Jul 25, 2002

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.