Report on the 20th session of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (4th day - Afternoon)
Day 4
Thursday PM, July 25, 2002
Afternoon Session 1:00 p.m.
Nadir Bekirov, Crimean Tatars
The work on the DDRIP is going too slow. Now after six or seven years, it is
not our fault that it is too slow. The case is an obstruction not of IPs but
of government. It was a big achievement that the WGIP presented the DDRIP to
the Subcommission. It was a strange story that after over a decade of working
out and everyone had possibility to have input that a new WG created. I really
do not understand it that all had taken part in the previous work on the deliberation
of the WG. Why 8 years after is it not accepted. All could participate. I am
concerned this work is prolonged without any result. We really need to establish
some standards in different fields in text of the DDRIP. Every year that is
passing bears effects on IPs more and more. I believe land use and land possession
is important. I would like to apply to you to think about necessity to elaborate
guidelines for IPs to participate in this issue.
Mikhael Todyshev, RAIPON
Over the last 20 years, there has not been a single international standard established.
There has been many studies, but not a single standard. The DDRIP is being held
back. Some governments don’t like experts working on standards. As of
1995, the members of the WG DDRIP have been trying to propose new version of
the articles as if they didn’t have chance to work on them elaborately
before. This position does not bring progress. Governments don’t want
the DDRIP adopted. The development is taking place at the regional level. There
are actions and standards at the regional level. The most important question
is title to land and natural resources. RAIPON conducted work with deputies
in Russian parliament working on general recognized standards. The ICCPR and
ICESCR are standards. Yet, we do not have DDRIP. We have achieved three laws.
It is not enough.
General ideas of situation of our people you can get from the statements. The
situation is becoming critical. IPs are on the verge of extinction. RAIPON has
appealed to Russian government to develop a federal program to protect ethnic
groups. I am working with Duma and it has been very difficult to defend our
rights with no international standards on IPs. IPs and mining companies standards
could be helpful but we still don’t have a code of conduct. Why do we
still not have a code? We had a study, yet we couldn’t bring a single
person from Russia. There is not even a copy of texts at WGIP in Russia. The
mining and logging companies are coming to IPs lands. Also, Europe is driving
on our gas, yet they don’t understand impact on our lives. People have
not been given adequate income in Russia. We don’t have funds to come
to UN meetings. RAIPON began independently to have meetings with companies.
In this regard it is important to have international standards so we can use
with mining companies.
Jodie Lowe, ATSIC
My people are the Gunditjmara people of Victoria Australia. I am speaking today
on standard setting, and specifically the effectiveness of the Australian Government
to commit to the standards set by IPs. An important role of the working group
has been to provide us as Indigenous people with a forum in which to express
to the Australian State our priorities on standard setting for the social and
economic development of our people. The WG can revitalize this important function
by members engaging in research partnerships with the IPs of Australia. We envisage
substantive partnerships with WG members across important social policy areas
such as education, housing, employment & health. Far too many of our people
live in poverty without the enjoyment of our basic human rights. In my view,
as a young Aboriginal woman, the current situation of standard setting by the
Australian Government fails to take into account the Indigenous peoples perspective.
There is rarely a shortage of consultation with Indigenous peoples in Australia;
however, this is not evident within the resulting policies and legislation.
The effectiveness of standard setting and the governments inclusiveness of priorities
identified by IPs, are best measured by IPs. For this reason it is imperative
that WGIP form partnerships with the IPs research into the current situation
within Australia. This will provide strength to the voice of the IPs to our
governments through the WGIP, with the support of the WGIP. This will allow
for the International Standards, set by our people, to be implemented for the
betterment of our people. Furthermore, this approach is in agreement with the
statement provided at UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1982/33, para 121 that, WGIP is not
a fact finding tribunal, but the WGIP has always considered that the review
of real life experiences of Indigenous people can assist the clarification of
relevant concepts and the formulation of standards. Our highest priority is
to see the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples accepted as Law.
My proposal here today provides an opportunity for the next step, where by the
WGIP can continue to support the progression of self-determination of our people.
Les Malezer, FAIRA
The DDRIP can and should be endorsed in its present form without delay. We hope
it will be passed within the Ecade on IPs. It is justified to bring attention
to the reluctance of the state representatives to cooperate. It is important
to remind governments of our original zeal. The concern over collective rights
was solved at the last session of the WG on the DDl.The Chairman concluded there
was acceptance from all speakers of the concept of collective rights. The DDRIP
cannot be an aspirational document without the inclusion of the unqualified
right of SD. We must keep that mood for change in progress at the international
level. We are here creating standards because IP rights are denied. Violations
arise out of domination and power over IPs.
History tells us the disadvantage cannot be remedied without recognition and
acknowledgement of the right of peoples to SD. Those states with fears of IP
rights must take off their blindfold. States should not remain silently opposed,
they must move forward toward a position of agreement. We therefore urge the
chair to prepare to commit to the best outcome of self-determination. We must
move forward in the new millennium from setting international standards to implementing
standards. The WCAR held in Durban remains the most important test of standards,
as they must yet apply to IPs. We look forward at future sessions of the WG,
Subcommission and Commission, to states confirmation of their plans of action
to eliminate racial discrimination against IPs..
Michael Eckford, Suanpa Australia
From the League of Nations to the complex UN system, standard setting took on
new forms. Creating international laws, the UN instilled in the minds of world
leadership that all people of all walks of life no matter color, creed or religion
all were and are equal. Fore some reason man finds every way possible to be
different from each other. In the studies of political science one is taught
that there exists the big three that dominate the democratic world with an incestuous
relationship. They are God, Government and Business.
When we stop and take notice of what we are continually confronted with in our
intergovernmental sessions for the elaboration of an International Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples one acknowledges the level of racism and
xenophobia that continues to be rife amongst the member states within the UN.
I have no doubt that this stems directly from the guilt that they themselves
are unable to deal with let along recognize. If we are truly seeking directions
in standard setting then the UN cannot dissect sectional interests and then
argue that we who are some of the oldest living cultures on this earth cannot
be regarded and classified as peoples thereby invoking all the international
laws that currently exists that provides for the guarantees and protections
and rights of all peoples.
History shows that while many of us IPs were walking upright and living in organized
societies, some of those who occupy seats within this institution were still
evolving and what we have now is non-fictional planet of the apes, with the
apes dictating just as it is in the movies. If the states obeyed the laws we
would have no reason to be here. How can this institution accept and tolerate
redefining of rights. If we are truly committed to standard setting, we must
ensure IPs voice is heard. We cannot allow member states to marginalize our
rights. Standard setting is one of leadership and we seek direct and competent
leadership within this institution.
Tarek Maassarani, Mbuyu Foundation
As I am a university-trained anthropologist and ecologist, I thought it important
to talk about indigenous knowledge as it relates to Western science. Knowledge
comes in many diverse forms from the wisdom of an elder to understand the cycles
of life, to the logic of the theoretical physicist or the literacy of the bushman
who reads subtle animal tracks brushed into the dust. Nonetheless, it is Western
knowledge that has ascended to a global ideology at the expense of all others,
and not surprising, since this knowledge tenders a monetary value on the market.
Science is not the be all and end all.
Firstly, indigenous peoples have been conducting practical experiments for centuries
with results that are invaluable to the modern world. Unfortunately, this knowledge
is at a danger of being misappropriated and commercialized, ultimately at the
expense of its true proprietors. Secondly, just like agriculture, the world
is a complex ecosystem where the relationships between parts are as important
as the parts themselves. The holistic approach that indigenous knowledge has
to offer is therefore not only useful, but also necessary. Indigenous knowledge
does not traditionally hold a conventional market value, yet it does incorporate
a whole system of ethical values and meaning which regulate its use. Scientific
reductionism has trouble dealing with complex systems and with the abuse of
its own power. And where Western knowledge has failed in that respect, indigenous
knowledge may be an invaluable asset.
My recommendations to the Working Group are therefore:
1.To strengthen the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples under
international law and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
2.To set concrete standards that oblige governments and UN agencies to inform
indigenous peoples of their intellectual property rights and ensure their protection.
Accessibility is crucial for indigenous peoples both in the process of relevant
decision-making and their recourse to legal protection.
3.To mandate the incorporation of indigenous interpretations into all relevant
studies undertaken by UN scholars, research organizations, and University academic
institutions.
4.Stengthen intellectual property rights, inform IPs of their intellectual property
rights, mandate the incorporation of Indigenous peoples in all research.
Anna Pinto, CORE
The immense value this forum has for the realization of the human rights of
IPs is important. We are present because we believe in the vital importance
of work done here. It is important to review our output and see how we can better
serve the cause we are here to represent. The end of the decade is drawing near.
Indeed on many platforms, there is only one platform that looks at rights of
IPs that allows us collective voice and that is the WG. I believe all of these
complex and critical issues will be discussed by our people ourselves. Everywhere
on the huge range of impacts on us we are struggling for our rights. This is
true of standards on rights of children, on non-human universe, on technologies
such as cloning and genetic modification of living creatures such as ourselves.
We know that when something is technologically possible it will be used to impact
our world. It is very important we have ongoing activity to ensure that it remains
a human world without discrimination and exclusion to direct these developments.
This WG should review all standards to identify the question of IPs rights and
see how complies with IPs and see how it deviates from standards. This exercise
will provide clear indication of IPs legal status and provide a base for strategy
of action for IPs in the future.
Darrell Brown, Center for Indigenous Environmental Resources
Inc,
The Center was created in 1994 to establish and implement environmental standards
and initiatives. It is dedicated to research and programs to deal with environmental
issues we face. The Center is committed to strengthening partnership with other
organizations. We have capacity to build training and advice. Community may
access the center and use it on a case by case basis. We develop and enhance
links between First Nations in and around Canada. We share common ground that
links us in a profound way. Traditional knowledge and western knowledge can
be balanced. The Center can be a model for other IPs so we can participate in
control and protection of our lands.
Elizabeth Bell, Committee on Indigenous Health
Over the past year, the CIH has been active on health issues. In May, the CIH
participated in the PFII. The briefing paper was a reference point for PFII
members. The recommendations saw reflection in the end of the PFII. During the
first session of the PF, the CIH was inform
ed the WHO had sent in a draft “Participatory Management Guidelines for
IP and Research Institutions undertaking collaborative research in health.”.
The draft was sent for comment. The CIH suggests it should recommend that all
guidelines be developed with a consultative process. IPs through self-identified
leaders and the CIH should be consulted on the guidelines. Health of IPs is
a matter integral to our survival. The WHO should respect our rights to our
knowledge and our bodies The CIH firmly believes WGIP is important platform
for IPs right to health in the world.
Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation
Unequal globalization is undermining the advances made in IPs rights in international
HR law in the past 20 years, which have been won through Indigenous advocacy
in international fora; through the decisions of international HR bodies; through
recognition and codification of Indigenous rights in international instruments
presently under consideration by the UN and Organization of American States;
through incorporation of Indigenous rights into conservation, environmental
and development-related instruments and policies; and through incorporation
of these rights into domestic law and practice; and through domestic judicial
decisions. This evolution of juridical thought and practice on indigenous peoples
rights which has attained the status of customary international law, is best
captured in the dDRIP, which recognises the fundamental rights to IPs’
survival and well-being:
a) The right to self-determination;
b) The recognition of indigenous peoples as collectivities;
c) Inalienable rights to territories, lands and resources;
d) Prior consent before development takes place on indigenous lands;
e) Control over any development initiatives on indigenous lands;
f) Respect for indigenous culture and intellectual property;
g) Recognition of IPs' own institutions.
In policy arenas, discussions do not start from a HR framework and operate with
different underlying principles, which on the main, fail to recognize the fundamental
rights of indigenous peoples. For example, the WSSD Programme of action, continues
to have the following sentence as bracketed text: “Peace, security, stability,
[human rights and cultural diversity] are essential for achieving sustainable
development and ensuring that sustainable development benefits all.” As
such, these multilateral negotiations can be potentially dangerous and harmful
to indigenous communities, unless oriented progressively to secure rather than
weaken indigenous rights and social justice, and ecological renewal. The huge
gap that still exists between the articulation of universal human rights standards
and state acceptance and practice defines the space still to be bridged through
continuous elaboration of standards on the rights of indigenous peoples, by
the appropriate UN bodies such as the UNWGIP, and through effective mobilisation
and political advocacy by indigenous organizations.
In the past ten years after the Rio Conference and in the preparatory
meetings for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), IPs have had
a difficult struggle with State governments in the ongoing multilateral environmental
negotiations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, with their intent
to
a) Limit or take out the term 'self-determination';
b) Remove the 's' from peoples to recognise only individuals;
c) Restrict recognition to limited aspects of land rights;
d) Promote 'consultation' not 'consent' prior to development;
e) Promote 'participation' without 'control' in development;
f) Allow for the commodification of intellectual property;
g) Recognise only those institutions chosen by the state.
This is in stark contrast to the openness shown by Governments to the private
sector and transnational corporations, which are given every privilege and benefit
in exploiting the lands and resources of indigenous peoples, even in the absence
of basic regulatory frameworks about their conduct with respect to HR. In the
economic, financial and trade negotiations, under the auspices of the WTO, WB,
the IMF more recently the World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation, IPs
have very limited political space to make our voices heard about policies that
have enormous impacts on our lives. This is the reason why IPs organisations
have been gravely concerned about the WB’s ongoing revisions of various
“safeguard policies” on IPs involuntary resettlement, forestry,
and others which fall short of existing and emerging international HRstandards,
and fail to safeguard the rights of IPs in the development process.
I recommend to the UNWGIP, to organise a Technical Seminar on the theme of “Globalisation
and IPs”, and to include in its standard-setting activities over the next
years, a consideration of key policy recommendations arising from the environmental,
trade and sustainable development arenas, which undermine the rights and fundamental
freedoms of indigenous peoples. There should be a technical seminar on Globalization
and IPs. There should be key policy recommendations from environment, development
and trade.
Alexandre Pena Ghisleni, Brazil
As a contribution to discussion on standard setting, my delegation would like
to share with government and observer delegates a subject of great interests.
Brazil ratified ILO 169. It was approved on the 20th June. Ratification of ILO
169 is a milestone for the protection of indigenous rights in our country. Brazil
has also taken lead action on discrimination based on Durban Plan of Action.
Matilda House, NAILS
We will not accept closure of the WGIP unless a better mechanism for standard
setting is created. Although we take the opportunity to promote our rights in
other forums, like biodiversity or the environment, we recognize that it is
only through the UNHCHR that our rights, including right to SD, can ultimately
be recognized in international law. The PFII which is connected to ECOSOC is
not a human rights body. The WGIP and PFII are complimentary to one another.
The WGIP must continue to set standards. We welcome in its history a revitalization
and forward looking plan for future actions. An important part of the function
has been to express our position to Australia’s state and federal government.
We support elements of the caucus’s work plan for the WGIP, particularly
on research partnerships between IPs and working group members. In Australia,
we think research partnerships would allow us to continue our efforts into large
challenges.
Cuba
Standard setting with respect to rights of IPs is one of those issues repeatedly
up for consideration in UN human rights bodies. It is unfortunate that some
governments are dragging out DDRIP when we are all aware of discriminatory practices
around the world affecting people. Any standard setting process should not set
standards lower than those recognized for all human beings. Since 1948, human
rights have been enshrined in UDHR. The standards likewise cannot be acceptable
to be denied to IPs. It is surprising to see the lack of political will to recognize
a declaration that are only ideas. This issue is another example of the dual
standards employed by so called human rights champions. Much work is still necessary.
The question of globalization has been mentioned. We call for clear standards
to deal with TNCs.
Prof. Y. Yokota
Setting of standards and norms is one thing and actual compliance by various
international actors such as states and TNC is another. Not only setting of
standards and norms, but also the monitoring of their compliance should be a
part of WG’s future activities.
Prof. F.J. Hampson
There is still a need for standard setting in relation to IPs. The Declaration
has not completed that task. Whilst this is an over-simplification, it could
be argued that the Declaration deals with issues, which are particular to IPs.
There is a need now to look at questions which affect all or most people but
which affect IPs in a particular way.
The issues in question can be grouped. This is without prejudice to the question of whether a study should deal with all the issues in a group or whether separate issues should be dealt with in separate studies. In the economic and social field, the issues include the relationship between indigenous groups and international institutions, including international financial institutions. We have seen part of the picture with the intervention by the World Bank but what about the impact of IPs of policies pursued by a national government at the insistence of the IMF? Then there is the question of the impact of globalization on indigenous groups. This is not a question of reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. The Subcommission has already done work on the issue. The question still remains, however, of the way in which and the extent to which the impact of globalization is different in the case of IPs from that of other groups. Similarly, in what way is the impact of the activities of corporations, particularly but not exclusively those concerned with mineral extraction, different in the case of indigenous populations and other groups? Or again, in the case of intellectual property rights, are there special considerations, which arise in the case of IPs?
The second groups of issues concern civil and political rights.
There is the difficult question of how membership of an indigenous group is
to be determined. There are at least three interested groups: the State, the
indigenous group itself and also individuals. Similar questions arise in the
case of membership of national and ethnic minorities. This is linked with the
broader question of the distribution of the responsibility for securing protection
of individual human rights. What is the responsibility of the State and what
that of the group itself? Those two issues are also linked to an even broader
one, the question of implementation. There are two separate questions. How should
implementation be carried out? That cannot be understood until one understands
what implementation means, both in general and in the specific context of IPs.
If there is a problem at the level of the Human Rights Committee in determining
what are the responsibilities of a State found to have violated the Covenant
on Civil and Political rights in an individual case, how much more is there
likely to be a problem of different understandings when it comes to implementing
norms or standards.
In the area of cultural rights, there is a well-established problem in protecting
indigenous languages from the effect of telecommunications in a different language.
I wonder whether it would be helpful to explore the following possibility. States
often plead that they are not allocated enough frequencies to enable them to
given indigenous groups to radio wavelengths. Would it be possible to move forward
through the ITU? Would it be possible to reach agreement on one or two agreed
wavelengths worldwide for transmissions by indigenous groups. No state would
be able to use the wavelengths in question. If one group were broadcasting in
one country, it would not prevent another group using the same wavelength in
a different country. It might also facilitate communication between different
indigenous groups. Would it be helpful to explore this question further?
Finally, in the past few years there have been significant legal developments
in a variety of for a. The Inter- American Court of Human Rights has delivered
a judgment with important implications for indigenous groups, even though the
text it was applying focuses on individual rights. The Human Rights Committee
has had to address an individual complaint brought by an indigenous group. In
domestic courts, there have been attempts to call governments and corporations
to account. We have already heard yesterday of the landmark agreement of the
UK to pay compensation to the people affected by unexploded ordnance left behind
after military exercises. It is noteworthy that the compensation is to go to
those affected and not to the State in question. In the case of foreign or transnational
corporations, there has often been a problem in the past of establishing the
jurisdiction of an appropriate curt. There have been significant developments
in English law in that regard in a case, which concerned a group of workers,
rather than an indigenous group. The implications, however, have not been lost
on indigenous groups in other countries. There is a need for comprehensive monitoring
of national and international legislation and litigation, not just with regard
to indigenous issues but also with regards to questions, which may affect determination
of IP issues. The use in one body of a standard set in another body offers considerable
opportunities for standard setting in the very best way, from bottom up, rather
than the top down.
The WGIP needs to identify the issues in need of further study and to propose
authors of such studies. The best argument for continuing usefulness of this
WGIP is a full agenda of studies to be undertaken. If no such studies are undertaken,
it is difficult to see the need for the group. I therefore suggest that the
report of the Group to the sub commission needs to identify specific areas of
future study.
Chair Miguel Alfonso Martinez
I believe that it is important to clarify what we mean when we refer to “standard”,
as in “standard setting activities”, strictly in the legal sense.
Sometimes it is translated as standards, but standards are not the same as norms
in a legal sense. Standards are those such as those represented in the articles
of a document such as the DDRIP, and they have a tendency to become international
law. We as a WG can propose standards to be developed, and at that time, and
at the same time our work depends on what the Subcommission charges us to do.
Such was the case with the DDRIP. It must be emphasized that not only can this
process be delayed, but also the affect this has on inhibiting the establishment
of norms. By not having a rapid adoption of the DDRIP, not only is it prohibiting
us from having the articles adopted in themselves, but it also prohibits the
establishment of legally binding norms. Standards serve as a concrete reference
point for the establishment of norms. Among the HR studies under the HCHR, the
study on transnational corporations has to take into account experts for this
task. There needs to be a developed base of legal norms for transnationals.
If it is necessary, the Subcommission can request a study from the WG. Likewise,
the WG can ask the Subcommission to go forward in this area. But, as Mr. Marcial
Arias mention, we need to incorporate Indigenous issues in all studies to be
able to know how something that has general impact can also have special impact
on IPs. He recommended impact studies on transnationals in indigenous territories.
The study on transnationals could not be concluded yet, because it depends on
a superior organ. In this sense, our elaboration of norms is particularly inhibited,
since we are the lowest rank I the UN system. We have to keep rising up to different
levels, passing through the Subcommision and the Commission, toward offering
advice to state bodies on how to implement civil, political, social, economic
and cultural rights. Political decisions must be taken by political organs.
This is why what Mr. Arias says is important. We have to establish norms in
all subjects of the studies regarding IPs. We need a group to advise the secretariat
on how to use certain international instruments in the context of the DDRIP.
To achieve quality, we have to establish a network of studies from the academic
world and the UN. We need financial means to compensate the intellectual work,
as well as the cost of transport. We also need to facilitate consultants for
experts to help and carry out field research and study. We may recommend:
1) Procure financing;
2) Ensure finances;
3) Find ways to incorporate academics in a non-discriminatory way from everywhere
in the world, especially Latin America, Asia and Africa, who are not sufficiently
considered and in order to count on contributions from the third world. So in
these ways, we have to establish criteria with relation to the activities aimed
towards the establishment of international norms.
Judge E. H. Guisse
I heard that the WB was getting actively involved in projects where IPs inhabited.
Just what the host country used to do and its responsibility is being done by
IFI. It seems to me that state responsibility of the IFI providing funding is
based on realities. We shouldn’t dodge the facts. States lack the means
to oppose the intentions of TNCs and the World Bank. Over the last few years,
the WB has imposed structural adjustment policies that have been applied to
all the peoples, especially IPs and minorities.
It is also necessary to draw up standards and ask what responsibilities are
for IFI. We see them participating in Africa and it is not always respectful.
The WB finances the plans. What is the responsibility of the WB must be said
and identified. We also hear that states point to ratification of international
instrument. This may be very good but between ratification and practical implementation
there is a step that many never manage to take. The standards applicable in
other sphere but those with HR are violated more than ever. Those who come here
never apply those standards. I would like to borrow from Latin statement, between
ratification and implementation, a whole sea exists. Between what you say and
what you do a whole sea exists, and some states never cross that sea. To adopt
the principles is considerable but we also have to respect the rights of all
individuals.
Wilda Spalding
Recognizing that protection and promotion of right of SD is important. Various
development agencies must understand from indigenous peoples rights. It is not
for survival of WG but for the survival of humanity.
Agenda Item 7 - International Decade of the World’s IP
Paul D’Auchamp, Deputy Secretary, UN Voluntary Fund for
the International Decade of the World’s IPs
At the 7th session the advisory group of the voluntary fund recommended for
approval of the Secretary general al list of grants $390,000 was allocated.
The names of the organizations can be found on the note (E/CN.4/SUB.2/AC.4/2002/7).
The VF is also financing a media project, to be implemented by the IP Team of
the Research and Right to Development Branch of the Office of the CHR that will
ensure indigenous media participation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa in Sept. 2002. The Fund has already
financed another media project this year, also implemented by the Indigenous
Projects Team, which ensured indigenous media participation at the first session
of the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples Issues in NY from 13 to 24 May
2002.
Before the Advisory Groups 7th session SG already spend all of the money available
for projects and programs for 2002 and 2003. Therefore, despite contributions
from new donors and sustained contributions from regular donors, sufficient
means are not available to implement all of the Fund’s envisaged activities
in 2002 and 2003. The cost plan for 2003 amount to approximately US $800,000
for project grants of IO and communities, as well as for workshops and seminars
to Indigenous issues.
Further information on the Fund can be found in the report by HC to Commission
of HR (E/CN.4/2002/96) and (E/CN.4/SUB.2/AC.4/2001/5) and in the upcoming Report
of the SG to the GA’s forthcoming session.
Lazaro Pary, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru
In its resolution of 21 Dec 1993 the UN General Assembly proclaimed the decade
of the world IPs, setting the goal of strengthening international cooperation
on problems faced by IPs. The Decade is a lost decade. The results are disappointing.
Very little has been done to resolve the basic requisites for the survival of
IPs. IPs continues to be deprived of land and other rights, due to the hypocrisy
of the wealthy north. International cooperation might have resulted in equipping
IP with technology to resulting in projects that enable development. In other
words, promoting self-sufficiency of IP communities, rather than frittering
away money on pointless trainings, conferences, pamphlets and tourist trips.
The VF of the decade has become a bureaucratic device without the funding or
will to take care of problems. Many indigenous communities succumb to becoming
beggars to obtain tiny sums, which may pay for a night’s stay in the Hotel
Intercontinental. When we want funds for development for the poorest communities
we are referred to other wealthy funding institutions controlled by rich countries.
The IPs who with blood and sweat gave so much wealth for the development of
old Europe continue to be victims of their richness.
Mikhail Todyshev, Russian Association of the IPs of the North
We hoped that during the decade of IPs we might solve the survival of our people.
We have achieved certain successes, but it is not possible to solve much by
the end of the decade. Discussing the activities of the WGIP we understand much
work remains to be done. Government and civil society are informed about necessary
changes to be taken by interested parties The three remaining years is too small
a time to take necessary steps. We propose the need for a Second Decade. We
proposed this in our meeting in Moscow. We have been instructed to start negotiations
with the leadership of the UN and the World Forum on IPs to be held in 2004.
It is necessary to review results of the first decade. In May 2002 the initiatives
were supported by the minister of the Russian Federartion, Mr Zorin. We appeal
for support the initiative for the Russian Federation to ensure the world forum
of IPs is to be held in Russia. In June 2002, meetings were held and appeals
made to the President. We hope the Russian government will take the initiative
and invite the forum to Russia.
Alejandro Chipana Yahuita, Centro de Educacion Campesina de
Bases
Much has been said about the decade, but in practice in our countries it is
only a utopia. There is no interest in getting to know the indigenous peoples.
Worse, they ignore the IPs. We tell the whole world: the exploited and discriminated
peoples of Bolivia, say “enough”. We are human beings. We are entitled
to life. Our WG should have continuity because it is needed by the whole world.
The cooperation programs should be more involved with civil society. The dispossessed
protest our rights. The organisms of cooperation must cater to the poor. Enough
of declarations, lets put the resolutions of our forum into practice. Bolivia
is living a crucial moment. At this moment our self-determination is not obtained
from forums, but by ourselves.
Juanita Mason, ATSIC
I have a proposal for the voluntary fund. I am 19 years old. I wish to concentrate
on the access of young people to the WGIP. With consideration of need for youth
participation, we need to raise some questions regarding the WGIP. It is crucial
young people have access to these opportunities to show we can be responsible
for progressing our people. Regarding access to the UN there is lack of consideration
for young peoples across the system. Need more accessible information for young
people, and we can help with that. Even in the form of a web page. We urge the
support of VF for use of indigenous youth and hope to ensure a place for young
people at the world conference.
Peter Schmuk, Center for Sustainable Development
I am psychologist in that part of the world where minority of the population
is consuming the majority of resources. Are the people of these countries happier
today than 50 years ago? No. Individual pathologies are increasing. Our way
of life has pathogenic aspects and should not serve as a model for other people.
We lack spirituality, emotional empathy and a fulfilling sense of life, which
are the strengths of your societies. The decade of IPs may help to transfer
some values. What happens in our world is a slow suicide of the human family.
We need the experiences of all of the family’s members. Let us use the
decade to intensify that process. A growing number of people in the Northern
hemisphere is being sensitized and is willing to learn from you.
Felicia Huarsaya Villasante, Associacion Mujeres Quechua Ayllu,
Puno-Peru
I come from an IP community, an association of women in the region of Puno in
Peru. I am learning a great deal here about IP communities throughout the world
and I will pass this on to our people. Activities and experiments are being
done in this conference. We have a great deal of wealth to exploit in our area:
music, art, agriculture and mining. We need investment projects. With that we
can emerge from extreme project within a year. There are considerable conflicts,
but we need peace and an end to racism and discrimination. Our struggle against
this can unite us. We are confronted by the challenge of external debt, preventing
us from exploiting our resources. IP communities are paying this debt yet we
received not a cent. The World Bank has assisted with training. IP communities
have opportunity to decide on matters affecting us but we need a streamlining
of procedures.
Cesar Augusto Salas Montalvo, Movimiento Runa
The Runa movement during the decade would like to refer to protection of IP
knowledge. There is increasing recognition of the contribution of IP knowledge
throughout the world. Today it is an inexhaustible source of knowledge for the
preservation of biodiversity. It is a cumulative knowledge in health food and
agriculture. In the national context it is of great significance. There are
cases where TNCs are benefiting from IP communities without prior consent or
compensation. I would also announce that IPs in Peru were not aware of the existence
of the decade. The representatives from Peru are always the same people but
they never informed us of procedures to submit projects to the voluntary fund.
Applicants should be severely vetted to see if they are indeed representing
our communities.
Tony Gonzalez, IITC
We are disappointed with the resources and output. A second decade would be
in order. We echo Russian brothers call for second decade as goals not met in
this ten-year period. We appreciate the comments by FJ Hampson and we hope it
is placed in goals.
In paragraph 9, it notes in 53rd and 20th session that establishment of PF should
not be construed for abolishment of the WG. Paragraph 12 on treaties where resolution
calls for a seminar on treaties between states and IPs and to explore ways to
implement conclusions in final report. Also paragraph 14 for the HCHR calls
to establish a database of national legislation of importance to IPs as well
as a public awareness program for IPs. Also paragraph 16 that ECOSOC has a conference
on IPs to evaluate the decade and to consider policy and program to promote
better relations between states IPs and non-IPs. IPs are not yet charter members
but we look forward to day when we have seats at the UN General Assembly as
full members and we hope that second decade can achieve that goal.
Lakra Ruhama, World Adivasi Council
Development assistance should and must originate with IPs themselves. International
aid must involve IPs from the beginning. A great deal of aid does not reach
them. There cannot be peace, hope and progress without dialogue. In many countries,
IPs are being replaced by dominant societies. Close cooperation is needed between
UN specialized agencies, treaty bodies. If IPs are consulted, a program for
world wide promotion should be implemented. Slow genocide against IPs is a crime
against humanity.
Nadir Bekirov, Meijlis of the Crimean Tatar People
When we tried to measure the results of the decade, we see a lot of activity,
but we come from a state where these purposes announced are not implemented
or achieved yet on the national level. Most countries or states where IPs live
don’t carry out this policy. The possibilities to improve the conditions
of IPs in the decade have been circulated in the WG and the world. It is obvious
to me and those present here that we have possible solutions to promote this
decade or to intensify the framework of this decade to reach results earlier.
The government will get a chance to forget the decade when it is over and the
attention of the UN would also be lesser than now. We have had very good experience
of World Conference on human rights or like Durban last year. Why don’t
we have an international conference on indigenous issues all over the world?
A special document could be produced that could be a required text for all nations
around the world. It could be basis for future development of improvement of
conditions for IPs. After the decade would be over those countries that didn’t
act actively such as Ukraine will do nothing. They only pass this time for when
it will be over and then they will have free hands to do nothing for IPs.
Tomas Alacron, Centro de Ecologia Holistica Otorongo (speaking
on behalf of Milton Corrales)
The document on VF has been widely distributed and is available to all IPs.
Eight years ago when in Peru a national decade was established there was a nice
ceremony but after that the government failed to act. Budget prepared was given
to local authority and to IPs. It is desirable that national committees draw
up a national budget for voluntary activities and then present it to the UN.
This is a technical point and we can bring expertise as Andean lawyers to bear.
We would like to make this contribution.
Inocencio Escobar, Aymara Lupakas Communities near Lake Tittikaka
We are one of the few communities that have survived. We have ancient culture
of participation and our harmonious existence on our lands. We seek sustainable
development to protect our environment. We now need to help each other. Our
communities need assistance from our brothers around the world. There is principle
of reciprocity. Unity can be weak. It is not because we are rejecting it but
there are always fresh forms of division such as development. People compete
for jobs resulting in increasing poverty. But we have to identify what is best
for us. We trust we can see an end to poverty in our lands. We may have schools
and television but modernity has not brought benefits. There are super highways.
There are vehicles passing through and polluting our territories. Modernity
has resulted in migration.
Voluntary Fund makes a comment:
Paul D’Auchamp, Deputy Secretary UN Voluntary Fund for the International
Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples
Guidelines are to be sent to the secretariat of the fund as formal suggestions.
They will be discussed and the advisory group of the fund will deliberate and
decide. I would also like to remind those interested.
Documentation on the fund is in the booth. To those organizations and communities
interested in applying for funds, there are applications to apply. Finally,
should regular donors with to contribute. I would ask you to do in advance of
session in April 2003
FJ Hampson
The VF for International Decade states that it will take gender balance into
account. It would be helpful to have such information. Neither fund refers to
young peoples. I would encourage the Fund to include young members. We have
heard what a difference it makes during their interventions.
Session closed at 6:00 p.m.
List of Abbreviations & Acronyms
DDRIP = UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
ECOSOC = UN Economic and Social Council
HRs = Human rights
IGOs = Inter-gouvernmental Organisations
IPs = Indigenous Peoples
IPOs = Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations
NGOs = Non-gouvernmental Organisations
OHCHR = UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
PFII = UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
SD = Self-determination
SR = Special Rapporteur
UN = United Nations
VFIP = UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples
VFID = UN Voluntary Fund on the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous
Peoples
WCAR = UN World Conference Against Racism (Durban, 2001)
WG = Working Group
WGIP = UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations
WGDD = UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration
WSSD = UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002)
Mission Statement:
· To provide accurate summaries of daily intervention and a historical
record of meetings.
· To respond to the recent change in ECOSOC rules limiting official reports
to 16 pages.
· To complement other more long-term reporting processes, research and
publications.
· To capture interventions that are given orally, spontaneously or during
unofficial meetings that are not recorded in official reports.
· To enable members of indigenous communities to follow events who are
not able to attend the meetings through timely, daily publication
Editorial team: Joshua Cooper, Mónica Castelo, Blaise Pantel, Eduardo Welsh, Suzy Faulkner
Disclaimer: Please note the statements are not the full versions
of the text and the information may not be an entirely accurate account of the
interventions.
We apologize for any errors, omissions, or misinterpretations.