Canada endorses indigenous rights declaration

Canada endorses indigenous rights declaration
Last Updated: Friday, November 12, 2010 | 8:31 PM ET
CBC News

The federal government has endorsed a United Nations declaration that recognizes global human rights standards for indigenous populations, reversing its initial opposition to the document.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a non-binding document, recognizes indigenous people's basic human rights and rights to self-determination, language, equality and land, among other rights.

Canada was one of four countries, along with Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., to vote against the declaration when it was adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007. Australia and New Zealand have since reversed their stance, and the U.S. has said it will review its position.

At the time the declaration was passed, the Harper government had expressed concerns about its wording on provisions addressing land and natural resources, saying it was overly broad and could lead to the reopening of previously settled land claims.

In its March speech from the throne, the government indicated it wanted to "take steps to endorse this inspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."

But on Friday, the government released a statement saying it has formally endorsed the declaration.

On the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada website, it stated that: "after careful and thoughtful consideration, Canada has concluded that it is better to endorse the UNDRIP while explaining its concerns, rather than simply rejecting the overall document.

"Although the UNDRIP does not reflect customary international law or change Canadian laws, Canada believes that the UNDRIP has the potential to contribute positively to the promotion and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples around the world."

In a statement, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo praised Canada's endorsement of the document as a positive development.

"Today marks an important shift in our relationship, and now, the real work begins," he said. "Now is our time to work together towards a new era of fairness and justice for First Nations and a stronger Canada for all Canadians, guided by the Declaration's core principles of respect, partnership and reconciliation."

Source: CBC

3rd Anniversary/ 3eme anniversaire de l'UNDRIP

3rd Anniversary/ 3eme anniversaire de l'UNDRIP

Monday · 11:00 - 12:00
Location Devant le complexe guy favreau / in front of the Guy Favreau Complex
200, Bd René-Levesque Ouest, Montreal, QC
Created by:
Femmes Autochtones du Québec / Quebec Native Women Inc.
More info:
La Coalition pour les droits des peuples autochtones du Québec invite le public à venir souffler les bougies d’anniversaire de la Déclaration et demander au Canada d’appuyer et de mettre en œuvre la Déclaration, sans conditions.

The Coalition for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Quebec invites the public to come and celebrate the third anniversary of the UNDRIP and call Canada to endorse and fully implement the Declaration, without qualifications.

Facebook | 3rd Anniversary/ 3eme anniversaire de l'UNDRIP

83rd Annual IDLA Border Crossing

83rd Annual Free Border Crossing Celebration

Presented by the Indian Defense League of America in Commemoration of the Jay Treaty of 1794 Restoring to Indians of North America Free Border Crossing

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Program 1:30 p.m. at Hyde Park Picnic Grounds, Niagara Falls, NY

Picturesque Parade will assemble at 11:00 a.m. at Bridge Street Park, Bridge and Victoria Streets, Niagara Falls, Ontario proceed to Niagara Falls, New York via Whirlpool Rapids Bridge at 11:45 a.m.

For more information:

Facebook | Indian Defense League of America (IDLA)

Indian Defense Leage of America (IDLA)

IPSMO Indigenous Sovereignty Under Attack

Indigenous Sovereignty Under Attack
Date: Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Time: 18:00 - 21:00
Location: PSAC Boardroom (TBC)
Street: 233 Gilmour, 1st Floor
Town/City: Ottawa, ON

Indigenous Sovereignty Under Attack: Government Repression Through the Indian Act

Speakers will include:

Spokespersons from Barriere Lake

We are also hoping to have spokespersons from the Six Nations reserve, and from Akwesasne, but these speakers are still to be confirmed.

==================
Wednesday, May 26
6pm in the PSAC Boardroom
233 Gilmour
Wheelchair Accessible
Everyone Welcome
http://www.ipsmo.org
ipsmo@riseup.net
==================

The community of Barriere Lake, a small Algonquin community in Quebec, has been engaged in political struggle with both the Provincial and Federal governments, as well as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) for over 2 decades.

As a result of their political activism they have been targeted by INAC for repression. INAC has invoked section 74(1) of the Indian Act in an attempt to silence the community by interfering in its governance system. Barriere Lake is currently one of only 26 indigenous communities that governs itself according to its traditional governance system.

Section 74 - the imposition of the Band Council system - has played a significant role the colonization of Canada. It has been instrumental in destabilizing indigenous political systems, creating divisions within indigenous communities, and illegally imposing the Canadian governments colonial system on indigenous nations.

Both Akwesasne and Six Nations have had section 74 of the Indian Act imposed on their communities. In both cases it had to be imposed by (police) force.

In 1899 in Akwesasne, one man, Jake Ice, was shot and killed by the police while trying to prevent them from arresting several Chiefs who were opposed to the Band Council system. Although the police and the government were successful in forcing the Band Council system on the reserve, the Mohawks of Akwesasne have also maintained their traditional governance systems despite this repression.

"In 1924, the Government of Canada entered Six Nations territory with armed force to end the centuries old system of governance outlined in the Gai yen sra go wa (Great Law). The Chiefs of the governing Confederacy were relieved of all responsibilities, and replaced by an elected band council under the Indian Act. Although the Band Council has been in place since that time, Six Nations continues to maintain their own governance outside the Indian Act through the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Six Nations have never permitted the Confederacy to die. It remaines a source of moral authority, the repository of the Haudenausaunee languages and spirituality. The Chiefs of the Confederacy are to be chosen by highly capable women of each clan or Clan mothers." - http://www.mcmaster.ca/indigenous/SixNationsLandClaim.htm

Section 74(1) of the Indian Act: "Whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band, the Minister may declare by order that after a day to be named therein the council of the band, consisting of a chief and councillors, shall be selected by elections to be held in accordance with this Act."

Facebook | Indigenous Sovereignty Under Attack

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 28 Apr 2010

Impact of Economic Crisis on Indigenous Peoples, Incarceration of Indigenous Youth, Corporations, Among Issues Addressed in Reports to Permanent Forum
---
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues today tackled emerging issues and matters related its future work, grappling with how to change a host of discriminatory policies ‑‑ and attitudes ‑‑ that had landed high numbers of indigenous youth in prison, perpetuated cyclical unemployment, favoured corporate interests over indigenous land rights and generally ignored native peoples’ vulnerability to climate change.

(PressZoom) - The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues today tackled emerging issues and matters related its future work, grappling with how to change a host of discriminatory policies ‑‑ and attitudes ‑‑ that had landed high numbers of indigenous youth in prison, perpetuated cyclical unemployment, favoured corporate interests over indigenous land rights and generally ignored native peoples’ vulnerability to climate change.

As a starting point for the day’s discussions, Forum members provided insights from seven reports and studies undertaken within the last year to spotlight indigenous peoples’ realities. Those reports examined the themes of: the impact of the financial crisis on indigenous peoples; indigenous youth in detention; indigenous peoples and corporations; climate change policies vis-à-vis the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; indigenous fishing rights; Mother Earth rights; and the impact of climate change on reindeer herding.

Discussing the report on the International Expert Group on Indigenous Children and Youth in Detention, Custody, Foster-Care and Adoption, Andrea Carmen, Rapporteur of the Expert Group Meeting, said that the cycle for indigenous peoples often began with foster care, continued to youth detention and went on to custody in the adult criminal justice system. Experts at the Meeting, which was held from 4 to 5 March, also noted the high numbers of indigenous youth in criminal detention in many States, versus the rest of the population. There was an urgent need for rehabilitation programmes that were culturally relevant and reflected indigenous spiritual and cultural practices.

In the discussion that followed, Neil Gillespie, of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in Australia, proposed a focus on justice reinvestment programmes, which would divert funds from incarceration and towards reducing the incentives to offend. States should use detention only as a matter of last resort and consult with indigenous peoples to identify both causal factors and strategies to address the over-representation of indigenous youth in justice systems. It was also important to increase the participation of indigenous youth in the United Nations, including through an international complaint mechanism.

Presenting the report on Mother Earth rights, Bartolomé Clavero, Forum member from Spain, said it aimed at recovering the suggestion that certain principles and ethics were in harmony with Mother Earth. He recalled that the resolution adopted last year by the General Assembly on harmony with nature, originally had been entitled “Harmony with Mother Earth”, which translated the idea of “Pachamama”.

Adding to that, Carlos Mamani, Forum Chairperson and member from Bolivia, discussed the Andean idea of Mother Earth, saying that “Pachamama” translated to “the fruitful Mother Earth” in its most universal expression. However, such expression was considered idolatry for missionaries ‑‑ something to be eliminated by conversion.

Those attitudes had, in some regions, all but decimated traditional practices, speakers said in response, and had crushed indigenous peoples’ resistance to an imposed vision of the world. The indigenous view of development celebrated Mother Earth and supported its symbiotic relationship with humanity. Decrying the dumping of garbage on his people’s territorial lands, Jorge Quilaqueo, of the Centro de Cultura Pueblo Nacion Mapuche Pelonxaru, denounced such practices as a form of “environmental racism”.

“We all talk about justice because we must respect Mother Earth,” added Isabel Ortega, Vice-Minister of Justice of Bolivia, one of a handful of countries represented as observers in today’s meeting. Mother Earth was ailing and under continuous attack from multinational corporations spewing pollutants, levelling trees and digging vast holes in the ground. Capitalist systems did not care about the land; Mother Earth was seen as only a source of raw goods to be devoured or wasted.

Addressing that point from another perspective, Paimaneh Hasteh, Forum member from Iran, who co-presented the Forum’s study on whether climate change policies adhered to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said climate change law or policy attempting to limit indigenous peoples’ use of their resources could be perceived as undermining their self-determination. Further, the right to free, prior and informed consent was closely related to that for self-determination. “Free” meant that indigenous peoples should not face coercion or intimidation. “Prior” meant that their consent must be sought sufficiently in advance of the start of any activities. It also should include accurate information about the nature and reversibility of any project.

Throughout the day, speakers zeroed in on the vast economic, social, cultural and educational discrepancies between indigenous peoples and their non-indigenous counterparts. In the area of education, a heavily debated emerging issue, the Forum was urged to request action plans from States to reduce the gap between education for indigenous and non-indigenous youth. One speaker asked that it work with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to empower future indigenous leaders.

Adequate financial support for education in traditional languages was also needed, several speakers stressed. Describing the situation of the Basque people, Jean Georges Bidart, of Traits d’Union Garabide Elkartea, said that when language disappeared, people disappeared with it. “What is the use of having economic development if we don’t help people survive?” he asked. His language, like others, was severely ill and would die without care.

During the morning, the report on the impact of the economic crisis was presented by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Forum member from the Philippines.

Co-presenting the report with Ms. Carmen on the International Expert Group on Indigenous Children and Youth in Detention, Custody, Foster-Care and Adoption was Tonya Gonnella Frichner, Forum member from the United States.

Co-presenting with Ms. Hasteh the study on “the extent to which climate change policies and projects adhere to the standards set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” was Hassan Id Balkassm, Forum member from Morocco.

Pavel Sulyandziga, expert from the Russian Federation, presented the study on corporations and indigenous peoples.

In the afternoon, Carsten Smith, Permanent Forum member from Norway, presented the report on Indigenous fishing rights in the seas, while Forum member Mick Dodson, of Australia, introduced an Australian case study on that topic.

Introducing the day’s final report, on the impact of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures on reindeer herding was Lars Anders-Baer, Forum member from Sweden.

Members of the Permanent Forum from Russian Federation, Morocco, Bolivia, United States, Philippines, Spain, Uganda, and Australia took part in the question-and-answer periods following the presentations.

The representatives of the following indigenous peoples’ groups and caucuses participated in the discussion on the various issues: International Tuareg; Parliamentarians of Peru; World Youth Caucus; Pacific Caucus; Youth Association of Finno-Ugrik Peoples; Asia Pacific Youth Network; Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia; Saami Council; Saami Parliamentarian Council; Indigenous World Association; Foundation for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge “Land is Life”; Ethiopian World Federation; Indigenous Caucus of Asia; and Confederation of Amazon Nations of Peru.

The Chairperson of Indigenous Land Cooperation of Australia also took the floor.

Also speaking were the representatives of Viet Nam, Finland and Sweden.

The Chief Counsel in the Environmental and International Law Unit of the World Bank also spoke.

The Permanent Forum will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 27 April, to continue its discussion of matters related to the future work of the Permanent Forum, including issues of the Economic and Social Council and emerging issues.

Background

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues met today to take up its agenda item entitled “Future work of the permanent Forum, including issues of the Economic and Social Council and emerging issues”. For its discussion, the Forum was expected to take up reports on: the impact of the global economic crisis on indigenous peoples; indigenous peoples and corporations; indigenous fishing rights in the seas; the impact of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures on reindeer herding; and consideration and recognition of Mother Earth rights.

Introduction of Reports

Introducing the report on the impact of the economic crisis, VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Forum member from the Philippines, said the report synthesized the short- and long-term impact of the crisis on indigenous peoples, and was linked with the Forum’s special theme on indigenous peoples’ development, culture and identity. “We are now witnessing the most severe global recession since the 1930s”, she said, citing Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz’s conclusion that it was also the first serious global downturn of the modern era of globalization. The Commission of Experts of the President of the General Assembly on reform of international monetary and financial regulation had analysed the origins of the crisis, determining that its spread from developed countries to the global economy provided tangible evidence of the need to reform the international finance and trading systems.

One common conclusion was that the financial market self-correction had failed, she said. While there were claims of recovery, evidence showed that nations were still in decline. Indigenous peoples viewed the crisis as just one side of the coin; the other side was the global crisis of biodiversity laws, climate change and environmental degradation ‑‑ all of which stemmed from an economic model that fostered over-consumption and production. Absolute consumption had only increased, with growing populations and gross domestic product (GDP). It was clear that social inequalities were not being reduced. The extent of the impact on indigenous peoples depended on how well indigenous peoples had been integrated into their countries’ populations.

Turning to the United States, she described the social impacts on Native Americans. Between 1990 and 2000, the poverty rate among them was more than two times the average for all United States citizens. Cyclical unemployment, rising food, energy and health-care prices had only worsened their situation. Further, gaming revenues had declined by 9 per cent, affecting 60 or 70 tribes with lucrative casinos. In 2002, nearly 3 in 10 Native American-owned businesses were in the timber sector, which was among the hardest hit by the crisis. The United States’ decision to formally review its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was very much welcome.

Describing the impact of the crisis elsewhere in the world, she said that overseas workers in developing countries had been severely affected. In Tonga, for example, remittances contributed to between 55 and 60 per cent of GDP. Fiji’s decrease in tourism had brought down the average retirement age, while Thailand’s hill tribe people also had been affected. The downturn had also hit farmers in Thailand, Viet Nam and other exporting countries. Their loss of income, and an increase in food commodity prices, had led to food insecurity. The same was true in Africa. She recommended that stimulus packages be used to redesign development priorities and bring them in line with indigenous culture and values. Safety nets for indigenous peoples should be increased, while rights and accountability mechanisms of States and intergovernmental organizations should be put in place. National institutions should change their policies to be inclusive of indigenous peoples. While the crisis had been devastating, it was an opportunity for indigenous peoples to bring into the fore their vision for social and economic development.

Presenting the next issue, TONYA GONNELLA FRICHNER, Forum member from the United States, provided highlights from the report on the International Expert Group on Indigenous Children and Youth in Detention, Custody, Foster-Care and Adoption. She said that the 4 to 5 March Expert Group Meeting, had, among other things, urged Governments to ensure protection of such children while in detention and to provide rehabilitation. It had also urged the Permanent Forum and United Nations agencies to collect and disseminate disaggregated data on the matter.

Next, ANDREA CARMEN, Rapporteur of the Expert Group Meeting, which had been held in British Colombia, Canada, said that, as that meeting got under way, a human rights framework had been presented for the discussions, including drawing from the preambular paragraph of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as other core international instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

She said that local experts had noted that 50 per cent of the children in government care in British Columbia ‑‑ foster care and detention ‑‑ were aboriginal, and in the northern part of the province that number was close to 75 per cent. Poverty and poor housing conditions were considered major causes, and those rights also needed to be addressed. The participants were asked to consider, among other questions: How could those numbers be reduced? How can indigenous children be kept in their own communities? And what could be done to ensure that children who were already in custody stayed connected to their communities and cultures?

With that as a starting point, the meeting touched on some tough issues, including the continued legacy of removal policies in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Several experts had addressed the ongoing impact of economic marginalization and racial discrimination on indigenous children and had expressed the need to ensure the direct involvement of indigenous representatives in all matters regarding the placement of indigenous children, she said.

They had also suggested ways to ensure that such children stayed with their families. Further, she said the participants considered the freedom to exercise indigenous spirituality and religion on an equal basis to other religious and spiritual traditions as essential in preparing indigenous youth, their families and communities for their return home. That was a basic human right that was too often violated, or denied for incarcerated indigenous youth.

At the close of that meeting, the experts had agreed to a number of recommendations and conclusions, among them that discrimination, economic inequalities and racially discriminatory policies and practices continued to play a major role in the disproportionate placement of indigenous children and youth in detention, custody, foster care and adoption in many countries.

She said the examples of that included, among others: defining suitable households for caregiving primarily based on economic factors, both in justifications for the removal of children and in determining placements for children in foster or adoptive homes; significant disparities in funding levels and services provided to indigenous communities; border security laws that failed to acknowledge the specific needs and rights of indigenous children and youth; and blaming the over-representation of indigenous youth and children in custody and care on indigenous peoples themselves, rather than on State systems and policies.

Continuing, she said the experts agreed that solutions to the systemic barriers leading to the over-representation of indigenous youth and children in detention, custody, foster care and adoption must also consider the particular impacts on, and effects of discrimination experienced by indigenous women. Those included lack of support provided to single-parented, low income families, the majority of which are headed by Indigenous women. That contributed to the over-representation of indigenous children in the child welfare system, as well as to the criminalization of indigenous girls who are sexually exploited at a young age.

The experts also recognized that the cycle of institutionalization for indigenous peoples often began with foster care, continued on to youth detention programs and then to custody in the adult criminal justice system. She said that cycle was often repeated for the children of incarcerated adults. Experts also noted the disproportionately high numbers of indigenous youth in criminal detention in many States, compared to the rest of the population. For indigenous youth already in detention, there was an urgent need for rehabilitation programmes and policies, developed in conjunction with indigenous families, youth, communities and indigenous leaders that were culturally relevant and reflect indigenous spiritual and cultural practices.

HASSAN ID BALKASSM, Forum member from Morocco, presented the Study on the extent to which climate change policies and projects adhere to the standards set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (document E/C.19/2010/7). The six-part study relied on the definition of climate change as the change of climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that altered the composition of the global atmosphere. It was mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, largely resulting from fossil fuel combustion. Its impacts included the contraction of snow-covered areas, sea level rise and increased intensity of severe weather events. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aimed to stabilize emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate. International law revolved around the concepts of mitigation and adaptation.

The competing interests behind climate change positions translated into contention over issues, especially scientific assessments of impacts, he explained. Developed States were concerned at the financial burden of such efforts, while developing States sought not to be hampered in their energy use, especially as developed States had not been so in the past. The lowest carbon emitters with the greatest vulnerability to climate change were among the States calling for strong commitments. Oil producers were concerned at lower oil use resulting from climate change measures.

He then gave the floor to PAIMANEH HASTEH, Forum member from Iran, who said indigenous peoples had participated in the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. Importantly, reference to community engagement was included in the draft Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) agreement. Some climate change impacts were, as yet, unknown and law was evolving. Indigenous peoples’ right to participate in law formation was outlined in various articles of the Declaration, including 3, 4, 5, 18 and 20. Indigenous peoples’ rights to participate in decisions that affected them were particularly stated in article 18. Moreover, the United Nations REDD Commission report stated that consultation with indigenous peoples, among other stakeholders, was necessary to maintain the legitimacy of any national or subnational REDD scheme.

Despite such provisions, indigenous peoples had not been adequately consulted during the creation of the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol, she said, stressing that other requests for participation had been rejected. But climate change law could support indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. For example, if REDD funding was channelled through a State that did not recognize indigenous peoples’ authority over forests, indigenous peoples’ self-determination could be perceived to be undermined. Likewise, climate change law or policy attempting to limit indigenous peoples’ use of their resources could be perceived as undermining their self-determination.

Turning to the right to land, territories and resources, she said the report discussed securing ancestral lands and waters in a manner that provided the basis for indigenous peoples’ economic, social, cultural and spiritual development. Those areas were particularly vulnerable to climate change policies and laws. Policies and laws that sought to build dams and wind farms, or to plant biofuels, for example, could create incentives for relocating indigenous peoples and denying their rights. The right to free, prior and informed consent was closely related to those for self-determination participation. “Free” meant that indigenous peoples should not face any coercion or intimidation. “Prior” meant that their consent must be sought sufficiently in advance of the start of any activities. It also should include accurate information about the nature and reversibility of any project. Indeed, opportunities had to be provided for indigenous peoples to debate any proposal that might affect them.

Next, PAVEL SULYANDZIGA, expert from the Russian Federation, presented the Study on Corporations and Indigenous Peoples (document E/C.19/2010/9), saying this was a difficult time for most indigenous peoples, because “mega projects” were under way across the globe and were corrupting ancestral lands and threatening the spiritual and ethnic survival of those peoples. The future of many such cultures would require the joint efforts of tribal governments and State structures to ensure the recognition of indigenous rights.

More than ever, he continued, the issue was affecting the economic relations between indigenous peoples and States. Industrialized countries were implementing policies of paternalism and domination and the result was acute social problems, including alcoholism and high suicide rates in indigenous communities. It was almost impossible for indigenous people to overcome such practices because, by and large, they did not have the “voice”, money, education or training to face down multinational corporations. Efforts must be made to ensure that indigenous people were able to manage their own lands.

Some progress had been made in Canada, where indigenous and aboriginal corporations were on the rise. That movement had put a spotlight on indigenous entrepreneurship and raised general awareness about the need to protect the rights of native communities when major industrial projects were launched on traditional lands. Citing another example of progress, he said that, in the Russian Federation, indigenous peoples were now being included in project management in the northern region, and were also being asked to participate in studies examining the social and ecological impact of projects on indigenous communities.

Further progress would require bolstering international standards on the rights of indigenous peoples and their relations with multinational corporations. Also, national Governments must act as guarantors of indigenous peoples’ rights when contracts with such corporations were signed. He said that the tenets of the United Nations Declaration and relevant conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on protecting the rights of indigenous must be integrated into the framework of national laws concerning contracts, project management and corporate responsibility.

Finally, regarding relations between indigenous peoples and the multinationals themselves, he said there were indications that some companies were beginning to implement policies that helped improve the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, all efforts should not be based on paternalism. Rather, they must recognize that past policies had been unfair and that indigenous economic, community and governance structures should be considered on an equal footing with State structures, especially when projects under consideration had an impact on indigenous lands and territories.

Dialogue

Following those presentations, speakers representing a range of indigenous peoples called for urgent action to address the impact of climate change on Mother Earth. To that end, HILARIASUPA HUAMAN,a speaker representing the Parliamentarians of Peru, said that the Permanent Forum must pressure States to implement international agreements on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and air and water pollution. Pleading with the Forum for help, she said that, when native peoples protested against environmental degradation, they were not met with understanding and dialogue; they were met with force and incarceration. There were other passionate calls to monitor countries that emitted the most pollution. Regulations must be defended and new agreements signed to implement laws that responded to the world view of indigenous peoples.

Offering one way forward, SANDRA MILLER, Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, pressed the Forum to develop a mechanism on corporate social responsibility to encourage States to protect the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples were under pressure from extractive industries to gain access to resource-rich lands. She applauded Canada’s move to appoint a Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor to review extractive companies operating outside Canada, saying that traditional land owners called for developing accountability systems to ensure that best practice prevailed in the extractive and other industries.

Among the emerging issues heavily discussed was education. One speaker described the long hours and taxing conditions under which youth were forced to work, which denied them their right and ability to access education. The Forum was urged to work with United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to empower future indigenous leaders, and request action plans from States to reduce the gap between education for indigenous and non-indigenous youth. Adequate financial support for education in traditional languages was also needed, several speakers stressed. States should develop benchmarks on education that took into account indigenous knowledge of culture and values. Technology should be developed and used to help people in rural areas to access education.

Dovetailing such efforts should be those to prevent recidivism, other speakers noted. To break the cycle of crime and growing incarceration rates, NEIL GILLESPIE, of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in Australia, focused on justice reinvestment, which diverted a portion of funds intended for incarceration to efforts to reduce the incentives to offend. The Forum should urge States to use detention only as a matter of last resort and consult with indigenous peoples to identify causal factors and strategies to surmount the over-representation of indigenous youth in the justice system. States should empower indigenous organizations to implement culturally appropriate programmes to rehabilitate youth through counselling, employment and cultural and family reconnection programmes. Finally, he urged the Forum to identify ways to increase the participation of indigenous youth in the United Nations, including through the creation of an international complaint mechanism.

Safeguarding traditional languages should also receive high priority, speakers said. JEAN GEORGES BIDART, Traits d’Union Garabide Elkartea, describing the situation of the Basque people, underscored that comprehensive development began with collective experience and identity. When language disappeared, people disappeared with it. “What is the use of having economic development if we don’t help people survive?” he asked. His language, like other indigenous languages, was severely ill and would die without care.

When the Permanent Forum began its work in the afternoon, CARSTEN SMITH, Permanent Forum member from Norway, presented the report on Indigenous fishing rights in the seas (document E/C.19/2010/2). He said that, in international law, there were no rules or principles dealing with indigenous peoples’ rights to salt sea fishing. Those legal rights must, therefore, been derived from various international instruments regarding coastal waters and protection of indigenous cultures, chiefly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ILO convention 169. The Forum supported the view that longstanding traditional coastal usage together with the Covenant protected the right to fish “when it was an essential part of the culture”.

Presenting a case study on the situation in Norway, he said that, while many people thought that reindeer herding was the dominate feature of Saami life, fishing had always been the main livelihood for coastal Saami communities. State regulation of sea fisheries had undergone great changes in the 1980s, when quotas had been placed on cod catches, based on the amount of fish caught in the previous season. Since that system was based on batches, most small-scale Saami fishermen fell outside the new rules. A statute drafted by the Coastal Fishing Committee had recognized that Saami did have rights to fish in relation to allowable catches and exclusive rights in some areas and fjords. Yet, large trade organizations and corporations had campaigned against the draft statute, while indigenous peoples’ groups and local leaders had been in favour of it.

He said that the Attorney General had issued its initial response to the report of the Coastal Fishing Committee, which had backed that draft legal right to fish coastal waters. That State official’s response “is negative towards the Committee’s report, both regarding its international law analysis and statutory proposals”. For his part, the head of the Committee said that reasoning was negligent: the principle elements of the argument remained Saami rights to the material basis of their culture and to necessary special measures. Subsequently, the Ministry of Fisheries had announced that it would propose certain fishing rights ‑‑ but far less than the draft ‑‑ to the Norwegian Parliament, but would not recognize the international law position, nor accept any preferential fishing rights to specific areas.

He said that Saami Parliament was now likely to fight for a result that better approximated the draft statute, and especially for recognition of the international law basis. Fishing was essential for securing Sea Saami culture, which was currently in a “critical state”, he added.

Introducing the Australian case study, Permanent Forum member MICK DODSON of Australia, said his country’s indigenous people had a long and historical connection to the sea. They saw no difference between landscape and seascape. Obviously, that varied widely from the State’s view, which was based on land and sea demarcations. Despite changes in native title laws over the years, there had been no recognition of exclusive indigenous rights to native “sea-country”.

He said the Torres Strait water and islands covered some 39,000 square kilometres. Native title to land in that region had been recognized in 1992. Yet, national laws vested all rights to offshore fishing and fisheries management in the State. He proposed that the Forum recommend that States where indigenous peoples’ livelihoods were based on fishing recognize their rights to fish in the seas, based on traditional usage and on international law.

Presenting the report on Mother Earth rights, BARTOLOMÉ CLAVERO, Forum member from Spain, recalled that, last year, the General Assembly had dealt with several issues, including the environment, biodiversity and climate change, and adopted a resolution on harmony with nature. That draft had been sponsored by Bolivia, entitled “Harmony with Mother Earth”, which, in its original form, had translated the idea of “Pachamama”. The report on Mother Earth rights aimed at recovering the suggestion that certain principles and ethics were in harmony with Mother Earth.

Tracing the vast history of environmental policy, he said that a document as important as the World Nature Charter (1982) had ignored the indigenous peoples’ presence, even though it had incorporated their vision of nature. The Charter expressed the belief that all forms of life were unique and deserved to be respected, whatever their utility. In 1987, the international paradigm on nature was outlined, which recognized the concept of sustainable development. States had decided on it, with no recognition of indigenous peoples.

Other forums and instruments, such as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and the Biological Diversity Convention, had discussed development without much reference to autonomous sustainable development for indigenous peoples, he said. States continued to make decisions related to humanity’s relationship to nature. In the same vein, the Kyoto Protocol also ignored the rights of indigenous peoples, who had been notoriously hurt by climate change, as well as the policies adopted to stop it.

For all such “burning” issues dealing with the environment, sustainable development, biodiversity and climate change ‑‑ the key issues were linked to rights acknowledged by the Declaration, he said, beginning with the basic right to self-determination on political, economic, social and cultural levels. The Declaration acknowledged indigenous peoples’ rights to use material resources, in line with their development priorities, which included their symbiotic relationship to nature.

Presenting the second part of the report, CARLOS MAMANI, Forum member from Bolivia, discussed the Andean idea of Mother Earth, saying “Pachamama” translated to “the fruitful Mother Earth” in its most universal expression. “Nature provides sustenance,” he explained. A chronicler of the sixteenth century had used the same concept. However, such expression was considered idolatry for missionaries ‑‑ something to be eliminated by conversion.

The Earth was also considered as the defender of pregnant women, he said, and the spilling of water had made it fertile. Another concept described “the good life”, personified by “Camidi”, who was the “walker of the good life”. He was the possessor of resources ‑‑ one who knew of the sun and the earth. The miserable person was miserable towards the world ‑‑ he who did not know how to live. The Mapucha people considered themselves sons and daughters of the Earth, whose duty it was to recover lands confiscated during colonist endeavours. In closing, he voiced support for what Bolivian President Evo Morales said on Mother Earth Day, celebrated on 22 April: that the rights of any species should never be eliminated by irresponsible action.

Introducing the day’s final study, on the impact of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures on reindeer herding (document E/C.19/2010/15), LARS ANDERS-BAER, Forum member from Sweden, said that climate change affected all aspects of the traditional lifestyles and cultures of indigenous peoples of the Arctic, including reindeer husbandry. Reindeer was the primary livestock in the Arctic, but pastures and grazing ranges were under pressure from climate change, ecological degradation and human development.

Continuing, he said that, after the recent Copenhagen meeting of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it was expected that efforts to mitigate climate change by increased use of renewable resources, such as windmills and hydroelectric dams, would intensify pressure on grazing lands. In the north of Sweden, a Swedish-German joint venture was planning the construction of a windmill park within the reindeer grazing lands of the Östra Kikkejaure Saami community. That was the biggest windmill park planned to date, and the Swedish Government will soon give the go-ahead to the project. The project would have a mainly negative effect on reindeer husbandry in the concerned Saami community, she said, adding that Sweden was the only Government that had carried out such an impact study.

He said the situation of reindeer herding communities was complex, and due to the limitations of the framework of the present study, further studies should be undertaken and strategies and programmes should be developed and implemented, based on the principles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He said that a recent development in the Russian Federation gave an example of the complexity. According to a new federal land code entering into force as of 1 January 2010, reindeer herders and their communities had to buy or rent their traditional grazing lands.

The Kautokeino Declaration, adopted by the fourth World Reindeer Herders’ Congress held in Kautokeino, Norway, in 2009 expressed explicitly the need for a federal law in the Russian Federation on reindeer husbandry, addressing reindeer herding rights, the protection of pastures and the ownership of reindeer, he said. The reindeer husbandry legislation in the Scandinavian countries was an example of such legislation.

In conclusion, he said there was an urgent need to facilitate investigation and studies within the United Nations framework on changes in grazing land in the reindeer herding areas in the circumpolar North, and to establish a holistic and integrated understanding of the ongoing rapid changes in reindeer herding communities, driven partly by climate change and globalization, in order to maintain the sustainability and resilience of indigenous reindeer herding societies and cultures in the future.

When the floor was opened to other speakers, ISABEL ORTEGA, Vice-Minister of Justice of Bolivia, said that Mother Earth was ailing and under continuous attack from multinational corporations spewing pollutants, levelling trees and digging vast holes in the ground. Such actions had sparked dire changes in weather patterns that were affecting food security in many parts of the world. Capitalist systems did not care about the land; Mother Earth was seen as only a source of raw goods to be devoured or wasted. Capitalist systems oppressed indigenous people, seeing them only for what they owned or the land they were on, rather than as human beings. Humankind must end exploitation, rapacious consumption and oppression. Humankind must defend Mother Earth with kindness.

Next, KRISTINA NORDLING, representative of the Saami Council, updated the Forum on the Swedish windmill project. She said Sweden had admitted that the project would destroy at least 25 per cent of reindeer winter grazing pastures in the Östra Kikkejaure Saami community. Yet, that Government had argued that renewable energy was more important than Saami rights. The Sammi community had learned that the German bank financing the project was in breach of its human rights obligations on Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines. The bank argued that it was following Swedish laws and it was Sweden that was the guarantor of Saami rights on its territory.

She said the bank in question had refused to meet with Saami representatives. The project, which would be the largest wind farm in the world, would eliminate a Saami village and breach international human rights laws. She said Sweden had received “harsh criticism” from many quarters of the international human rights community, including charges that it was not regulating industrial activities in the traditional lands, and not giving Saami representatives an opportunity for genuine participation in decisions affecting them.

MARGARET LOKAWUA, Permanent Forum member from Uganda, praised her colleagues and the comprehensive reports they had presented. She stressed the importance of protecting all traditional livelihoods, including nomadic ways of life. She also urged States to promulgate laws and policies that protected and nurtured Mother Earth.

Further on that point, JORGE QUILAQUEO, of the Centro de Cultura Pueblo Nacion Mapuche Pelonxaru, was among the representatives of indigenous groups decrying “environmental racism” that was crippling Mother Earth. Such colonial practices had led to the dumping of garbage and other waste on indigenous lands and in waters used by traditional fishing communities. In his own country, Chile, millions of tons of garbage was being shipped out of cities and dumped on indigenous lands, wrecking crops and killing fertile forests. He urged the Forum to press the Chilean Government to end such practice immediately.

The next speaker CHARLES DILEVA, Chief Counsel in the Environmental and International Law Unit of the World Bank, said the Bank’s management was committed to presenting to its Board a review of its policies affecting indigenous peoples, as well as on the impact of projects being financed by the Bank. The management would note the growing importance of the United Nations Declaration, although it would also note that that Declaration was not a binding document.

At the same time, any revision to the Bank’s policies must be endorsed by its Board of Directors. The view was that current Bank operational policy was not out of step with the Declaration, especially since investment projects on indigenous lands could not proceed without free, prior and informed consultation. In addition, the project leaders then must obtain broad community support.

Following that statement, members of the Permanent Forum welcomed the World Bank’s participation in the meeting, but expressed concern that its standard was “free, prior and informed consultation”, rather than the “free, prior and informed consent”, that indigenous peoples had fought so hard for. Moreover, they believed that the Bank could not interpret international law; while the Declaration might not be “binding”, there was no doubt that it was a widely accepted global treaty that set out norms in line with human rights law.

Release Date
This news item was released on 2010-04-28. Please make sure to visit the official company or organization web site to learn more about the original release date....

http://presszoom.com/story_154683.html

Draft: Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth

Draft Proposal

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH

Preamble

We, the peoples and nations of Earth:

considering that we are all part of Mother Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny;

gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth is the source of life, nourishment and learning and provides everything we need to live well;

recognizing that the capitalist system and all forms of depredation, exploitation, abuse and contamination have caused great destruction, degradation and disruption of Mother Earth, putting life as we know it today at risk through phenomena such as climate change;

convinced that in an interdependent living community it is not possible to recognize the rights of only human beings without causing an imbalance within Mother Earth;

affirming that to guarantee human rights it is necessary to recognize and defend the rights of Mother Earth and all beings in her and that there are existing cultures, practices and laws that do so;

conscious of the urgency of taking decisive, collective action to transform structures and systems that cause climate change and other threats to Mother Earth;

proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, and call on the General Assembly of the United Nations to adopt it, as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations of the world, and to the end that every individual and institution takes responsibility for promoting through teaching, education, and consciousness raising, respect for the rights recognized in this Declaration and ensure through prompt and progressive measures and mechanisms, national and international, their universal and effective recognition and observance among all peoples and States in the world.

Article 1. Mother Earth

(1) Mother Earth is a living being.

(2) Mother Earth is a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings that sustains, contains and reproduces all beings.

(3) Each being is defined by its relationships as an integral part of Mother Earth.

(4) The inherent rights of Mother Earth are inalienable in that they arise from the same source as existence.

(5) Mother Earth and all beings are entitled to all the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic and inorganic beings, species, origin, use to human beings, or any other status.

(6) Just as human beings have human rights, all other beings also have rights which are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.

(7) The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings and any conflict between their rights must be resolved in a way that maintains the integrity, balance and health of Mother Earth.

Article 2. Inherent Rights of Mother Earth

(1) Mother Earth and all beings of which she is composed have the following inherent rights:

(a) the right to life and to exist;

(b) the right to be respected;

(c) the right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue its vital cycles and processes free from human disruptions;

(d) the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating and interrelated being;

(e) the right to water as a source of life;

(f) the right to clean air;

(g) the right to integral health;

(h) the right to be free from contamination, pollution and toxic or radioactive waste;

(i) the right to not have its genetic structure modified or disrupted in a manner that threatens it integrity or vital and healthy functioning;

(j) the right to full and prompt restoration the violation of the rights recognized in this Declaration caused by human activities;

(2) Each being has the right to a place and to play its role in Mother Earth for her harmonious functioning.

(3) Every being has the right to wellbeing and to live free from torture or cruel treatment by human beings.

Article 3. Obligations of human beings to Mother Earth

(1) Every human being is responsible for respecting and living in harmony with Mother Earth.

(2) Human beings, all States, and all public and private institutions must:

(a) act in accordance with the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;

(b) recognize and promote the full implementation and enforcement of the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;

(c) promote and participate in learning, analysis, interpretation and communication about how to live in harmony with Mother Earth in accordance with this Declaration;

(d) ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;

(e) establish and apply effective norms and laws for the defence, protection and conservation of the rights of Mother Earth;

(f) respect, protect, conserve and where necessary, restore the integrity, of the vital ecological cycles, processes and balances of Mother Earth;

(g) guarantee that the damages caused by human violations of the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration are rectified and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and health of Mother Earth;

(h) empower human beings and institutions to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings;

(i) establish precautionary and restrictive measures to prevent human activities from causing species extinction, the destruction of ecosystems or the disruption of ecological cycles;

(j) guarantee peace and eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;

(k) promote and support practices of respect for Mother Earth and all beings, in accordance with their own cultures, traditions and customs;

(l) promote economic systems that are in harmony with Mother Earth and in accordance with the rights recognized in this Declaration.

Article 4. Definitions

(1) The term “being” includes ecosystems, natural communities, species and all other natural entities which exist as part of Mother Earth.

(2) Nothing in this Declaration restricts the recognition of other inherent rights of all beings or specified beings.

Source: Facebook | Note posted 26 Apr 2010 at 13:04
Draft Proposal: UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH
(Bolivia just sent this to the UN for consideration)

Bolivia: Indigenous Peoples Agreement

Press Announcement
World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
April 22nd, Cochabamba, Bolivia

PEOPLES AGREEMENT

Today, our Mother Earth is wounded and the future of humanity is in danger.

If global warming increases by more than 2 degrees Celsius, a situation that the “Copenhagen Accord” could lead to, there is a 50% probability that the damages caused to our Mother Earth will be completely irreversible. Between 20% and 30% of species would be in danger of disappearing. Large extensions of forest would be affected, droughts and floods would affect different regions of the planet, deserts would expand, and the melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas would worsen. Many island states would disappear, and Africa would suffer an increase in temperature of more than 3 degrees Celsius. Likewise, the production of food would diminish in the world, causing catastrophic impact on the survival of inhabitants from vast regions in the planet, and the number of people in the world suffering from hunger would increase dramatically, a figure that already exceeds 1.02 billion people.

The corporations and governments of the so-called “developed” countries, in complicity with a segment of the scientific community, have led us to discuss climate change as a problem limited to the rise in temperature without questioning the cause, which is the capitalist system.

Read the rest of the press announcement at link...
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/

Bolivia: Indigenous Peoples' Declaration

Sunday, April 25, 2010
BOLIVIA: Indigenous Peoples' Declaration
Bolivia: Working Group #7, Indigenous Peoples:

WORLD PEOPLES’ CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH

Mother Earth can live without us, but we can’t live without her.

We, the Indigenous Peoples, nations and organizations from all over the world, gathered at the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Earth, from April 19th to 22nd, 2010 in Tiquipaya, Cochabamba, Bolivia, after extensive discussions, express the following:

We Indigenous Peoples are sons and daughters of Mother Earth, or “Pachamama” in Quechua. Mother Earth is a living being in the universe that concentrates energy and life, while giving shelter and life to all without asking anything in return, she is the past, present and future; this is our relationship with Mother Earth. We have lived in coexistence with her for thousands of years, with our wisdom and cosmic spirituality linked to nature. However, the economic models promoted and forced by industrialized countries that promote exploitation and wealth accumulation have radically transformed our relationship with Mother Earth. We must assert that climate change is one of the consequences of this irrational logic of life that we must change.

The aggression towards Mother Earth and the repeated assaults and violations against our soils, air, forests, rivers, lakes, biodiversity, and the cosmos are assaults against us.

Before, we used to ask for permission for everything. Now, coming from developed countries, it is presumed that Mother Earth must ask us for permission. Our territories are not respected, particularly those of peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact, and we suffer the most terrible aggression since colonization only to facilitate the entry of markets and extractive industries.

We recognize that Indigenous Peoples and the rest of the world live in a general age of crises: environmental, energy, food, financial, ethical, among others, as a consequence of policies and attitudes from racist and exclusionary states.

We want to convey that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the peoples of the world demanded fair treatment, but were repressed. Meanwhile the states responsible for the climate crisis were able to weaken even more any possible outcome of negotiations and evade signing onto any binding agreement. They limited themselves to simply supporting the Copenhagen Accord, an accord that proposes unacceptable and insufficient goals as far as climate change action and financing to the most affected countries and peoples.

We affirm that international negotiation spaces have systematically excluded the participation of Indigenous Peoples. As a result, we as Indigenous Peoples are making ourselves visible in these spaces, because as Mother Earth has been hurt and plundered, with negative activities taking place on our lands, territories and natural resources, we have also been hurt. This is why as Indigenous Peoples we will not keep silent, but instead we propose to mobilize all our peoples to arrive at COP16 in Mexico and other spaces well prepared and united to defend our proposals, particularly the “living well” and plurinational state proposals. We, Indigenous Peoples, do not want to live “better”, but instead we believe that everyone must live well. This is a proposal to achieve balance and start to construct a new society.

The search for common objectives, as history shows us, will only be completed with theunion of Indigenous Peoples of the World. The ancestral and indigenous roots shared by the whole world must be one of the bonds that unite us to achieve one unique objective.

Therefore we propose, require and demand:

1. The recovery, revalidation and strengthening of our civilizations, identities, cultures and cosmovisions based on ancient and ancestral Indigenous knowledge and wisdom for the construction of alternative ways of life to the current "development model", as a way to confront climate change.

2. To rescue and strengthen the Indigenous proposal of “living well”, while also recognizing Mother Earth as a living being with whom we have an indivisible and interdependent relationship, based on principles and mechanisms that assure the respect, harmony, and balance between people and nature, and supporting a society based on social and environmental justice, which sees life as its purpose.

All this must be done to confront the plundering capitalist model and guarantee the protection of life as a whole, through the search for inclusive global agreements.

3. We demand States to recognize, respect and guarantee the application of international standards of human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights (i.e., The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Convention 169) in the framework of negotiations, policies, and measures to confront climate change.

4. We demand States to legally recognize the preexistence of our right to the lands, territories, and natural resources that we have traditionally held as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, as well as restitution and restoration of natural goods, water, forests and jungles, lakes, oceans, sacred places, lands, and territories that have been dispossessed and seized. This is needed to strengthen and make possible our traditional way of living while contributing effectively to climate change solutions.

Inasmuch, we call for the consolidation of indigenous territories in exercise of our self-determination and autonomy, in conformity with systems of rules and regulations.

At the same time we demand that states respect the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation or in initial contact, as an effective way to preserve their integrity and combat the adverse effects of climate change towards those peoples.

5. We call on States not to promote commercial monoculture practices, nor to introduce or promote genetically-modified and exotic crops, because according to our people’s wisdom, these species aggravate the degradation of jungles, forests and soils, contributing to the increase in global warming. Likewise, megaprojects under the search for alternative energy sources that affect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories, and natural habitats should not be implemented, including nuclear, bio-engineering, hydroelectric, wind-power and others.

6. We demand changes to forestry and environmental laws, as well as the application of pertinent international instruments to effectively protect forests and jungles, as well as their biological and cultural diversity, guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including their participation and their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

7. We propose that, in the framework of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, states establish a policy that Protected Natural Areas must be managed, administered and controlled directly by Indigenous Peoples, taking into account the demonstrated traditional experience and knowledge towards the sustainable management of the biodiversity in our forests and jungles.

8. We demand a review, or if the case warrants, a moratorium, to every polluting activity that affects Mother Earth, and the withdrawal of multinational corporations and megaprojects from Indigenous territories.

9. We urge that states recognize water as a fundamental human right, avoiding its privatization and commodification.

10. We demand the application of consultations, participation, and the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples and affected populations in the design and implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures and any other intervening actions on Indigenous territories.

11. States must promote mechanisms to guarantee that funding for climate change action arrives directly and effectively to Indigenous Peoples, as part of the compensation for the historical and ecological debt owed. This funding must support and strengthen our own visions and cosmovisions towards “living well”.

12. We call for the recovery, revalidation and strengthening of Indigenous Peoples’ technologies and knowledge, and for their incorporation into the research, design and implementation of climate change policies. This should compliment Western knowledge and technology, ensuring that technology transfer processes do not weaken indigenous knowledge and technologies.

13. We propose the recovery, development and diffusion of indigenous knowledge and technology through the implementation of educational policies and programs, including the modification and incorporation of such knowledge and ancestral wisdom in curricula and teaching methods.

14. We urge States and international bodies that are making decisions about climate change, especially the UNFCCC, to establish formal structures and mechanisms that include the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. They must also include local communities and vulnerable groups, including women, without discrimination, as a key element to obtain a fair and equitable result from climate change negotiations.

15. We join in the demand to create a Climate Justice Tribunal that would be able to pass judgement and establish penalties for non-compliance of agreements, and other environmental crimes by developed countries, which are primarily responsible for climate change. This institution must consider the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples, and their principles of justice.

16. We propose the organization and coordination of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, through our local, national, regional, and international governments, organizations, and other mechanisms of legitimate representation, in order to participate in all climate change related processes. With that in mind, we call for an organizational space to be created that will contribute to the global search for effective solutions to climate change, with the special participation of Elders.

17. We propose to fight in all spaces available to defend life and Mother Earth, particularly in COP16, and so we propose a 2nd Peoples’ Conference to strengthen the process of reflection and action.

18. The ratification of the global campaign to organize the World March in defense of Mother Earth and her peoples, against the commodification of life, pollution, and the criminalization of Indigenous and social movements.

Created in unity in Tiquipaya, Cochabamba, Bolivia, the 21st day of April, 2010

World Climate Conference. Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Working Group.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DECLARATION
Photos by Michelle Cook, Navajo (see link below)

[Source]

NZ reverses opposition to UN DRIP

History is made!
New Zealand reverses opposition to U.N. Declaration on Indigenous Rights, U.S. reviewing stance
Kenneth Deer
Exclusive to Turtle Island News

UNITED NATIONS NEW YORK, N.Y.-The government of New Zealand announced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Monday at the opening ceremonies of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

New Zealand was one of the four governments that voted against the Declaration on September 13, 2007, along with Canada, Australia and the United States. This is good news for all Indigenous Peoples around the world as the Declaration becomes more and more entrenched in the UN system and supported by more states. Now that it changed its vote, and with Australia already endorsing the Declaration, that leaves Canada and the United States. Canada has announced in the recent Throne Speech that it intends to endorse the Declaration but when that will happen is not clear. The next possible date would be June 21st on Canada's National Aboriginal Day. That would leave the United States as the only country in the UN that has not endorsed the Declaration.

Sunday, April 25, 2010 - 11:54 AM
Turtle Island News
http://www.theturtleislandnews.com/