present successful achievements in field of human rights. The drafting and adoption of the DDRIP which has reached impasse due to unwillingness of states. This WG has awoken the conscience to the indigenous issues throughout the world. Daes has created studies with important documents. We shall follow here an approach and mention the need to save the WG. IPs rights are even more complex now in context of globalization. We need a permanent standing body to deal with human rights. I have very deep feelings about this because I have learned a great deal from Daes. I remember how you gave me friendship and advice and your warnings with use of the gavel. I think she should be honorary member of the WG.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
I share fully our gratefulness for the work she carried out. To ignore it would be like hiding the sun or the moon. We cannot disregard the sun or the moon. We have been working all these years in the WG. We have strived for the same goals to fulfill the main objective for which this WG was set up. This type of work has to be carried out jointly. I remember the joint working of all of us to draw up the DDRIP. This was collective action. Not only members of the group but also secretariat, IPs and to extent governments. I agree entirely we cannot tolerate overlapping of forums. We all agree. This is essential for continuing with WGIP. If those that thought up PF or the SR had agreed on mandates that do not contradict at all, they would have not been able to do a better job. The complimentary aspect of the respective mandates safeguards against overlapping work. In particular in the face of the lack of definition and the standards which are mentioned in some of the articles that are being drafted in present. This task is setting standards and addressing new studies. We will carry out this task with help of international academia. We would like to have Daes present in that body because she can help us. We can set up new standards and carry out new studies. We can create a new academy. I do not believe with this renaissance we have a new mandate.

Erica Irene Daes
There is a different orientation. We should not reopen discussion on the original mandate on the WG. At present what is at stake would be the duration and life of the WG not that of the PF or the SR post. We are not working in a vacuum. What is at stake as an entity is the WG. There has been no question of the others.

Let me first of all express my deepest gratitude to you, to my distinguished former colleagues, Prof Yokota, Prof Hampson, Judge Guisse for all their kind words for my humble contribution to the WGIP for the past 20 years. I really say that I learned also from the IPs, from my colleagues and in the Subcommission. I would also like to pay tribute to all the other members who served such as Asbjorn Eide. It is true I have devoted part of my life to the WG. I am proud for the work we have accomplished with IPs and for IPs. I do not like to ignore contribution certain governments made. Without approval of government we would not have WG, PF. The DDRIP we will see. The VF this is also contribution of governments. What was also important is we kept the balance of rights of IPs and the balance, interest of the governments. This was a difficult task. The Ambassador from Guatemala reminded me of work WG had done. There were around 20 years when the Guatemala government had a lot of problems. I was invited to visit Guatemala and contribute so free elections could take place. When Canada had great difficulties, Danielo Turk invited and we contributed to solution of serious problem. We met with Australia and the Aboriginal people. This is a kind of service and I would like to appeal to government that when there is conflict with IPs use and work with WG members. Use them as quasi mediators to assist and solve the situation. I would like to thank also all the speakers who took the floor. ECOSOC has taken into consideration and yesterday a number of resolutions and decisions were adopted. Res 16 adopted referring to PF and secretariat. Also Resolution 19 was adopted. Also 20, that have to review existing mechanisms. Also 32, adequate resources for PF. The WG will have opportunities in a new spirit, new ideas to supplement its existing mandate to continue its work. All my grateful thanks.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
We have had over 1,000 representatives which allows us to deal with our work. We would like to make Daes an honorary member of the WG.

Prof. Yokota
Madam Daes provided us with important information on ECOSOC resolutions passed concerning review of IPs mechanisms. ECOSOC should not just discuss among ECOSOC membership but also the WG members, PFII and SR should be thoroughly consulted.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
ECOSOC must move on its decision. The best defense is initiative. Among initiative will be an explanatory document why these criticisms and why WG must continue in existence. Kenneth Deere, Indigenous Caucus
The Indigenous Caucus considers that the WGIP is the only body that has the mandate for the protection and promotion of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of IPs. Therefore the Caucus demands that the GWIP be maintained. This proposition is not contradictory but complementary and in conformity with resolution 41/120 of the General Assembly, in particular with disposition of paragraph 4 relative to this resolution. Therefore the Caucus is not attending the funeral of the WGIP but we are attending to accept the challenges of standard setting, further, to develop, and strengthen functional mechanisms for implementation procedures to protect IPs. We strongly believe that standard setting activity needs continual development. The Indigenous delegates attending the 20th meeting of the WGIP, having discussed the mandate of the body, the concerns, the needs and priorities of our IPs, nations, organizations and communities. In this way the Indigenous Caucus has taken the decision by consensus to submit the following proposals and recommendations to the experts of the WGIP on each agenda item. Furthermore, we kindly demand that the WGIP experts set the agenda for the future work of this body in accordance with the following points:

Future standard-setting activities: Review of human rights of IPs in existing international mechanisms
1. Corporate accountability to IPs on their lands and territories.
2. Free, prior and informed consent
3. Environmental and social impact assessments of development projects.
4. Protection of Indigenous knowledge and/or traditional knowledge as a follow up of Madam Daes Report E/CN.41/Sub.2/2000/26
5. Forced relocation of IPs, including property rights, militarization of lands and territories and other affects with a view to setting a standard that burden of proof on colonization be on the colonizer, not the indigenous colonial victim.
6. Creation of juridical process of dispute and conflict resolution for IPs, including access to international juridical bodies.

Future Studies and Reports:
1. A report of the primary obstacles faced with the promotion and protection of the human rights of IPs. The report would look at 4 or 5 of the most significant obstacles. The inadequacy of the human rights complaint procedure to IPs, etc.
2. A report of all existing or developing international standards affecting IPs with a review of implementation procedures to examine how they are effectively protecting the rights of IPs. This should include how existing standards deviate from actual and effective remedy for IPs and should include recommendations for universal application and consistent remedy.
3. A study of the impact of TNCs affecting IPs on their lands and territories in conjunction with the work done by the sub commission.
4. A study on the violations of the rights and situations of IP children and youth in compliance with Article 45 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in collaboration with the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Special Rapporteur and UNICEF.
5. Study on UN agencies and their policies and impacts to determine if they are in compliance with existing Human Rights Standards.
6. Study on self-determination as a means both of resolution and prevention of conflicts as complementary to the work done by UNESCO of Catalunya.
7. Study on positive and negative outcomes of “ethno-development” projects with respect to indigenous rights and their impact on a micro and macro level.
8. Such study will allow the setting of standards regarding indigenous participation in the decision making process.
All of the studies must be attached to the WGIP standard setting mandate and be measurably accountable by international norms and mechanisms

Other matters
1. Critical review of the WHO paper on “participatory research guidelines” which in our view does not ensure real protection
2. Future seminars: a. Practical implementation of treaties and instruments related to intellectual property rights. B. Possible mechanisms for peaceful resolution of self- determination claims in the UN system.
3. Future workshops
4. Follow up of the private sector and IPs
5. Future fellowship program
6. Call for the Second Decade of the World’s IPs.
7. Call for a world conference on IPs.
8. Establish the Indigenous Olympic Games.
We would like to have our name changed to “indigenous peoples” before we are called “indigenous objects”.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur
I would like to join my voice to Daes who for such a long time was chair of this group. I have had opportunity to meet Daes 18 years ago when she was for the first time part of the WG and I was an observer. It was beginning of 1980s. It is a great pleasure to be among you. It is one year since the last session of this WG when I took up my mandate as SR. Following my visit to Geneva last year, I applied myself to work and I presented my first paper at the Commission. Many things are happening throughout the world at the international level there is interest for the defense of the rights of IPs. First, the PFII. There have also been important decisions by the Inter American Court of Human Rights in a case on a country. There was also a new ratification of IL0 169 and in Africa there is now a WG on IPs that was created by the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights of the African Union. The World Bank is continuing its evaluation of IP policy. There are many events taking place. The SR is preparing the second report and has to be ready in December 2002 so it can go through whole UN process. There are two topics selected for in depth discussion in the second report. It will refer to impact focusing on mega projects and am glad this topic has been taken up by IPs. These mega projects have various types of impacts on living of IPs and this may affect their situation in regard to human rights.
Another topic is IPs in the administrative of justice. To be able to carry out research, it is extremely important and essential to have support from the member states of the Commission on Human Rights and also the NGOs in particular as well as academia. Through the secretary of Geneva, we have sent letters asking for their cooperation in drafting the second report. I think all those present attending this meeting have received a letter. Without the support of all sources of information it would be difficult for SR to implement fully his mandate. It is of great importance to have cooperation between SR and WG. This group has accumulated a wealth of data that I believe has not been channeled to the appropriate governmental fora and UN. I agree with what Daes said. The WGIP is not a forum for receiving claims or denunciation but there is no other forum where IPs can submit for human rights. WG and PF have cases and examples that will be useful to include in his report to the Commission on Human Rights. When we had informal dialogue, we can open up close cooperation between WG and SR. I think it is also important for the renaissance of IPs. The three forms are available and working methodology of PF and SR do not overlap. These bodies supplement each other and in this way they can apply more effective and dynamic cooperation for circulation of information and analysis. Each of these bodies has its own dynamic and its own objectives, linked to other forums linked in the system. There is coherence in these three fora. I would like to thank Hampson because she said what can SR do among IPs if WG is not able to set up standards in field of HR. Only in this way will SR be able to fulfill this mandate. The permanent presence is necessary for a sufficient body to deal with IPs. This also refers to the adoption of the DDRIP. I invite IPs to send the SR the required information for us to draft and publish the report you deem necessary so human rights of IP will be well known. There is visit in loco to countries where there are IPs. Due to lack of financial means, I was not able to carry out an official mission. Starting next year, I will carry out and inform you in due time.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
Our WG has no mandate so it is not able to make recommendation to possible violations of rights of IPs. I think this type of cooperation has this gap in our respective mandate. Now, you can count on us.

Prof Yokota
I thank Rodolfo Stavenhagen for coming to be with us to share your deep knowledge and rich experience and for your dedication to your work. I know how demanding the work is. I know we will get a lot out of your important work. Your attitude of cooperation is deeply appreciated by us. You have an attitude of openness and meet with all IPs concerned to have constructive dialogue to solve problems.

Mexico
Perhaps we should have the SR and PF represented here on a permanent basis so we can have a timely cooperation between the three bodies. It is quite relevant for Mexico to have the leadership of the SR because there was consensus that there is no mechanism to submit claims of human rights and this is an important function. This resolution was adopted on consensus. These forums supplement each other. Mexico has invited all of the bodies in field of human rights to visit our country. We join a list of 30 countries that ask for a mission of the SR. We will give full cooperation. The SR can act in the field of standards of human rights. We mustn’t forget there are already international standards adopted.

Marcelino de Jesus, Indigenous Assembly
I am Mexican like him and ask him to follow up on the Mexico’s offer to visit. Stavenhagen lives in Mexico so it wouldn’t cost much. Last year, 73 NGOs sent invitations. There are systematic violation of human rights in regard to IPs. What will SR do in Quahaxa(?) I would like you to have meeting with IPs of Mexico that will alleviate all of these problems in Mexico.

SR Stavenhagen
I would like to thank Marcelino for the question. We are planning a visit. I would also tell the speaker I am willing to meet him and the NGO which is quite familiar with me. I am aware of these complaints and would like to see what SR can do to solve problem.

ITEM 8 Follow-Up to the World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

R. Thangmawia, Zo Reunification Organization
Zo people are still divided under three units – Bangladesh, Burma. I would like to request world body to focus on IPs in Southeast Asia.

Tanya Hosch, ATSIC
As has been the practice in these past few days, I am pleased to share in the honour of my colleagues in speaking here today and in representing Commissioner Brian Butler of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission of Australia. Amongst the interventions of my colleagues in the ATSIC delegation, a number of important areas have been highlighted this week, but one remains that I wish to draw to the attention of the working group today. That is the question of intersectionality in relation to race discrimination faced by Indigenous women in Australia. During my brief participation at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa I was able to be part of sessions relating to discrimination against women and note the mention of the needs of vulnerable groups who face discrimination in multiple forms by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson. It would be accurate to say that the needs of Indigenous women in Australia are not adequately considered or resourced, and therefore our needs are women often left unmet. Despite the recognition of the needs of Indigenous women and the crucial role women continue to play in our communities, lip service best describes the actions and programs available. ATSIC, as a supplementary funding body only, and an organisation whose budget is greatly limited due to quarantining of its budget in specific areas already, cannot deliver all that is required to ensure that women are better catered for in our struggles against sexism and racism in their various forms. It is frightening, that in recent times, a great deal of attention has been paid to family violence in Indigenous communities and the relationship of these damaging community elements to the abuse of various substances. Attention to this serious problem in itself is not the problem, the problem is that there is a growing tendency for Indigenous women to be perceived as victims and our men perceived as dangerous, violent drunks.
The women’s movement in Australia appears to be blinkered to the needs of black women, and insultingly, are rarely unable to consider the question of racism against women, for, as I interpret it, a fear of having to confront the history and legacy of their racism of the past and the present. There is absolutely no need for Indigenous women to perceived in this way. The strength that exists in our communities amongst our Sisters, Aunties, Mothers, Grandmothers and Nieces clearly demonstrates that Indigenous women already carry a great deal of capacity to address many of the difficulties they face due to the various layers of discrimination they face and it is time that there was a specific avenue to allow women to come together to plan action and to gather the resources to allow this action to occur. I now want to state some final urgings for consideration by the Working Group regarding the follow-up that should be prioritised from the World Conference against Racism. Firstly, Indigenous women require an opportunity of substance to meet and plan action. Indigenous women require some assistance, perhaps through some strong recommendations from the Working Group and others that Indigenous women be given fair representation to allow their voices to be heard directly. As I am sure you’ll agree, this ATSIC delegation has provided strong representation during this week through the participation of 3 young women in particular. Australia as a nation, and I am sure nations around the world cannot afford for Indigenous women to be marginalised any further, for if this is allowed, it will be to the detriment of all of our communities. Thank you for hearing my voice as an Indigenous woman today.

Les Malezer, FAIRA
In agenda item 6, on standard-setting, I raised the importance of bringing more emphasis to the implementation of the human rights standards. Nowhere is this point more evident that in relation to the elimination of racial discrimination. The World Conference Against Racism, 2001 had the aim of addressing the ‘elimination’ of racial discrimination. To this end, the program of action remains the most important instrument if the process of elimination of racial discrimination is going to occur. I note that the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights received the report from the Secretary General which summarised the responses from some States on follow-up activities to the World Conference. However many States did not seem to respond and certainly there was only a minimum of information regarding racial discrimination against Aboriginal peoples. The report of the Secretary General did cover the activities undertaken by the UN, including the creation of the PF, however there remains no sign that the States, which are strong to claim that Indigenous Issues are ‘domestic’ issues when we are discussing self- determination, have taken unto themselves the responsibility to eliminate racial discrimination against IPs.
I would like to point out that the Australian government remains in breach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since 1998 when it passed into law the Native Title Amendment Act. The findings of the CERD committee are on record. Similar findings have been made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity (HREOC) and the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism. I make this point because our experience as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is that the government has been capable of creating gross violations against our race, and that the structures of a treaty committee, a UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, a SR on Indigenous Issues, the PF and the national institution are proven to be insufficient to prevent or to eliminate racial discrimination by the State against Indigenous Peoples. I would like to offer some broad proposals.
1. I suggest that the Secretary General might ask States to submit their responses to the program of action in relation to IPs. Perhaps there can be a process to maintain reporting on this topic.
2. I reiterate my proposal that the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Issues be asked to identify actions which might be implemented to deal with States which are in breach of racial discrimination against Indigenous Peoples, and defiant to remedy.
3. I recommend that technical assistance be developed for national institutions to identify and promote national plans of action to eliminate racial discrimination against IPs.
4. I support the further development of the OHCHR dedicated web page for IPs, as one focus for the elimination of racial discrimination. I am aware that the Permanent Forum may have capacity to consider and pursue there ideas, however the process remains that the flow of documents on human rights issues is to the Sub Commission of Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and then to the Commission on Human Rights. I believe it is the role of the Working Group to consider and develop the possibilities and report under this process. I urge all participants to maintain focus upon the WGIP and the impending review.

Mexico, Arturo Hernandez Basave
We have participated actively in the preparation of the WCAR and the follow up. These are serious violations against human rights which go against the universality of these rights. The constitutional reform of 2001 included the right of non-discrimination. On March 15 we handed in acceptance of CERD for its specific cases of violations. The Declaration and Durban plan have important elements in regards to action. I would also push for adoption DDRIP and support funds.

Fermin Beltran Condori Conamaq
After 20 years of work, I would like to speak on behalf of fellow Bolivians. The conference allows us to share about the racial discrimination and intolerance we face in our own country. We are considered a Clandestine Nation within our own country. The UN should fulfill the mandate for which it was created. Genocide, crimes against humanity, extreme poverty are also forms of discrimination and intolerance. TNCs also subject our population to overexploitation and the right to self determination of IPs is repressed by the army and police, at the service of TNCs. In this international forum, we protest against developed countries such as the US where our peoples are mistreated, humiliated and vilified. Gentlemen we are human beings not production machines or animals. We cannot exploit human beings and use racist hatred under the globalization system’s pretext of development. In Bolivia we are in the process of emancipation, and we now have indigenous senators and representatives in Parliament.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez
We will have break until 4 p.m. as there is a private meeting.

LUNCHTIME MEETINGS

Briefing on Dams and Development, Organized by Tebbtebba & Asian Caucus

Joji Carrino, former commissioner of World Commission on Dams: spoke about the existing Dams and their effects on IPs. She also highlighted the main focus and recommendations of WCD report on Dams. This report was launched on 16th of November 2000, which explored the performance of dams through different lenses, such as options assessment, social issues, environmental impacts, economic performance and institutional processes. The report was compiled by 12 independent commissioners. Full report is available on their website www.unep.dams.org, the summary of this report has been translated in all the UN languages. In the follow up of the WCD the new project started working called Dams and Development Project. There are three other networks working on the issue of existing and new Dams and their impact on IPs: South Asia River Watch, South Asia Dams Rivers Peoples Network, Export Credit Agencies Watch.