Latest News (176)
"Together, we are shining a light on acts that bring pain, shame and fear to girls and women" - Executive Director
Speech by UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka at the official UN commemoration of the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women, ECOSOC Chamber, New York, 25 November 2014
Date : 25 November 2014
[Check against delivery]
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for joining us to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.
The activities around this day, and the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence that follow it, are an important opportunity for us to confront the horror of this violence and to commit to extinguish it.
The women’s experiences we have just seen, and the one billion girls and women that they represent, are a poignant and invigorating reminder that this is work that cannot wait.
No country, no culture, no age group is untouched by this massive and pervasive human rights violation.
Far too often, sexual and gender-based crimes go unpunished and the perpetrators walk free. Society turns a blind eye and a deaf ear.
That is going to change.
Yesterday we lit up the Empire State Building and our own UN building as bright orange beacons of promise and hope for a brighter future with no violence against women and girls.
Together, we are shining a light on acts that bring pain, shame and fear to girls and women.
We must continue to gather national facts and figures – and use them to inform the development of effective legislation and policies.
We must uphold the existing laws and provisions that prevent violence and support survivors – and implement them.
We must develop quality essential services for the protection, ongoing safety and recovery of survivors – and get women to use them
And we must all refuse absolutely to condone or participate in harmful acts against women and girls.
This includes having more men and boys standing up against violence, denouncing it, and stopping it.
Male leaders, including traditional and religious leaders, must show the way.
We all have a role in changing norms that accept or ignore violence and confer sexual entitlement.
We all have a role in brightening this world and establishing inclusive, equal societies.
Next year, a new roadmap for development will be adopted by the international community.
Ending violence against women and girls must have a central place in the new framework so that we can make 2015 the beginning of the end of gender inequality.
Tackling deforestation and other climate mitigation actions will be one of the key items on the agenda of the up-coming Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in December in Lima, Peru (COP20). This has been evidenced in the recent past with the intense negotiations on REDD+ and more recently with the launch of the New York Declaration on Forests, signed by governments, companies and NGOs on the occasion of the UN Climate Summit held in New York September.
REDD+, climate smart agriculture, sustainable supply-chains are now bundled together in a common effort to reduce deforestation and related carbon emissions in tropical areas. However, lack of compliance with internationally agreed safeguards, poor governance reform, and the increasing pressure on indigenous lands and territories require more compelling action to address the danger of exacerbating human rights abuse. Voluntary agreements and private public partnerships cannot substitute for robust public international and national action to target internal and external drivers of deforestation, ensure respect and compliance with international human rights standards and norms and in particular respect for and protection of indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources and the principle of free prior and informed consent.
Accountability of governments and companies is even more urgent given the risk that current negotiations leading to COP21 in Paris may pay only lip service to indigenous peoples’ rights and the obligation to ensure a rights-based approach to land-based mitigation, as well as the risk that they will fail to duly recognise the positive contribution of indigenous peoples in forest protection, climate mitigation and adaptation.
For all these reasons, the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) is organising – together with Peruvian Indigenous peoples’ organization AIDESEP – an international public hearing on deforestation and human rights during COP20. The public hearing will be held on December 8th at the Museum of Arts of Lima (MALI). Special guest of the hearing will be Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The hearing will offer a public space for indigenous peoples' leaders from Latin America, Africa and Asia to share their experiences from the field, both experiences with deforestation and associated human rights issues, and experiences in defending forests and resources. The hearing will also launch a groundbreaking report on deforestation, with contributing authors and involved communities present, and the demands of the Palangka Raya Declaration will be reiterated.
In addition to the hearing, that is meant to be a contribution to the activities of the Cumbre de los Pueblos, FPP and a delegation of indigenous peoples’ leaders and CSO representatives from Peru, Colombia, Guyana, Panama, Paraguay, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia will also participate in the activities of the Indigenous Pavilion and at civil society initiatives at the Global Landscapes Forum.
More details on the Palangka Raya Declaration and follow-up work:
Deforestation and the rights of indigenous peoples - Building on the Palangka Raya Declaration
More details about the Public Hearing:
Follow the conversation on Twitter @ForestPeoplesP #COP20hearing #factsandrights #hechosyderechos
Testimonios de las comunidades muestran el camino a la protección de los derechos y los bosques
La lucha contra la deforestación y otras medidas de mitigación del cambio climático serán uno de los elementos clave de la agenda de la Conferencia de las Partes en la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, a celebrarse en diciembre en Lima, Perú (COP 20). Estas prioridades se han puesto de manifiesto en los últimos años con las intensas negociaciones en torno a la REDD+, y más recientemente con el lanzamiento de la Declaración de Nueva York sobre los Bosques, firmada por Gobiernos, empresas y ONG con ocasión de la Cumbre sobre el Clima que las Naciones Unidas celebrada en el mes de septiembre en Nueva York.
En la actualidad, la REDD+, la agricultura climáticamente inteligente y las cadenas de suministro sostenibles están agrupadas en un esfuerzo común para reducir la deforestación y las emisiones de carbono en las áreas tropicales. Sin embargo, el incumplimiento de las salvaguardias acordadas internacionalmente, la deficiente reforma de la gobernanza y la creciente presión sobre las tierras y territorios indígenas requieren medidas más contundentes para abordar el peligro de exacerbar las violaciones de los derechos humanos. Los acuerdos voluntarios y las asociaciones público-privadas no pueden reemplazar una acción enérgica internacional y nacional a nivel público para combatir los impulsores internos y externos de la deforestación, garantizar el respeto y cumplimiento de normas y estándares internacionales de derechos humanos y, en particular, el respeto y la protección de tierras, territorios y recursos de los pueblos indígenas, al igual que el principio del consentimiento libre, previo e informado.
La responsabilidad y la rendición de cuentas por parte de los Gobiernos y las empresas son todavía más urgentes debido a que las negociaciones previas a la COP21 en París, actualmente en curso, puedan ser únicamente palabras vacías en lo referente a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y la obligación de garantizar un enfoque basado en los derechos para la mitigación con base en la tierra. Además, se corre el riesgo de no reconozcan de manera debida la contribución positiva de los pueblos indígenas a la protección de los bosques, la mitigación del clima y la adaptación.
Por todas estas razones, el Forest Peoples Programme o FPP (Programa para los Pueblos de los Bosques) está organizando junto con la organización de pueblos indígenas de Perú AIDESEP una audiencia pública internacional sobre la deforestación y los derechos humanos que se celebrará durante la COP 20. La audiencia pública tendrá lugar el día 8 de diciembre en el Museo de Arte de Lima (MALI). Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Relatora Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, participará como invitada especial. La audiencia ofrecerá a los líderes de los pueblos indígenas de Latinoamérica, África y Asia un espacio público en el que podrán compartir sus experiencias adquiridas sobre el terreno, bien sea con referencia a la deforestación y los problemas de derechos humanos que conlleva, o a la defensa de los bosques y los recursos. Durante la audiencia se hará público un novedoso informe sobre la deforestación contando con la presencia de algunos de los autores que contribuyeron al informe y las comunidades implicadas, y también se reiterarán las exigencias de la Declaración de Palangka Raya.
Además de la audiencia, que pretende ser una contribución a las actividades de la Cumbre de los Pueblos, el FPP y una delegación de líderes de pueblos indígenas y representantes de OSC de Perú, Colombia, Guyana, Panamá, Paraguay, República Democrática del Congo e Indonesia también participarán en las actividades del Pabellón Indígena y en iniciativas de la sociedad civil en el Foro Mundial de Paisajes.
Para ver más detalles referentes a la Declaración de Palangka Raya y los trabajos de seguimiento, por favor consulte:
Deforestation and the rights of indigenous peoples - Building on the Palangka Raya Declaration
Para obtener más detalles acerca de la audiencia pública, por favor visite:
Seguir la conversación en Twitter @ForestPeoplesP #COP20hearing #factsandrights #hechosyderechos
Statement by Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples to 69th session of the UN General Assembly22 October 2014, 2:12 am Written by UNSRIP Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Statement by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz,
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
69th session of the General Assembly
Item # 66
20 October 2014
Your Excellencies, Distinguished delegates, Ladies and gentlemen,
I have the honor to present today my first report to the General Assembly. I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to the numerous States, indigenous peoples, and others for the support they have provided as I have carried out my mandate accorded to me by the Human Rights Council over the past four months.
In my report, given the focus of the General Assembly in reviewing and adopting the post 2015 development agenda, I have provided some thoughts on this crucial issue for indigenous peoples in the hopes of guiding Member States as they reflect further on development priorities. To that end, I have presented an overview of the human rights framework and concerns related to the development and well-being of indigenous peoples. These human rights standards should be viewed in light of the basic principles of non-discrimination and equality undergirding all human rights and the cross-cutting right of self-determination contained in Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This Article recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination which includes their right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. I have also included lessons learned and have identified obstacles and advances in achieving the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. Finally, I offer some recommendations for addressing these concerns in the context of policies and strategies to reach global Sustainable Development Goals and achieve the Post-2015 development framework which will be agreed upon UN member-states in September 2015.
Right to Development of indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples have come a long way since the adoption of ILO 107 on 'indigenous and tribal populations' in the late 1950s. ILO 107 (1957) was the first attempt to codify international obligations of states with respect to indigenous peoples and called on states to assist indigenous peoples to fully integrate into the national community, with the goal of reaching development and equality. In the 1970s and 1980s, indigenous peoples' representatives challenged the assimilationist content and integrationist approach of ILO 107 and worked for the adoption of ILO Convention 169 (1989) which rectified this weakness. Article 7 of this Convention states that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to "decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control over their economic, social and cultural development".
In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 22 of this Declaration acknowledged the vital role of indigenous peoples to environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. This principle further stated that "...States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development." Agenda 21 contained Chapter 26 "Recognizing and Strengthening the Role of Indigenous People and Their Communities". This led to the inclusion of indigenous peoples as one of the 9 major groups which engaged in the various mechanisms and processes around sustainable development.
The landmark UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in 2007 by the UN General Assembly after more than 20 years of drafting and negotiations. This contained several articles on the right to economic, social and cultural development of indigenous peoples. Foremost among these are Article 3 which I referred to earlier and Article 23 which affirmed that, "Indigenous peoples have the right determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development..."
The most recent global process related to indigenous peoples, the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) held here in this same hall last 22-23 of September 2014, contains several paragraphs on this same concern. Paragraph 34 of the Outcome Document (A/69/L.3) states, "We recognize the significant contribution of indigenous peoples in the promotion of sustainable development, in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environmental needs of present and future generations..." Additionally, paragraph 37 affirmed the importance of Article 23 of the UNDRIP, mentioned above. It further stated "...we commit ourselves to giving due consideration to all the rights of indigenous peoples in the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda."
Economic, social and cultural rights as they apply to indigenous peoples
I need to stress that States duties to respect, protect and fulfill indigenous peoples' economic, social and cultural rights arises as an integral element of their duties under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right and not solely on their commitment to specific instruments on indigenous peoples' rights such as the Declaration or ILO 169. In the context of development, contemporary standards strive to address discrimination while ensuring respect for their right to define and pursue their self-determined development paths. The right to culture, in the context of indigenous peoples, is contained in Articles 11 to 16 of the Declaration. The Declaration has a remedial purpose and in the words of the previous Rapporteur, James Anaya, "aims at repairing the ongoing consequences of the historical denial of the right to self-determination". Since non-discrimination has an individual and a collective dimension, special measures should not only address the socio-economic gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous sectors of society but also remove discriminatory barriers to the exercise of the rights to self-determined development and cultural integrity.
Lessons learned from current efforts to achieve the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples
Huge challenges in the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples remain. Sadly, this implementation gap is reflected by the failure of the international community to use the Millennium Development Goals as a vehicle to overcome discrimination and achieve substantial equality for indigenous peoples in the context of development. According to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, special measures are integral to the principle of non-discrimination. Unfortunately, indigenous peoples were not formally involved in the formulation of the MDGs and neither the goals nor the targets and indicators have any reference to the situation of indigenous peoples. Based on available data regarding social and economic conditions of indigenous peoples, it is evident that the MDGs did not address or resolve their social and economic disadvantage.
In my report, I lay out a non-exhaustive list of obstacles and advancements to the full realization of the rights of indigenous peoples to development. Numerous institutions have endorsed that strengthening indigenous peoples' own strategies for sustainable development is not only key to achieving their economic, social and cultural rights but it is also indispensable element of the global efforts to achieve sustainable development. Programs that maximize indigenous self-determination tend to perform better than those controlled by the State or other external actors.
Unfortunately, and as described by the previous Special Rapporteur, the externally designed and managed model for development for indigenous peoples, especially in the area of extractive resources, is still the "standard scenario". I believe that at a minimum, third party development initiatives should be developed within the framework of State regulatory regimes which adequately protect indigenous peoples' rights, ensure participation of and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples in strategic planning at national and local levels in activities related to resource extraction and development. Mechanisms should be put in place to enforce corporations' compliance with their responsibility to respect and protect indigenous peoples' rights and provide remedies when these rights are violated, perform due diligence to assess and avoid any adverse impacts, and ascertain that fair and adequate consultation and negotiation procedures aimed at obtaining free, prior and informed consent.
In this regard, I welcome indigenous peoples' efforts to participate in the processes of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises and the Forum on Business and Human Rights. I hope that indigenous peoples participation will also be ensured at the sessions of the future open-ended intergovernmental working group to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations.
I remain deeply concerned that the particular situation of indigenous peoples often remains invisible within national statistics. In order to devise adequate policy responses to address inequalities and to monitor the effectiveness of measures to overcome discrimination, the existence of relevant information is a precondition. In this regard, I commend the efforts of the Economic Commission on Latin American and the Caribbean which has established a comprehensive database which provides socio-demographic data on indigenous peoples, disaggregated by sex and age, as well as data on internal migration, health, youth and territorial distribution of inequalities. The basis of much of this work is the inclusion of an "indigenous identifier" into the 2000 census round of most countries in Latin America. There is a need to further develop indicators that capture essential aspects of self-determined development, such as status and trends of indigenous languages, security of tenure with regards to lands, territories and resources and the recognition of indigenous customary law and autonomous governance institutions.
An essential element of overcoming discrimination and achieving economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples is the design and delivery of adequate social services, especially within the education and health sectors. Culturally appropriate services are related to higher achievement outcomes. Development strategies must take into account indigenous peoples' languages, traditions, livelihood strategies and autonomous institutions. One way to accommodate indigenous peoples' cultures is to include them in the design, programming and implementation of development efforts.
Additional special measures to protect the most vulnerable individuals and groups are also needed in the area of labor rights. I would particularly draw the attention to the precarious situation of numerous indigenous women, particularly from Latin America and Asia who serve as domestic workers either in their home countries or as migrant workers. In this context, I welcome the entry into force of the Domestic Workers' Convention (ILO No. 189) in September 2013. I also draw the attention to indigenous women who still face additional gender-based discrimination despite the strong and crucial roles played by them in food production, biodiversity conservation, and transmission of languages, culture and knowledge, among many others. As I noted in my first report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/27/52), I will place special emphasis on the issues facing indigenous women and make special efforts to work closely with them to ensure that their concerns are addressed consistently in my work.
It is necessary for States to consult with indigenous peoples and ensure their participation before adopting legislative or administrative measures or projects that affect them. Reviews of UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAF) which constitute the main framework for UN-system development assistance at the country level have concluded that indigenous peoples had little participation and that most frameworks do not provide for disaggregated data and benchmarks related to indigenous peoples' development. The implications of this omission are simple and far-reaching: if indigenous peoples' needs and concerns are not reflected in these overall frameworks established by governments and supported by the UN-system and other bi and multilateral donors, they may simply be excluded from development efforts and their rights may even be further undermined. It is therefore important for me to reiterate what has been mentioned several times in the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to ensure that the UNDAF ensures inclusion of indigenous peoples development priorities. The participation of indigenous peoples' representatives when this is being formulated should also be facilitated. I also would like to urge the OECD-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) to likewise include respect for indigenous peoples rights as one of the elements of their development assistance framework, just as they have included gender, labor and child rights. These are some of the concrete steps in ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights and priorities on development are integrated in all present and future development decisions and agreements.
Let me conclude by underlining the unique opportunity that the global community has to use the design, implementation and monitoring processes related to the Sustainable Development Goals to address the persistent discrimination against indigenous peoples, as individuals and as collectives with regard to access to and adequacy of development assistance. Overcoming discrimination against indigenous peoples and indigenous women in particular, will require
concerted efforts and in many cases, special measures.
The universality of the proposed Sustainable Development Goals is a unique opportunity to address existing inequalities between indigenous and non-indigenous sectors of the population in all countries across the globe. The processes to define, implement and monitor the Sustainable Development Goals should be used as a vehicle to address indigenous peoples' aspirations for self-determined development and achieve equality in development outcomes. It is also crucial that an agreement is reached on how the means of implementation of sustainable development goals will be included in the Post-2015 development agenda. This means looking at the financial and technology development and transfer issues. The Financing for Development (FFD) processes as well as the processes related to technology issues should also allow for more active engagement of indigenous peoples' representatives.
One month after the adoption of the Outcome Document on the World Conference, I remain committed in my role as Special Rapporteur to monitor closely how the United Nations is implementing the WCIP Outcome Document. I will continue to discuss with high level officials and staff of the UN bodies, programmes, agencies and funds to offer my help in making institutions more responsive to indigenous peoples. I also take the opportunity to thank the Member States, indigenous representatives, UN officials and staff who worked to have this document drafted and adopted and warmly congratulate you on setting aside long¬standing differences to agree on this document. While it is not perfect, it is a big stepping stone in the upward struggle to get indigenous peoples' collective and individual human rights respected, protected and fulfilled.
As I work to carry out this mandate, I do so with optimism for a better future for indigenous peoples, encouraged by positive developments in many places, and yet concerned by the reality of ongoing struggles and violations of indigenous peoples throughout the world. I reaffirm my strong commitment to my role as Special Rapporteur, and acknowledge with humility the responsibility it represents.
I thank you all for your kind attention.
October 13, 2014| Pyeongchang| We have called you together today over an impasse that we have met within these negotiations at the 12th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the use of the terminology “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” to replace the current phrase “indigenous and local communities.”
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to promote peaceful relations and cooperation among the nation states of the world. It is based on the principle of sovereignty of nations, and designed to provide a space where negotiations concerning deep and sensitive issues can take place in an atmosphere that allows for the free exchange of ideas and debate without external pressures. We have significant respect for this process, and have not left the halls of diplomacy lightly. But events over the last week have led us to this regrettable path.
What became the Convention on Biological Diversity began in 1988 with the concept of an international treaty focused on conservation. Negotiations on the treaty began in 1991, where the conservation of the world’s biological diversity became linked to the idea of sustainable development. This is to say that nature can be used perpetually in ways that promote human well-being and economies without harming nature itself. This puts people squarely into the center of the implementation of the Convention.
Indigenous Peoples’ issues were introduced into the negotiations by Ulf Svensson from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs who chaired the Drafting Sub-group on Access to Genetic Resources, Equitable Sharing of Benefits and Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, and Arthur Campeau, Canada’s First Ambassador for the Environment and head of the Canadian delegation.
The proposal to use “Indigenous Peoples” was contentious and subjected to strong debate. In the end, the attempt to develop an entire Article focusing on Indigenous Peoples was not adopted and pieces were scattered among the different Articles of the CBD, a core element being Article 8(j) on traditional knowledge. The phrase “indigenous and local communities” was adopted as a compromise within the Convention:
Article 8(j): (j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices
We note that historically, Canada was a strong supporter of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Canada recognizes Indigenous Peoples rights. Article 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to the rights of the “aboriginal peoples of Canada.” “Aboriginal peoples” (equal to Indigenous Peoples) appears in other federal legislation in Canada and judicial decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court that have affirmed these rights. As recently as September 22-23, 2014, in a statement accompanying its adoption of the Outcomes Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, Canada has said, “Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples at home and abroad. Canada will also continue to contribute to international efforts to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples throughout the world.”
This is why today we are puzzled and concerned that Canada is working to tightly control and potentially limit references to Indigenous Peoples within future decisions of the CBD. The Canadian Delegation, along with Indonesia, while accepting some future use of “Indigenous Peoples,” seemed to be alone in blocking progress towards the adoption of the new terminology, placing conditions on the use of the phrase that are unacceptable to the International Indigenous forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) and the vast majority of Parties to the CBD.
We cannot comment on the details of the current draft being developed by the Friends of the Chair, as this text is still under negotiation and we will respect the norms of the United Nations and diplomacy. But we can comment on the original text as proposed by the CBD Secretariat, and some general reasons why the IIFB cannot accept the current direction.
The interpretation of United Nations treaties is governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is based on the principle that sovereign governments have inherent powers that can only be limited by their explicit consent or by universal human rights or international legal norms, such as those contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. When signing a treaty, governments are bound only by the terminology that is contained in the original treaty. Any changes in terminology and meaning can only occur through their explicit consent. Changes in meaning and use require a new negotiation and the development of a protocol in which parties accept these changes by amendment.
In order to accept this new terminology, the Parties to the CBD have sought to avoid the need to amend the CBD in order to accept “Indigenous Peoples” by using language that explicitly states that the use of “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” exactly equals the legal meaning of “indigenous and local communities.” In other words, in accepting “Indigenous Peoples,” there are no changes in meaning, no new obligations, and no new rights within the terms of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The meaning stays precisely as it was in 1993 when the CBD came into force.
The IIFB accepted this original formulation, as it is a straight reading international treaty law, and provided a path to using “Indigenous Peoples” in future decisions and related documents of the Convention without needing to formally change the original convention itself. This would be a lengthy, costly and contentious amendment process. Canada and Indonesia have insisted on including other text from the Vienna Convention to make the same point multiple times that the change in terminology cannot be used in any international law argument to reinterpret the meaning of the original Convention unless there is a formal amendment. We do not believe this extra language is necessary. It is already stipulated in the original text provided by the Secretariat, which clearly states that the new terminology does not change any interpretation of the Convention. It is also contained in the Vienna Convention, which applies whether or not this language appears in the decision text. Other conventions and instruments have not found the need to reference the Vienna Convention, and we do not believe it is necessary here.
Why we bring you here today is the introduction of language that further limits when Parties can adopt the term “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in their decisions. We note that Canada has consulted with capital and modified their original proposals. It appears to us that Canada and Indonesia are attempting to build a wall against any mention of Indigenous Peoples in a political or human rights context and any subsequent decisions or secondary texts of the CBD. Their approach is unnecessary, as the Secretariat’s text already stipulates that the use of the term will not contain any of these implications within this Convention. They are also setting up a legal argument, which will allow a single country to block the use in future consensus decisions of the CBD.
This will not move us forward in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It will set up the conditions for more costly, wasteful and fruitless debate over when it is appropriate and inappropriate to use the term Indigenous Peoples. We point out that the existing decisions of the Conference of Parties almost universally contain decisions that only apply to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The very small number of references that we have found that use the terminology “Indigenous Peoples” out of this context are mere references to the existence of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or other external treaties, agreements, or documents, or processes that do not change the meaning of the CBD. None of these references change the ability of state sovereigns to use or apply new meanings when applying the CBD in their own countries.
We point out to other parties that the current draft language limits their sovereign ability to make such references. We accept that the use of “Indigenous Peoples” as a term in the Convention on Biological Diversity cannot make sovereign states obligated to principles they did not agree to when ratifying the CBD unless it is formally amended, as provided in the Convention itself. The Vienna Convention contains multiple provisions that protect sovereigns from the interpretations, which Canada and Indonesia seem to fear, whether or not these are mentioned in the draft decision. But we remind them that they are also obligated by other treaties they have ratified and international legal norms, whether or not these are mentioned in the final decision. This is reflected in the consensus decision in the Preamble of the Nagoya Protocol that states “Affirming that nothing in this Protocol shall be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the existing rights of indigenous and local communities.”
This is not about an attempt to change the meaning of the Convention. The IIFB accepted the original draft text prepared by the Secretariat that made this clear, out of respect of the articles of this Convention and the rules of international law. That draft provides no legal change in meaning or interpretation, and fully respects and protects state sovereignty in decision-making authority within the CBD. We believe is a minimal statement of recognition and respect of Indigenous Peoples fundamental identity and human dignity.
We want to move on beyond these debates that will continue to waste the precious, limited time that we have in the processes of the CBD to get down to the aims of this Convention. On Saturday, many of us toured the Woljeongsa Temple, and were presented by the monks with the 2014 Pyeongchang Buddhist Declaration of Life-Peace, which affirms the principles that every life is a universe, that all lives are equal, that we should sanctify a culture that sanctifies the preservation of life, and that humans are responsible for the peace of all life, which all have the right to happiness and peace. This is compatible with the cosmovision or worldviews of the approximately 370 million Indigenous Peoples around the world that have sent representatives here to Pyeongchang to work to find ways to maintain their ways of life, but to defend rights of all life, the rights of Mother Earth.
The IIFB cannot accept the qualifications that are being proposed for the decision on terminology. We will not resume further work in the Friends of the Chair group until we receive a diplomatic signal that we can move towards a decision that will affirm and support our fundamental identity and dignity as Indigenous Peoples. We are looking for a decision that will allow the common, unproblematic use of “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in decisions and secondary documents of the Convention. If necessary, we will take this issue to the High-Level Segment, but we remain hopeful that this can be resolved before then. We thank the parties who have supported us in this position in near unanimity, and call upon Canada and Indonesia to not block consensus.
We continue to be peoples in our territorial lands, regardless of how we are defined in the Convention. We have suffered a long history of injustice, domination, inequality, discrimination, marginalization, invasion, colonization, exploitation and poverty. Despite this we have contributed to biological and cultural diversity with our traditional knowledge, innovation and practices. We believe that the States must demonstrate a minimum of recognition and respect and adopt the use of “indigenous peoples and local communities,” and reflect the highest principles adopted by the United Nations system.
We are ready to work with all parties, including Canada and Indonesia, if we can find an acceptable resolution, and move forward in a spirit of cooperation and peace to preserve all life on this planet.
Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, October 5, 2014
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity would like to thank the Republic of Korea for their hospitality in allowing us to speak on their lands, and you, Mr Chair for this opportunity to address the members of the Conference of Parties.
We will hand in most of our comments to be reflected in the record, and will introduce our recommendations to the COP in detail in the appropriate working Group sessions. We would like to now indicate some of the priority issues we will address in this session.
1. Terminology on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities:
The IIFB is pleased to see a draft decision changing the outdated terminology “indigenous and local communities” to the more legally correct term “indigenous peoples and local communities” that we have consistently demanded. We agree that the Convention should not be reopened for negotiation on terminology. However, with the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 and numerous other related developments, the CBD should use “indigenous peoples and local communities” in its future decisions and secondary documents in order to clarify and interpret the terms used in Article 8(j) of the CBD.
2. Safeguards: We appreciate the increasing recognition of the role of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices in all relevant programs of work. We particularly welcome initiatives that promote partnerships between indigenous peoples and local communities and others, such as in collaborations with scientists in exchanges of knowledge. However, where-ever these are discussed, there need to be durable safeguards that effectively protect our rights to our genetic resources, biodiversity, traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. Guidelines need to be developed, with our full and effective participation, for free, prior and informed consent. These should include a balanced assessment of both potential risks and benefits involved in programs, activities and knowledge exchanges. Mechanisms such as safeguard information systems being developed under REDD+ schemes should be put into place to monitor compliance.
3. Biopiracy and Synthetic Biology
Biopiracy of indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge and genetic resources continues. The Nagoya Protocol and tasks 7, 10 and 12 of the Article 8(j) Working Group seek to solve this, but biopiracy cannot be effectively addressed without recognition of indigenous peoples' customary laws as part of a strong compliance regime, and full respect for the right to give or withhold consent. Synthetic biology, a new and emerging issue, exponentially increases the risk of biopiracy and has largely unknown environmental, social, cultural, and health impacts. We support a precautionary approach and call for a ban on the use of synthetic biology and any releases of its products.
4. Participation, women, and youth: We are thankful for continual improvement in the recognition of indigenous peoples' and local communities' participation in the CBD. We wish to work with parties to improve this throughout the text, and include a standard reference to our participation where it has been omitted, such as in Item 27 on the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. We also look for standard reference to the role of women and youth where-ever it is appropriate, and measures to enhance their participation in the development and implementation of COP decisions.
5. Financing: We have a continuing concern with financing our participation in the development and implementation of programs of work. Our lands, waters and territories are necessary for the achievement of the Aichi Targets and the aims of the Convention. This will not be achieved without sufficient financing for our full and effective participation at all levels, and in all stages of decision making, development, planning, implementation, management. Financing mechanisms should take women and youth into special consideration and ensure their participation.
6. Traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples are based on sustainable use of biodiversity, therefore indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge should be seen as valuable assets for integrating biodiversity to the post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda and the sustainable development goals. IIFB encourages to support the development of traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples, in order to support sustainable development and reduce poverty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair
Submitted for the record:
Agenda Items 11, 12 14: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
We would like to thank the secretariat for preparing the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. GBO4 provides a general updated picture of the progress towards the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. While there has been progress in achieving some of the targets, it is clear that many targets won’t be reached by 2020 unless major changes in approach take place as soon as possible.
At the same time, an increasing number of independent studies and research reports are pointing out that exceptionally high rates of biodiversity are found in areas that have historically been inhabited and managed by indigenous peoples and local communities, pointing to evidence of overlap between biodiversity ‘hotspots’ and indigenous territories in various regions in the world. The holistic and integrated management systems of indigenous peoples and local communities - which relate very closely with the Ecosystem Approach of the CBD - contribute to many Aichi targets that aspire to achieve sustainable use and conservation of ecosystems and species, and mitigate climate change effects.
The role of IPLCs in the CBD therefore goes much beyond Target 18 on traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use; rather, indigenous knowledge and customary practices are a centrally important and cross-cutting theme that can potentially have a major positive effect in terms of implementation of (nearly) all of the 20 targets.
We would therefore like to recommend that, in order to stand a better chance of achieving the 20 targets of the Strategic Plan, the role of IPLCs in biodiversity sustainable use and conservation should be fully recognised and supported, and their full and effective participation should be ensured in the future steps of the implementation of the Aichi targets, including the revision and updating of the NBSAPs, setting targets and indicators at the national and local level, implementation on the ground, and in the production of national reports.
Agenda Item 12: Mid-Term Review of Progress Towards the Goals of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, & the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, & Further Actions to Enhance Progress
We would like to thank the secretariat for preparing the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. While there has been progress in achieving some of the targets, it is clear that many targets won’t be reached by 2020 unless major changes in approach take place as soon as possible. We highlight that GBO4 identifies that Target 18 has been poorly reported in national reports and that traditional knowledge continues to decline as indicated by the loss of linguistic diversity and large scale displacement of indigenous and local communities.
At the same time, an increasing number of independent studies and research reports are pointing out that exceptionally high rates of biodiversity are found in areas that have historically been inhabited and managed by indigenous peoples and local communities, pointing to evidence of overlaps between biodiversity ‘hotspots’ and indigenous territories in various regions in the world. The holistic and integrated management systems of indigenous peoples and local communities contributes to many Aichi targets that aspire to achieve sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.
The role of IPLCs in the CBD therefore goes much beyond Target 18 on traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use; rather, indigenous knowledge and customary practices are a centrally important and cross-cutting theme that can potentially have a major positive effect in terms of implementation of (nearly) all of the 20 targets.
We would therefore like to recommend that, in order to stand a better chance of achieving the 20 targets of the Strategic Plan, the role of IPLCs in biodiversity sustainable use and conservation should be fully recognised and supported, and our full and effective participation should be ensured in the future steps of the implementation of the Aichi targets.
And we would like to make the following recommendations for changes to the draft decision:
That the IIFB are invited to assist in the analysis of the GBO4 by the Executive Secretary with the aim of proposing ways to enhance guidelines for future national reports; and
That in the SBSTTA review of the main implications of key findings of GBO4, in particular the targets where there is insufficient progress, including Target 18, that the IIFB Working Group on Indicators be invited to assist the Ad Hoc Technical Group on Indicators ; and
The full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in setting national targets with corresponding indicators & monitoring mechanisms to be aligned with the Strategic Plan ; and
That the key actions regarding Goal E on Participatory planning, knowledge management & capacity building include the use of the prior approved Traditional Knowledge Indicators; and
That in considering the Key Scientific & Technical Needs related to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 in regards to Traditional Knowledge, that better ways to include traditional knowledge systems and the collective actions of IPLCs is acknowledged as expert knowledge system which may be complemented by scientific knowledge or which may complement scientific knowledge;
Agenda Item 15. Financial mechanism
Under the item 15, GEF is the main body for financial mechanisms focuses on national policies and targets. We noticed the lack of inclusion of indigenous and local community.
The financial mechanism GEF with indigenous peoples is encouraging for collaboration to protect environment and sustainable use. The financial mechanism should increase more effectiveness to support indigenous and local community organizations to achieve the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
We encourage the financial mechanism and state parties to ensure meaning participation of indigenous and local peoples organizations. To recognize and respect the contribution of indigenous and local communities in respect UNDRIP, CBD, ILO 169 and more flexibility the financial mechanism.
1. GEF guideline: The full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples should be sought in the identification, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all relevant project activities. Responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country, normally with the government, project executing agency or agencies, with the support of GEF Partner Agencies. GEF-financed projects should, as appropriate, address the social, cultural and economic needs of Indigenous Peoples affected by GEF-financed projects.
2. Related to the GEF financial mechanism the IIFB appreciate the GEF’s decision in having Indigenous Peoples as part of its Advisory Group that will support and ensure the participation of ILCs in GEF’s activities and grants at national level. The IIFB would like to recommend GEF the inclusion of ILCs participation in the GEF meetings with the correspondent funding and translation and the friendly reception of ILCs request for funding. Moreover the IIFB would like to continue the process of capacity building for ILCs with necessary funding and with the inclusion of Indigenous women, youth and elders. For the IIFB the creation of scholarships for undergraduate and graduate ILCs students is critical in areas such as biology, environmental lawyers, and scientists with an intercultural frame.
Agenda Item 23. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
IIFB I would like to note the special role of indigenous peoples and local communities in the conservation of plant biodiversity in many regions of the conservation of biodiversity depends on the use of traditional methods of sustainable resource management. Therefore, we would like to acknowledge the need for the use of traditional knowledge for the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, especially for target 9 and 13, and also to remind the Parties that the conservation of biodiversity is the basis of food security and a vital part of efforts to ensure the eradication of poverty. We call upon the Parties to support the proposal of some countries, and announce the next year - the Year of Biodiversity in Poverty Alleviation.
Agenda Item 25. Biodiversity and climate change
Indigenous peoples and local communities have been and are the stewards of the forest and remaining biodiversity in the world, but they are also the most vulnerable and the first victims of climate change.
- The lands, waters and territories of indigenous peoples present multiple environmental services that are of great value in climate change mitigation and adaptation, but also central to our culture, identity, spirituality and bien vivir, or living well and in harmony with nature. Because of these multiple values, the work program on biodiversity and climate change should not only be seen from the perspective of efforts to avoid deforestation and degradation of forests and much less limited to carbon markets. All biodiversity, climate change related policies, strategies, plans, programmes should respect and recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples to forest, lands, territories and resources in line with international standards and instruments such as UNDRIP and ILO 169, the Akwe: kon Voluntary Guidelines, biocultural community protocols and other relevant mechanisms. These should all be in line with the objectives of the CBD and Aichi target 18.
- The national biodiversity monitoring and safeguard information systems, should be done with full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. There should be a harmonization of decisions between and among UN bodies, conventions and mechanisms (such UNFCCC, CBD, etc.) related to these systems.
- We welcome the Warsaw Framework for REDD plus, agreed at the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2013, and the methodological guidance on the implementation of REDD+ activities that it provides. REDD+ activities should be subject to the Full and Effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, their free, prior and Informed Consent and mutually agreed terms on equal and benefit sharing.
- The financing mechanisms relating climate change must help indigenous peoples to play their key role in climate change and biodiversity related policies and programs. As such, we insist on the presence of indigenous peoples representatives in the financial decision- making process related to biodiversity and climate change and on the elaboration of national and international-level programs such as the GCF and other financing mechanisms.
- Biodiversity plays a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. As such, we demand to the UNFCCC and CBD to organize workshops for the strengthening of capacities of indigenous peoples on climate change mitigation and adaptation in relation to ecosystem and biodiversity in order to fulfill the Aichi targets.
Agenda Item 26. Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration
IIFB welcomes that the recognition of the extricable and inherent link between biodiversity, poverty eradication and sustainable development. We need improved recognition of the importance of the conservation of biodiversity in our lands, waters and territories to the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11, 13, 14, 16 and 18 through such mechanisms as indigenous and local community conserved areas (ICCAs). It is vitally important for the achievement of these targets to conserve and restore ecosystems for the benefit of ILCs and their livelihoods.
Agenda Item 27. Sustainable Use of Biodiversity: Bushmeat and Sustainable Wildlife Management
We welcome the decision XI/25 of the parties and support the establishment of Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management (CPW) and the International Partnership of the Satoyama initiative. We request the parties to give a specific reference to Indigenous and local communities in the recommendation of the decision as having standing membership in the partnership and an ongoing role in sustainable wildlife management.
We encourage participation by indigenous and local communities in the Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management( CPW) and invite donors to contribute to the implementation of the of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 in order to ensure our effective participation.
We salute the proposed Gender Plan of Action and in particular welcome the substantive inclusion of indigenous women throughout the document. However, we believe that case studies should include indigenous women perspectives and call for the development of gender-based biocultural indicators. We also call attention to the fact that all over the world indigenous women continue to suffer from environmental violence through various forms, including the forced relocation by transnational companies and the expansion of extractive industries and militarisation of our lands, amongst others, such violence is impacting on women and children and on biodiversity and traditional knowledge.
With each meeting, we sadly note the reduction in the number of indigenous youth who have the opportunity to participate in these key decision-making meetings. The IIFB reminds parties of decision XI/8 B, acknowledging the importance of youth participation in decision- making processes at all levels, and we wish financial support that would make this possible. Indigenous peoples are the custodians of biodiversity, and their future depends on transferred of all of their traditional knowledge, experience and practices to youth, a critical link in the unbroken chain of our ways of life and being.
The Dibabawon indigenous people live in the remote Calinogan community of Compostela Valley Province, Mindanao. I travelled for seven hours from Manila, by plane, car, and finally on a local ‘skylab’ motorbike along unpaved roads through lush forests, to reach this community of 256 people.
I was there to participate in a training aimed at raising awareness among indigenous women and men on gender equality, in particular, strengthening their knowledge on the protection of women and children. The training contributes to ‘The Global Leadership School for Indigenous Women in Nepal and the Philippines’, a two-year programme funded by UN Women’s Fund for Gender Equality (FGE). The FGE programme – by increasing the knowledge and skills of indigenous women and men on human rights standards and mechanisms – will boost their confidence in asserting their rights and support them in playing a more effective role in decision-making at community and national level, including through overcoming discrimination and marginalization.
The Philippines endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, which prohibits discrimination, and sets out the rights of indigenous peoples, including in relation to employment, education, health, culture, language and self-determination. The Philippines has also ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Ratification of CEDAW obliges states to implement policies, programmes and plans of actions towards the realization of women's rights and gender equality. However, many indigenous women in particular, in the Philippines still experience discrimination, are marginalized, and are vulnerable to becoming victims of violence and trafficking.
“ …I did not know about the rights I am entitled to and had no idea about who and where to ask help when my rights are violated. Now I know and I will share this with other women in the community.” - Ms. Rebecca Tompong, 40 years-old, from Dibabawon tribe.
There were 57 training participants on the day, acquiring vital knowledge on their rights, and practical guidance on how to demand and access their rights. It was a unique opportunity for women and men from all walks of life to share experiences of their roles in family and community life, in terms of gender equality. The training was organized by Silingang Dapit sa Habagatang Sidlakang Mindanao (SILDAP-SE), an NGO based at Tagum City, Davao. SILDAP has worked with indigenous peoples of the southern Philippines since 1982, in partnership with Baguio-based NGO, Indigenous People’s International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba).
After the training I had a chance to speak with some of the participants and hear their stories and thoughts on the knowledge they gained, and how it linked to their own life experience.
“…The training on violence against women and children has made me understand the rights of children. I will apply it to my children. Whenever my son throws a tantrum, I will not respond by hitting or hurting him, but instead talk and correct my child in the proper way.” - Ms. Mary Jane Sagubay, 30 years old from Dibabawon tribe.
The Dibabawon women from Calinogan community are just some of the almost 600 indigenous women who have been trained in gender equality and women’s rights across Nepal and the Philippines since the FGE programme began in 2013.
The programme also has an advocacy component focused on how indigenous women leaders and their organizations and communities can be more proactive and strategic in holding their governments accountable, through their international commitments and obligations. As such, the FGE grantee Tebtebba is also advocating for indigenous women’s rights in international fora, for example, they have just actively participated in the first ever World Conference on Indigenous People on September 22-23rd 2014. During this event Tebtebba Executive Director, Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, who was appointed Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples earlier in the year, announced that she will be making the issue of violence against indigenous women, youth and children of a focus of her mandate.
Regarding the integration of gender within the World Conference’s Outcome document Ms. Eleanor Dictaan-Bang-oa, Tebtebba Coordinator of the Gender Program and the manager of the FGE programme, said “(…) indigenous women look forward to strengthened engagement in the development of the system-wide action plan called for by the WCIP vis-a-vis its operationalization and coherence with other programmes especially at the local and national level (…) we can use the outcome document as an additional basis for pushing dialogue in defining the kind of development that we want as women and as indigenous peoples especially in the light of the current negotiations on the Post 2015 SDGs and Beijing +20”.
The work that indigenous women’s advocates like Eleanor are doing at the global level to demand state accountability for indigenous women is commendable.
“…I learned that there are already laws implemented by the government protecting women’s rights. For me it means our government has now armed the women in society through these laws they implemented.” - Ms. Lolita Bundan, 51 years old, Bisaya
Similarly, what the indigenous women and men present in that training room on a hot and humid day in Calinogan is just as admirable. For me, it was an eye-opener to be able to participate and hear their experiences first hand. As a member of the UN Women team based in the Regional Office in Bangkok, and supporting FGE partners to implement and manage their projects, I was already familiar with project intricacies. However, I realized from this visit that meeting project partners and participants to discuss the gender inequalities that they face and the strategies they have to use to overcome them, is crucial in understanding them and developing the programme in the future. It is also a reminder of how important it is, to not lose sight of the women on the ground, in their communities, when we work to strengthen their rights. Advocacy and macro-level changes are key, but they should go hand in hand with making real changes the lives of women like Lolita, Mary-Jane and their peers.
 The programme is being implemented by the Baguio-based NGO, Indigenous People’s International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba), the lead FGE Grantee, in partnership with the Asian Indigenous Women’s Network (AIWN). Partner indigenous women’s organizations in programme areas play a central role in project implementation from planning to evaluation.
 The Fund for Gender Equality is a UN Women grant-making mechanism dedicated exclusively to the economic and political empowerment of women worldwide. Since its launch in 2009, the Fund has delivered grants of USD 56.5 million to 96 grantee programmes in 72 countries. Each programme supports women, especially those who are marginalised, to regain control over their lives, whether they are trying to start a business or initiate a grassroots movement. Guided by UN Women’s mandate, the Fund supports women-led civil society organizations’ (CSOs) and governments’ proposals based on strategic priorities to advance women’s rights in their countries.
 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York on 13 September 2007. Article 2 of the Declaration states that “[i]ndigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.”
 Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.1
The first ever World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), a High Level Plenary meeting of Sixty-Ninth Session of the United Nations General Assembly was held on 22-23 September 2014 at UN Headquarters in New York.
More than two hundreds of indigenous representatives from around the world gathered in New York to attend the WCIP. A number of Heads of the States including Evo Morales, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Sauli Niinistö, President of the Republic of Finland (Western European and Other Group); Denis Sassou Nguesso, President of the Republic of Congo (Group of African States); Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of the Republic of Estonia (Group of Eastern European States); Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico (Latin American and Caribbean Group)and dozens of ministers of member-states attended the WCIP.
From Bangladesh, Raja Devasish Roy, member of the UNPFII; Mangal Kumar Chakma, PCJSS; Binota Moy Dhamai, member of Indigenous Global Coordinating Group (GCG) of WCIP and Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum, Lina Jesmin Lushai and Meintthein Promila of Kapaeeng Foundation, Pidision Pradhan, Greater Sylhet Indigenous Peoples Forum attended the conference. Naba Bikram Kishore Tripura was also present in this event as representative of government of Bangladesh.
As guided by the UN General Assembly Resolution 66/296, the plenary session of the WCIP started at 9:00 am on 22 September 2014 followed by the adoption of the negotiation text which is known as the outcome document. The President of the 69th session of the UN General Assembly Mr. Kutesa presided over the opening session whereas addressed by the United Nations Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon followed by a number of Head of the States including Evo Morales, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Sauli Niinistö, President of the Republic of Finland (Western European and Other Group); Denis Sassou Nguesso, President of the Republic of Congo (Group of African States); Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of the Republic of Estonia (Group of Eastern European States); Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico (Latin American and Caribbean Group). Indigenous representatives including the chair of the Saami Parliament of Norway and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) have also addressed.
In the opening session of the conference, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon pledged for inclusion of indigenous peoples in all development and decision making processes. He hopes the action oriented outcome document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014 would close the gaps between commitments and implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples. He emphasized on strengthening partnerships between United Nations and Indigenous Peoples to achieve common goals. “The success of this conference is integral to progress for all humanity” he added.
The president of the 69th session of the UN General Assembly Mr. Kutesa stated in his statement that indigenous peoples are facing challenges and therefore, member states should renew their commitment on the issue of indigenous peoplesand realized national level theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that represents a global consensus and protects both individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples.The process leading to this Conference has been unprecedented in the history of the organization as it has involved active participation of indigenous peoples in its preparation as well as cooperation between Member States and indigenous peoples in reaching a consensus‘Outcome Document’.
Evo Morales, President of Bolivia said that Indigenous Peoples have been marginalized for being involved in the movement and to raise awareness for their rights. But historically indigenous movement has not only been given them the right to vote but also to governance system. He also said that nation cannot be governed by the bankers and multinational companies. He ended up urging all to protect and ensure the political rights of indigenous peoples.
Adoption of Outcome Document:
Outcome document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014 has been adopted unanimously at the High Level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly plenary session. The outcome document has composed with 40 operative paragraphs that outlined the commitments of the member States to formulate action plan in regard to protect indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior and informed consent, land, territory and resource, culture, health and education, traditional knowledge, disaggregated data, responsibilities of the UN bodies and specialised agencies, post 2015 development, youth and women among other crucial issues. The outcome document has been finalized with the consultation and negotiation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in a sense that the equal participation of decision-making process.
Indigenous peoples welcomed the Outcome Document of the WCIP. However, at the same time, they expressed their disappointment and condemnation that nothing in the Outcome Document mentions about commitment from States to stop State violence, militarization, and political repression against indigenous peoples. Moreover, many proposed provisions by indigenous peoples have been weakened, changed and modified during the inter-governmental process, and even ignored undermining the UNDRIP in the text revision.
Roundtable and Panel discussion:
During the two-day conference three-roundtable discussions and one panel discussion was taken places. Roundtable-1 discussed on the ‘UN system action for the Implementation of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’; Roundtable-2 on ‘Implementing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the national and local level’; Roundtable-3 on Indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources and a Panel Discussion discussed on ‘Indigenous priorities for the post-2015 sustainable development agenda’.
At the Roundtable-1 on “United Nations system action to implement the rights of indigenous peoples”, among others, Raja Devasish Roy from Bangladesh, Famark Hlawnching from Myanmar, Piya Argee Malayao from Philippines, Yasso Kanti Bhattachan from Nepal, Binota Moy Dhamai from Bangladesh et al took part in the inter active dialogue. On the others from the government part, among others, Isabel SAINT MALO de ALVARADO, Vice President and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Panama; Urmas PAET, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonia; Luis ALMAGRO, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Uruguay; Charles Koffi DIBY, Minister of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cote D’ivoire; Annick GIRARDIN, Minister of State for Development and Francophonie, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, France et al spoke at the Roundtable-1. Representatives of UN bodies, programs and agencies, and Indigenous Peoples Organisations (IPOs) also delivered speech at the discussion.
Binota Moy Dhamai urged UN agencies and UN Country Teams to establish regular and institutionalized mechanisms for dialogue with and participation of indigenous peoples and the representatives of their institutions andto bridge the gap between policies and practice by strengthening the systematization and exchange of experiences on indigenous peoples’ issues between UN Country Teams through training and practical information resources.
Mangal Kumar Chakma of Bangladesh (PCJSS), Windel Bolinget from Philippines, Julius Daguitan of Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network, Thomas Jalong from Malaysia, Rukka Sombolinggi from Indonesia, Elina Horo from India et al attended and took part in the interactive dialogue at the Roundtable-2 on “Implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and local level”. Despite representatives of IPOs, dozens of ministers of States including Julie BISHOP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia; Ricardo PATIÑO AROCA, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility, Ecuador; Pravin GORDHAN, Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, South Africa; Hajiya Zainab MAINA, Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, Nigeria; H.E. Martin LIDEGAARD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark took floor in the Roundtable 2 discussion.
Mangal Kumar Chakma mentioned that the government’s process of implementation of CHT Accord ignores the rights of the indigenous peoples to consultation, participation and free, prior and informed consent. I urge all the Member-States of the UN, particularly Bangladesh to respect and uphold right to self-determination and right to free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in implementing the rights of indigenous peoples and to implement CHT Accord as per commitment in the 2nd cycle of UPR and recommendations of the 10th session of the UNPFII.
In his statement, Windel B Bolinget said that indigenous peoples’ rights cannot be respected and implemented under conditions of militarization and political repression and State fascism. Collective rights to ancestral lands, territories and resources continue to be violated as State military forces are deployed in our communities to protect destructive projects and corporate plunder. He expressed his great disappointment and condemnation that nothing in the Outcome document mentions about commitment from States to stop State violence, militarization, and political repression against indigenous peoples.
At the Roundtable-3 on “Indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources”, Raja Devasish Roy on behalf of Asia Indigenous Peoples Caucus and Pidison Pradhan of Bangladesh, Jebra Ram Muchahary from India, Windel Bolinget from Philippines, Meenakshi Munda from India made intervention on the land rights of indigenous peoples. Among others, Aloha Nuñez, Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Venezuela; Gabriel QUIJANDRIA, Vice-Minister of Natural Resources’ Strategic Development, Ministry of Environment, Peru; Kevin Washburn (rank of vice minister), Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, United States; Colleen Swords, Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Canada; Naba Bikram Kishore Tripura, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs, Bangladesh et al delivered speech at this Roundtable.
Raja Devasish Roy, in his statement on behalf of Asia Caucus, said the Outcome Document acknowledges several of the problems referred to, and provides solutions to many of them. He opined that at the international level, several other corresponding measures are needed, including (a) an effective UN monitoring mechanism to review the progress of the Outcome Document; (b) implementation of UN system resolutions and policies, including of the indigenous peoples-mandated mechanisms; and (c) monitoring of multilateral and bilateral treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.Best practices on effective adjudication and recognition of indigenous peoples’ land rights exist in several countries. The challenge remains, collectively, to improve upon them, and to promote and contextually replicate them, in other parts of the world, he added.
In his deliberation, Naba Bikram Kishore Tripura said that Constitution of Bangladesh ensured equal rights for all citizens of the country. He claimed that all citizens of Bangladesh are indigenous in the country. However, he said that government of Bangladesh welcomes the Outcome Document of the WCIP. He attempted to exculpate about the implementation of CHT Accord of 1997.Government of Bangladesh ensured land rights of ethnic minorities, he added.
Binota Mony Dhamai of Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum and Kapaeeng Foundation delivered joint statement at the Panel Discussion on “Indigenous priorities for the post-2015 sustainable development agenda”. Despite deliberation of statement by Asia Indigenous Peoples Caucus, Piya Argee Malayao from Philippines, and International Disability Forum Pratima Gurung, a dozen of representatives of IPOs, Otto Perez Molina, President, Guatemala; Maria Fernanda Villegas, Minister for Social Development, Chile; Ledy Zúñiga, Minister for Justice and Human Rights, Ecuador; Mahendra Bahadur Pandey, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nepal; Gennady Gatilov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation; Tanmaya Lal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, India et al, among others, spoke at this Panel Discussion.
The WCIP ended with the closing session held 5:00 pm on 23 September 2014. Jan Eliasson, Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations was present in the closing session of the Conference. Closing prayer was performed by Dr. Pita Sharples, Minister of Maori Affairs, Government of New Zealand.
Participation in the World Summit on Indigenous Philanthropy
International Funders for Indigenous Peoples (IFIP) organized World Summit on Indigenous Philanthropy on 24–26 September 2014 in New York City right after the WCIP. The Summit was uniquely positioned to bring together thought of leaders, philanthropists, donor agencies, and indigenous visionaries in a powerful andinformative event, resulting in concrete actions that was taken indigenous philanthropyto the next level. Meintthein Promila of Kapaeeng Foundation attended the event from Bangladesh.
Conclusion and Remarks:
Dozens of Heads and Ministers of States and Government of the member-states attended the several Roundtables and Panel discussion including Opening and Closing sessions. However, no minister from Bangladesh except secretary of the CHT Affairs Ministry Naba Bikram Kishore Tripura attended this historic event, though 10 ministers around in New York and accompanied Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during her official tour for 69th session of the UN General Assembly.
(A Human Rights Organization for Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh)
Shalma Garden, House # 23/25, Road # 4, Block # B, PC Culture Housing, Mohammadpur, Dhaka-1207, Telephone: +880-2-8190801
Item 66 of the provisional agenda*
Rights of indigenous peoples
22-23 September 2014
H.E. Edita Hrda and co-chair Ghazali Ohorela, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates and Representatives of States and Indigenous Peoples, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Gawis ay masdem ken dakayo am-in. This means good afternoon to you all in my Kankana-ey Igorot language.
I am honored to speak before you today, to share my own assessment of the Outcome WCIP Document on enhancing the system-wide actions of the United Nations for more effective implementation on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and my recommendations on how to implement this. Indigenous peoples’ rights and development issues basically cut across the work of all UN agencies, bodies, programmes and funds. This is one of the main reasons on why indigenous peoples persisted in getting the UN to establish the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and its Secretariat to help raise awareness and coordinate the UN as far as the policies and programmes of the various UN entities on indigenous peoples are concerned.
I have been actively engaged with many of the UN processes as early as the 1980s as an indigenous activist and leader so I will speak on the basis of these experiences.
In this present era the world is faced with multi-faceted problems in development, peace and security, human rights and environment, increasing inequality and worsening poverty, amidst scandalous wealth getting concentrated in the hands of a few. Indigenous peoples are equally suffering from these problems. This picture presents a compelling argument for pushing the UN to be more coherent and coordinated in terms of how it addresses indigenous peoples’ issues. Many indigenous peoples are still confronted with problems of grave human rights violations and inappropriate development priorities which lessen further their capacities to live well and live with dignity. Global decisions on how to pursue development like the Millenium Development Goals did not include indigenous peoples.
For so long many indigenous peoples find themselves in the midst of armed conflicts, most of which are not their own wars. Their territories remain militarized and they are not invited to take part in peace negotiations between the states and armed groups. Thus, the protection of their right to live and their right to their lands, territories and resources remain very fragile.
These situations which I described clearly tell us that unless more coherent and coordinated system-wide action from the UN is done, we will find indigenous peoples’ issues falling between the cracks. Mainstreaming indigenous peoples’ issues should be the responsibility of UN agencies, bodies, programmes and funds.
We need to understand that indigenous peoples are among those who have and continue to contribute significantly in terms of saving the earth, by mitigating climate change and strengthening communities who truly believe and practice sustainability, stewardship and harmony with nature, mutual reciprocity and collectivity. We are not simply victims of a system which promotes unrelentless exploitation of the earth and economic growth, generation of bigger profits at the expense of social protection, and super-individualism. We are contributing solutions to the crises we all face. It will be to the detriment of the earth and the human society if we continue to be excluded in decision-making processes which impact us and our rights get trampled on a daily basis.
The Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) and the ILO were the main bodies where we, indigenous peoples, began our journey to get attention to our issues. We then got involved with Earth Summit in 1992. These processes which led to the drafting and adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the inclusion of a chapter on the indigenous peoples in Agenda 21 made me determined to work more to ensure better coherence and coordination.
I have seen over and over again how human rights conventions and instruments have been contradicted by other global agreements, not necessarily agreed within the UN, but by other multilateral and regional bodies. I am specifically referring to economic, trade, finance, investment and intellectual property rights agreements. I witnessed how most States did not exert enough efforts to make the various agreements coherent with human rights conventions and declarations, with multilateral environmental agreements and ILO Conventions and programmes promoting social protection. In many cases these bodies did not succeed because States would invoke national sovereignty, territorial integrity and put language like, as appropriate, to escape from complying with their legal obligations.
When I became a member of the UNPFII and got elected as the Chair each year from 2005-2009, I understood better how the UN system works. I saw the challenges that need to be addressed and the facilitating factors which enabled the UN system to address better indigenous peoples’ rights and development.
The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, establishment of the UNPFII, the EMRIP and the Special Rapporteur mandate confirm the relevance and importance of indigenous issues to the core purposes of the United Nations. The UNDRIP provides the UN-system with a common normative framework and the specialized mechanisms promote its implementation, by member-states and by the UN-system itself. Articles 41 and 42 of the UNDRIP specifically requires the UN-System to promote respect for and contribute to the full realization of its provisions through the mobilization of financial cooperation and technical assistance. This established that the UN system, has to mainstream the attention to the specific situation of indigenous peoples throughout its diverse agencies, funds and programs.
Let me highlight the paragraphs in the WCIP Outcome Document which refer directly to the issue I am asked to address. Paragraph 31, requests the UN Secretary General to develop a system-wide action plan to ensure a coherent approach to implement the UNDRIP and to report to the 70th Session of the General Assembly on progress made. We will look forward to this and I hope indigenous peoples will be able to participate again in this session. This paragraph also says that a senior official of the UN be assigned to coordinate the action plan at the highest level possible. Paragraphs 32, 33 and 40 are equally important. Paragraph 40 requests the SG to submit “recommendations regarding how to use, modify and improve existing United Nations mechanisms to achieve the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ways to enhance a coherent, system-wide approach to achieving the ends of the Declaration.
I am happy to see these paragraphs and I would like to remind everybody that in all these, the effective participation of indigenous peoples in these processes which will come up with these reports have to ensured.
Before I was appointed as the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, my institution, Tebtebba, commissioned a report on how the UN has implemented the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This study concluded that
there have been some positive developments in terms of coordination between the UN entities on their work on indigenous issues. The establishment of the Inter-agency Support Group (IASG) on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues is one mechanism which deals with the issue of coherence and coordination. I was witness to the way this mechanism operated. I frankly think there is still room for improvement, but many of what the IASG has been doing has borne good results.
This same report also observed that “four UN agencies and funds (UNDP, IFAD, FAO and UNEP) and programs such as GEF and UN-REDD have developed institutional policies or guidance on support to indigenous peoples. The policies have clear positive effects in terms of enhanced visibility and action, collaboration, commitment, transparency, accountability and in-house coordination. Further, the recently released UNDP Social and Environmental Standards, specify the obligations of UNDP to not participate in projects that violate provisions of UNDRIP, including operational requirements to ensure such compliance. “ The direct alignment of institutional safeguards with the provisions of UNDRIP is, without any doubt, a good practice.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I will conclude my remarks with some key recommendations which I think should be taken into account on this issue for system-wide coherence and coordination.
First, I think it is important that awareness raising with the UN System on indigenous peoples’ human rights, development issues and peace and security has to be ramped up. I observed that the majority of the staff of the UN do not really know that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Convention No. 169 exist. Nor do they know that there are bodies and mechanisms such as the UNPFII, EMRIP and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. More efforts should be exerted to provide trainings and seminars to UN personnel on indigenous peoples’ rights and development perspectives and existence and mandates of UN mechanisms addressing indigenous peoples and development perspectives.
Secondly, more dedicated staff addressing indigenous peoples’ rights and issues should be hired in the various UN bodies, agencies, programmes and funds. If the Secretary General will make his assessment of the monitoring of the implementation of the WCIP Outcome Document, this means, establishing indicators for measuring this. One of the indicators will be the number of staff dedicated to implementing policies and programmes addressing indigenous peoples. But it will not only be the WCIP Document which will be monitored and measured but the implementation of the UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169, relevant Conventions and Programmes of Action at the global, regional, national and local levels.
Thirdly, the senior official who will oversee coordination and system-wide action for coherence should endeavour to consult and involve indigenous peoples in carrying out his work.
Fourth, there should be an increase in dedicated resources in terms of funds to support the work on indigenous peoples. So disaggregation of budgets of UN bodies, agencies, programs and funds in terms of how what they have allocated for indigenous peoples should be done.
Fifth, further optimization of the use of the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteurs, treaty monitoring bodies, ILO supervisory mechanisms and other monitoring mechanisms, to strengthen capacity within the UN-system to understand and promote indigenous peoples’ rights should be done. This includes using such recommendations for country programming.
Finally, efforts should be put in organizing and creating communities of practice of bodies, agencies, programmes and funds to come together and share how they are coordinating, what resources are they sharing with each other and what are the impacts in terms of the implementation of the UNDRIP, ILO Convention 169 and other relevant conventions, programmes of action and policies on indigenous peoples.
As for my role as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I will commit to monitor closely how the UN is implementing the WCIP Outcome Document. I will endeavour to discuss with the high level officials and the staff of the UN bodies, programmes, agencies and funds, to offer my help in making their institutions more responsive to indigenous peoples.
I sincerely believe that this is my role as the Special Rapporteur and this is what is expected of me by indigenous peoples the world over. I will end by thanking the States of the United Nations, the indigenous representatives, the UN officials and staff, who all worked to have this WCIP Outcome Document drafted and adopted. I warmly congratulate all of you who have set aside long-standing differences to agree on this document.
While this document is not perfect, it is a big stepping stone in the upward struggle to get indigenous peoples’ collective and individual human rights respected, protected and fulfilled.
Matago-tago tako am-in! Thank you very much.
Statement of Ms.Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of indigenous peoples, Human Rights Council, 27th Session, Geneva, 17 September 201419 September 2014, 8:32 am Written by UNSRIP Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have the honor to present today my first report to the Human Rights Council since I formally assumed on June 2nd of this year the mandate conferred to me by this Council and the first time I address the Human Rights Council.
I would like to start by thanking the Human Rights Council for entrusting me with the important task of fulfilling that mandate and I am committed to do so in an impartial and constructive manner and in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Council. I would also like to express my gratitude to the numerous indigenous peoples' organizations and networks that have already engaged with my mandate.
I take on the responsibility of the mandate with a great sense of humility and a firm commitment to build on the important work of my predecessors, former Special Rapporteur Professor James Anaya and former Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen. I would like to gratefully acknowledge Professor Anaya's experienced guidance during the first months since I assumed the Council's mandate, as well as to thank the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for its continuous support.
This is a very historic year for indigenous peoples. It is the year in which negotiations will start for the post-2015 development agenda and for a new agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. I will spend some of my time in ensuring that the respect for the human rights and priorities of indigenous peoples on development and climate change mitigation and adaptation will be integrated into these agreements.
I stand here before you one week before the first ever World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, a high level meeting of the General Assembly, which will be held on 22 and 23 September 2014. Before I was appointed as a Special Rapporteur, I took active part in the preparatory meetings held by indigenous representatives globally, in Asia and in the Philippines. I co-chaired the Global Indigenous Peoples' Preparatory Conference for the WCIP held last year in Alta, Norway. The Alta Conference came up with the Alta Outcome Document which is duly noted in the latest Draft of the WCIP outcome document. After my appointment, I continued engaging in my capacity as Special Rapporteur by participating in the interactive dialogues between States and presenting my views on the various versions of the draft outcome document of the World Conference. Having seen the last iteration of the document, I think the commitments contained, so far, reflect many of what indigenous peoples are asking governments to do to meet their obligations for the protection, respect and fulfilment of indigenous peoples' human rights. I was also pleased to see the reference in the draft outcome document which highlighted the need to address the rights of indigenous peoples in the process of elaborating the post-2015 development agenda. As I noted in my upcoming report to the General Assembly, the global post-2015 development agenda should call for efforts to establish inclusive governance mechanisms which ensure adequate consultations and participation of indigenous peoples in local and national development planning processes. The right of indigenous peoples to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development is clearly stated in Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I hope that the post 2015 development agenda will not repeat the mistakes of the past, as recently seen in Open-ended Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, where lots of efforts had to be spent by indigenous representatives and some states to ensure that the term used in the SDG text was "indigenous peoples" instead of indigenous and local communities. If the commitments contained in the latest WCIP Draft will be finally agreed upon and adopted next week, indigenous peoples will have a lot to look forward to.
Ladies and gentlemen,
As you know, a core aspect of my mandate is to examine ways and means of overcoming existing obstacles to the full and effective protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. My first report before you outlines some of those obstacles which are found to some extent in all countries in which indigenous peoples are living. While I intend to carry out my work within the areas targeted by special procedures mandate holders, i.e. the promotion of good practices, country assessments, communications concerning alleged human rights violations and thematic studies, in order to maximize the impact of my investigations, I will focus my efforts particularly on issues surrounding the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights of indigenous peoples.
Although there is, at both the international and domestic levels, a strong legal and policy foundation upon which to move forward with the implementation of indigenous peoples' rights, there are still numerous obstacles preventing indigenous peoples from fully enjoying their human rights. The first barrier to the implementation of the international human rights standards is the application of the concept of "indigenous peoples". It calls for the need to employ a flexible approach, taking into account the core attributes and historical and present circumstances that distinguish indigenous peoples from minority groups or other local communities. To fulfil my mandate, I will assess whether the international human rights framework proves useful in addressing the issues and concerns faced by the group in question and monitoring whether duty-bearers adhere to these standards in dealing with indigenous peoples, the rights-holders. The second barrier involves difficulties of States in the operationalization of indigenous peoples' rights, often related to a lack of awareness about the rights and standards, difficulties in identifying practical steps for implementation and conflicting interpretations of the content of rights. The notion that indigenous peoples are obstacles to development and the non-recognition of their identities and rights provide justification for some nation-states not to consult with them, nor undertake steps to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before any development project is brought to their communities.
A third barrier includes the absence of steps towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples and redress for past violation of their human rights. Linked with reconciliation yet to be completed, is the ongoing negative perception of indigenous peoples among the broader societies in which they live, including within governments. Finally, the nearly universal disadvantageous social and economic conditions of indigenous peoples as compared to the economic and social conditions of the majority societies in which they live present a barrier to the full exercise of their human rights.
While I fully acknowledge the difficulties in confronting and overcoming the obstacles outlined above, I hope to be able to make headway in tackling some of them during the course of my mandate. While the previous mandate holders have integrated a focus on women and children in their work, women and children have never been the focus of a thematic report. This I consider is something that it is time to remedy. I will also endeavor to carry out country visits within each of the regions during the first year of my mandate. The previous Special Rapporteurs have carried out numerous visits to the Latin American region, due in large part to the openness of countries in that region. I am encouraged by invitations be some African and Asian countries to my predecessors and I hope that more invitations will come from countries in those regions during the course of my mandate.
Past and future activities
Ladies and gentlemen,
My report also includes a summary of the activities carried out during the period under review, along with a description of future activities, which include a forthcoming official mission to Paraguay pursuant to an invitation I just received from the Government of that country, for which I am grateful. I am presenting as addenda to my annual report four reports produced by my predecessor, Professor James Anaya. Three of these relate to his final three missions to countries, that is, his visits to Panama, Canada and Peru. Each of these was carried out in 2013. In the fourth addendum, I present a summary of communications sent by Professor Anaya and replies received by relevant Governments, as well as observations to those communications made by my predecessor.
Mission to Panama
Ladies and gentlemen,
With respect to the report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Panama, Professor Anaya notes that Panama has an advanced legal framework in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples. In his report, he notes that the comarca land tenure system offers an especially important protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The national laws and programmes provide an important foundation upon which to continue building and strengthening indigenous peoples rights. Nevertheless, my predecessor observed that this foundation is in many ways fragile and precarious. As the report details, there are a series of problems in Panama related to the implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular with respect to lands and resources, large-scaled development projects, autonomy and participation, an economic and social rights, including economic development, health and education.
Mission to Canada
Ladies and gentlemen,
With respect to his visit to Canada, Professor Anaya highlights that Canada's relationship with the indigenous peoples within its borders is governed by a well-developed legal framework and a number of policy initiatives that in many respects are protective of indigenous peoples' rights. But despite these positive elements, daunting challenges remain. The numerous initiatives that have been taken at the federal and provincial/territorial levels to address the problems faced by indigenous peoples have been insufficient. The well-being gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada has not narrowed over the last several years, treaty and aboriginal claims remain persistently unresolved, indigenous women and girls remain vulnerable to abuse, and overall there appear to be high levels of distrust among indigenous peoples toward government at both the federal and provincial levels.
As he stresses in his report, concerted measures, based on mutual understanding and real partnership with aboriginal peoples, through their own representative institutions, are vital to establishing long-term solutions.
Mission to Peru
Ladies and gentlemen,
Professor Anaya's report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Peru follows a visit carried out to that country to look into the situation of indigenous peoples affected by extractive industries, and processes of consultation and participation in this context. Many indigenous peoples in Peru have suffered negative environmental and social impacts of extractive industry activities in Peru over the years. As a result, there is a high level of distrust and discontent between indigenous peoples, and the State and extractive sector, which has resulted in protests and violent conflict. Peru is taking important steps to respond to the concerns of indigenous peoples with respect to extractive industries. However, it is necessary to take further steps to ensure that these activities can take place in a way that is consistent with the rights of indigenous peoples, and in coordination and cooperation with indigenous peoples, in order to respond to their concerns and promote social peace.
Mr. President, I urge Panama, Canada and Peru to take into account and act promptly to implement the recommendations directed at them respectively in these reports in relation to the issues raised. I intend to follow up with the Governments of each of these countries on the progress made in addressing the human rights concerns identified in the reports.
As Special Rapporteur I am called upon to contribute to ensuring that indigenous peoples voices are effectively heard, and to facilitate a dialogue between indigenous peoples, Governments, and other relevant actors involved in specific situations across the world in which indigenous peoples' rights are not being respected. I would like to reaffirm here my strong commitment to this role, to contribute to solutions to the human rights problems brought to my attention and to be proactive in efforts to prevent such problems from arising or escalating.
Let me conclude, Mr. President, by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to serve in this way. I thank you all for your kind attention.
Report on observations to communications sent and replies received by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya15 September 2014, 3:41 am Written by Former UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya
3 September 2014
English and Spanish only
Human Rights Council
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report on observations to communications sent and replies received by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya
Observations on communications*
I. Introduction 1–3 4
II. Cases examined 4–179 4
1. Argentina 4–9 4
2. Bangladesh 10–12 6
3. Bolivia Estado Plurinacional de 13–15 7
4. Brazil 16-21 8
5. Brazil 22-24 10
6. Cameroon 25–29 11
7. Cameroon 30–33 12
8. Canada 34–36 13
9. Chile 37-39 14
10. Chile 40-46 15
11. Colombia 47–61 17
12. Colombia 62–65 20
13. Colombia 66–68 21
14. Costa Rica 69-70 22
15. Ecuador 71-73 23
16. Ethiopia 74–85 24
17. France 86–93 26
18. Guatemala 94–97 28
19. Guatemala 98-100 29
20. Honduras 101-105 30
21. Honduras 106–108 32
22. India 109–111 33
23. Israel 112–113 34
24. Kenya 114-116 35
25. Kenya 117-119 35
26. Papua New Guinea 120–125 36
27. Philippines 126–129 38
28. Russia 130–137 39
29. Tanzania 138-142 41
30. Tanzania 143-144 42
31. United States of America 145–146 43
32. United States of America 147–149 44
33. United States of America 150–159 45
34. United States of America 160-161 48
35. Other letters 162-167 48
36. Other letters 168–176 50
37. Other letters 177–179 51
1. The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, submits to the Human Rights Council, pursuant to resolution 24/9, the present report on specific cases examined concerning alleged violations of human rights of indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur ended his mandate on 1 June 2014. The present report includes cases examined since the issuance of the Special Rapporteur’s last report on communications to the Human Rights Council in September 2013 (A/HRC/24/41/Add.4) through communications sent up to 1 June 2013 and replies received up to 31 May 2014. Some responses from Governments have been received after 1 June and these will be included in upcoming joint communications reports of Special Procedures mandate holders.
2. Cases included in the present report have been grouped by country, with countries listed alphabetically. “Other letters” sent by the Special Rapporteur to non-governmental entities are included at the end of the report. For each of the cases, the date of the initial letter sent, any follow-up by the Special Rapporteur, and any reply or replies received by the State or other party concerned are indicated. This report should be considered in conjunction with the joint communications reports of the Special Procedures mandate holders that have been issued over the past year (A/HRC/25/74; A/HRC/26/21; A/HRC/27/72). The full letters of the cases included in the present report can be accessed through the electronic versions of those joint communications reports.
3. For some cases, and as indicated below in each specific case, the Special Rapporteur issued follow-up letters, either containing new allegations or evaluation of the case. For each case, the Special Rapporteur provides a brief summary of the allegations transmitted, the response of the Government concerned or other party if any, and observations. The Special Rapporteur’s observations may highlight aspects or comment on the adequacy of any response to the allegations transmitted, reiterate recommendations previously made to the Government or other actor concerned, or make reference to relevant international standards.
II. Cases examined
Caso no. ARG 6/2013: Alegaciones en relación con los ataques físicos contra la familia del defensor de derechos humanos, Sr. Félix Díaz
Carta del Relator Especial: 20/12/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 28/01/2014
Repuesta del Estado: 26/03/2014
4. En la carta enviada el 20 de diciembre de 2013 conjuntamente con los Relatores Especiales sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos; sobre la promoción y la protección del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión; y sobre el derecho a la libertad de reunión y de asociación, el Relator Especial transmitió las alegaciones sobre supuestos ataques físicos contra familiares del Sr. Félix Díaz, líder de la comunidad indígena Qom de Potae Napocna Navagoh (“La Primavera”), en la provincia de Formosa. Según la información recibida, el hijo de Félix Díaz fue amenazado de muerte el 28 de junio de 2012. En enero de 2013, habría muerto un sobrino de Félix Díaz de una fractura de cráneo presuntamente a causa de un ataque. El 3 de mayo de 2013, el hijo de Félix Díaz fue atacado por un grupo de 30 personas. El 27 de noviembre de 2013, la hija de Félix Díaz habría sido asaltada por un hombre armado con cuchillo. El 29 de noviembre de 2013, la esposa de Félix Díaz habría sido asaltada en las inmediaciones de su casa. Se ha expresado la preocupación de que estos ataques estuvieran relacionados con las actividades del Sr. Díaz en reivindicación de los derechos territoriales de su comunidad.
Respuesta del Gobierno
5. En su respuesta del 7 de febrero de 2014, el Gobierno de Argentina informó principalmente sobre los esfuerzos realizados para implementar las medidas cautelares dictaminadas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en 2011 a favor de los miembros de la comunidad Qom de Potae Napocna Navagoh (“La Primavera”). Las medidas cautelares de la Comisión Interamericana solicitaban al Estado argentino la adopción de medidas para garantizar la vida y la integridad física de los miembros de la comunidad contra posibles amenazas, agresiones u hostigamientos por miembros de la fuerza pública u otros agentes estatales, así como también implementar las medidas necesarias para que Félix Díaz y su familia pudieran retornar a la comunidad en condiciones de seguridad. Estas medidas cautelares se emitieron a raíz de la conflictividad social y hechos de violencia en contra de la comunidad por miembros de la fuerza pública que se dieron en el contexto de las demandas territoriales de esa comunidad y, por lo cual, el Sr. Díaz y su familia tuvieron que desplazarse a otra zona.
6. Según el Gobierno, se han realizado reuniones periódicas entre representantes del gobierno nacional, del gobierno provincial de Formosa y de la comunidad para abordar el tema de las medidas cautelares de la Comisión Interamericana. Asimismo, informó que también se han realizado reuniones entre las partes para crear espacios de diálogo para abordar las diversas problemáticas que enfrenta la comunidad y para “consensuar una agenda social común entre las partes involucradas”.
7. Dentro de sus respuestas del 7 de febrero y del 26 de marzo de 2014, el Gobierno adjuntó una serie de documentos relacionados con las reuniones entre el Gobierno y la comunidad en el marco de la implementación de las medidas cautelares de la Comisión Interamericana, así como documentos relacionados con las investigaciones de los supuestos hechos de violencia en contra de los familiares del Sr. Félix Díaz. Sin embargo, de la extensa documentación que proporcionó el Gobierno sin nota explicativa, no resulta claro la etapa en que se encuentran esas investigaciones o si han habido conclusiones definitivas.
8. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno de Argentina por la información brindada sobre las investigaciones que se han realizado en relación a los hechos denunciados. Si bien la información proporcionada por el Gobierno no deja claro si se ha determinado que los ataques sufridos por el hijo, la hija y la esposa, así como la muerte del sobrino del Sr. Félix Díaz, sean algún tipo de represalia en contra del Sr. Díaz por su trabajo como defensor de los derechos de su comunidad, la recurrencia de este tipo de incidentes que enfrentan sus familiares debe ser motivo de especial atención por parte de las autoridades nacionales y provinciales. El Relator Especial reitera su llamado al Gobierno a que adopte todas las medidas necesarias para investigar y sancionar a cualquier persona responsable de las violaciones alegadas y que tome las medidas efectivas para evitar que tales hechos, de haber ocurrido, se repitan.
9. A la vez, el Relator Especial quisiera recalcar la importancia de que las autoridades nacionales y provinciales correspondientes adopten medidas para resolver las demandas territoriales de la comunidad Qom de Potae Napocna Navagoh en consonancia con las obligaciones del Estado argentina en materia de derechos humanos. En su informe sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas en Argentina, el Relator Especial había notado la situación de la comunidad Qom de Potae Napocna Navagoh, la cual ha reclamado tierras ancestrales que fueron excluidas de su título y que actualmente forman parte del Parque Nacional Pilcomayo o que fueron otorgadas a intereses particulares (A/HRC/21/47/Add.2). El Relator Especial reitera su recomendación de que el Estado argentino revise su política relacionada con el establecimiento de parques nacionales y áreas protegidas “con el fin de asegurar que no se perjudiquen los derechos sobre sus tierras y recursos naturales dentro de esas áreas,” y de que “debe remediar las situaciones en las que el establecimiento de parques nacionales o áreas protegidas haya impedido el goce de estos derechos” (A/HRC/21/47/Add.2, párr. 95).
Case No. BGD 12/2013: Allegations of violence and other human rights abuses against tribal/indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 31/10/2013
State reply acknowledging receipt: 01/11/2013
State reply: 07/02/2014
10. In his letter of 31 October 2013, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on Violence against women, its causes and consequences, raised concerns regarding allegations received that members of indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, including women and children, have experienced murders, harassment, intimidation, religious persecution and sexual violence. Allegedly, this violence is linked to land disputes that originate from Government policies that have promoted the migration of Bengali citizens to settle in the Chittagong Hill Tracts over the course of several decades in order to alter the demographic composition of the region. Further, the Special Rapporteurs noted that the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997, which provided for the recognition of the Chittagong Hills Tracts as a “tribal inhabited region”, the promotion of indigenous cultures, customary laws and rights to customary lands and natural resources, has allegedly not been implemented.
Reply of the Government
11. In its substantive reply of 7 February 2014, the Government of Bangladesh provided comments on the overall situation of minorities in Bangladesh, which included religious minorities but did not specifically reference indigenous peoples or people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). With respect to the implementation of the CHT Accords, the Government provided a summary of major achievements in implementation of the CHT Accords, stating that 48 of the 72 agreements of the Accord have been implemented and affirming that it “remains firmly committed to further accelerate the implementation of the Accord”. It noted that the CHT Regional Councils, District Councils and Development Boards work together to promote development in the CHT. With respect to allegations of violence and harassment, the Government emphasized that it takes action against military and police personnel who are found to be involved in criminal activities or negligence, and denied that military and police personnel assist Bengali settlers in any illegal activities. Finally, the Government stated that it has initiated legal proceedings in all the cases regarding violence against women and girls mentioned in the letter by the Special Rapporteurs. At the same time, the Government noted that these incidents of violence are not always linked to land disputes and are not unique to the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
12. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Bangladesh for its reply. He takes note of the Government’s information regarding the steps taken to implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997 as well as the Government’s statement that it “remains firmly committed to further accelerate the implementation of the Accord”. In light of the reoccurring information received throughout his mandate on this issue, however, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his call upon the Government to take special efforts to resolve existing land disputes, as well as to prevent dispossession of indigenous/tribal peoples from their traditional lands within the CHT, where this is occurring. With respect to the allegations of acts of violence in the CHT, including violence against women and girls, the Special Rapporteur takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding the legal proceedings underway in the cases raised, and hopes that these will be processed swiftly and will result in prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators.
3. Bolivia, Estado Plurinacional de
Caso No. BOL 1/2014: La situación del Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ)
Carta del Relator Especial: 20/01/2014
Repuesta del Estado: 28/02/2014
13. El 20 de enero de 2014, el Relator Especial envió una carta transmitiendo las alegaciones de supuestos actos de agresión en contra de representantes del Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ). Según la información recibida, en diciembre de 2013 y enero de 2014 ocurrieron distintos sucesos de violencia en contra de representantes del CONAMAQ en la ciudad de La Paz. Según la información, los responsables de estos ataques formaban parte de un grupo afiliado con el Gobierno de Bolivia quienes afirmaban que ellos eran los verdaderos representantes del CONAMAQ. Según las alegaciones recibidas, estos sucesos de violencia y la supuesta disputa de liderazgo del CONAMAQ guardaban relación con el desacuerdo que desde varios años habían expresado autoridades del CONAMAQ con las políticas del Gobierno en materia de derechos de los pueblos indígenas. Asimismo, se había alegado que las personas responsables de estos hechos de violencia no eran autoridades indígenas elegidas de conformidad con las tradiciones y costumbres de los pueblos indígenas representados por CONAMAQ.
Repuesta del Gobierno
14. El Gobierno en su respuesta del 28 de febrero de 2014 sostuvo que los hechos alegados se relacionaban con un conflicto orgánico dentro del CONAMAQ en el cual el Gobierno mantenía uno postura de no injerencia. El Gobierno informó que había animado a ambas partes a dialogar para encontrar una solución. Por otro lado, el Gobierno manifestó que habrían iniciado las investigaciones en relación con los hechos denunciados por uno de los líderes de CONAMAQ que fue supuestamente agredido. El Gobierno recalcó que, conforme a la normativa legal boliviana, respeta la estructura orgánica, forma de elección de autoridades y otros aspectos de la organización interna de CONAMAQ.
15. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno de Bolivia por su respuesta, y toma nota de sus apreciaciones sobre la naturaleza de la situación relativa a CONAMAQ. El Relator Especial considera que los esfuerzos del Gobierno de promover el diálogo entre las dos facciones pudiera representar un paso positivo. A la vez, el Relator Especial recuerda la necesidad de respetar las decisiones de las autoridades representativas de los pueblos indígenas y los resultados de sus elecciones internas realizadas de acuerdo a sus propios procedimientos tradicionales sin interferir con las actuaciones de esas autoridades. En ese sentido, el Relator Especial quisiera hacer referencia a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que establece el derecho de los pueblos indígenas “a participar en la adopción de decisiones en las cuestiones que afecten a sus derechos, por conducto de representantes elegidos por ellos de conformidad con sus propios procedimientos, así como a mantener y desarrollar sus propias instituciones de adopción de decisiones” (art. 18).
Case No. BRA 2/2013: Recent incidents of escalating violence against indigenous peoples in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Pará, including the alleged killing of an indigenous person by police authorities
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 03/06/2013
State reply: 16/09/2013
16. In his letter of 3 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, raised concerns regarding the alleged incidents of excessive use of force against indigenous peoples in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Pará, including the alleged killing of an indigenous person by police authorities. According to the information received, on 30 May 2013, police in Mato Grosso do Sul engaged in a forcible eviction of approximately 1,000 indigenous Terena people who for two weeks had occupied a piece of land in the locality of Buriti officially titled to a private landowner. The land in question is located in an area that the Ministry of Justice had reportedly determined to be indigenous territory. A Terena man, Mr Oziel Gabriel, was allegedly killed by police gunfire, several others were wounded and ten indigenous persons were arrested. Allegations were also received about the imminent eviction of approximately 150-170 indigenous Kayapo, Arara, Munduruku and Xipaia persons who, since 27 May 2013, had been occupying one of the construction sites of the Belo Monte dam in the state of Pará.
Reply of the Government
17. In its reply of 16 September 2014, the Government of Brazil provided updates on action taken in relation to allegations of disproportionate use of force against indigenous peoples in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Pará, while noting that the situation is dynamic and changing and that further actions may continue to be taken.
18. With respect to the situation of Terena people in Mato Grosso do Sul, the Government provided detailed information surrounding the case. It stated that following the occupation of the land in question by the Terena people, various State officials attempted, but were not able to find a peaceful, mediated resolution to the conflict. Absent an agreement, a federal court ordered repossession of the land from the Terena people and conflict broke out. The Government confirmed that Mr Oziel Gabriel was shot and killed by a firearm during the conflict and stated that it was carrying out investigations to determine those responsible. Subsequently, representatives of the Terena people have met with Government representatives to find a solution to the land claim, and a forum was created to deal with conflicts between indigenous groups and farmers in Mato Grosso do Sul. The Government noted that its goal is to negotiate solutions to land conflicts in the region, with one option being to offer financial compensation to farmers whose properties are within demarcated indigenous lands.
19. Regarding the alleged eviction of some 150 indigenous persons occupying one of the construction sites of the Belo Monte dam in the state of Pará, the Government informed that following the occupation of the construction site, Government representatives attempted to hold meetings to initiate a dialogue with the indigenous peoples concerned but these attempts were unsuccessful because of a lack of response from them. Following a request by the company in charge of the Belo Monte project, a federal court issued a repossession order. On 9 May 2013, the indigenous people vacated the construction site peacefully, only to return again on 27 May. At that time, the indigenous occupiers sent a list of their demands to the Government, which included implementation of the standard of free, prior and informed consent, the suspension of hydroelectric projects, and a meeting with the Minister of the General-Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic. A meeting was arranged and the indigenous occupiers were permitted to remain at the construction site until the day of the meeting. In June 2013, 144 people were flown in a state aircraft to Brasilia for the meeting. The indigenous representatives reiterated their demand for consultation and free, prior and informed consent in relation to the future hydroelectric projects in the Tapajós basin, and the State of Brazil emphasized its willingness to “carry out a participatory and informed consultation process”, in accordance with ILO Convention 169. The Government’s response concluded by saying that in its view “an amicable agreement enabled the peaceful departure of the protesters”.
20. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its detailed response. With respect to the broader land situation in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, the Special Rapporteur has on several occasions throughout the course of this mandate expressed to the Government deep concerns about the profound effects of historical Government policies of selling large tracts of traditional indigenous lands to non-indigenous individuals in the region. These policies resulted in indigenous peoples being dispossessed of large parts of their traditional territories and in the current patterns of violence against the indigenous peoples in association with their efforts to reclaim their lands. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate the observations and recommendations he made on the situation in Mato Grosso do Sul in his 2009 report following his mission to Brazil regarding steps to protect indigenous peoples from violence and provide redress for the taking of their lands (A/HRC/12/34/Add.2, paras. 32, 46 – 50, 83-85, 90). In this connection, the Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the Government’s information that a forum has been created to deal with conflicts between indigenous groups and farmers in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul and he hopes that serious attention will be paid to ensuring the adequate functioning of this forum. Finally, the Special Rapporteur takes note of the information provided regarding investigations into the death of Mr Oziel Gabriel.
21. Regarding the situation of the eviction of some 150 indigenous persons occupying one of the construction sites of the Belo Monte dam in the state of Pará, the Special Rapporteur takes note of the information provided by the Government that a peaceful resolution to the situation was found following dialogue between the protestors and Government authorities. He is encouraged by the affirmations by the Government that it will carry out consultation processes, in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, in relation to proposed future hydroelectric projects affecting indigenous peoples in the Tapajós basin. In this connection, he would like to draw attention of the Government to the observations and recommendations made in his final thematic report to the Human Rights Council on the issue of extractive industries and indigenous peoples (A/HRC/24/41). The Special Rapporteur draws special attention to the paragraphs of that report dealing with the standard of free, prior and informed consent, the conditions for fair and adequate consultation and negotiation procedures (paragraphs 58-71) and the need for rights-centered, equitable agreements and partnership (paragraphs 72-78). He hopes that these observations and recommendations will help guide the Government as it moves forward with consultations surrounding any proposed hydroelectric projects.
Case No. BRA 1/2014: Allegations of escalating violence against Tenharim indigenous people in the state of Amazonas
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 02/01/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
22. In his letter of 2 January 2011, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding allegations of escalating violence against Tenharim indigenous people in the state of Amazonas, including alleged attacks against a Tenharim leader and villagers. According to the information received, longstanding tensions have existed between Tenharim indigenous people living on the reserve and non-indigenous people in the area over land issues. In early December 2013, a Tenharim village chief was reportedly killed. Subsequently, three area residents disappeared and local residents have alleged that the disappearances were an act of reprisal carried out by Tenharim community members in response to the death of their leader. Allegedly, on 25 December 2013, indigenous people from the Tenharim reserve and from other indigenous communities in the area were in the town center of Humaitá when a crowd of local residents began to harass them. The crowd grew to an estimated 3,000 people who reportedly set fire to the local headquarters of FUNAI (Fundação Nacional do Índio) and Funasa (Fundação Nacional de Saúde), two State agencies working with indigenous communities in the area.
23. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights do not reflect a response from the Government of Brazil to his communication of 2 January 2011 within the period covered by this report. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about the patterns of violence against indigenous peoples in the state of Amazonas in association with their efforts to defend their lands. As noted in his above observations on the recent incidents in Mato Grosso do Sul, the Special Rapporteur considers the creation of a specific forum to deal with conflicts between indigenous groups and farmers in that state to be an encouraging positive step, which could be replicated in other conflict areas such as in the state of Amazonas.
24. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate his recommendations and observations made in his report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Brazil regarding the adoption of measures to protect indigenous peoples from violence and provide redress for the taking of their lands. In particular he will like to highlight the recommendations regarding the adoption of measures to improve the mediation capacity of FUNAI and other relevant institutions to deal with conflicting interests in relation to indigenous land claims, as well as for further coordinated measures to secure the safety of indigenous individuals and communities and protection of their lands in areas of high incidence of violence. Finally, he reiterates the recommendation that authorities should ensure that persons who have committed crimes against indigenous individuals be swiftly brought to justice (A/HRC/12/34/ Add.2, paras. 84, 90).
Case No. CMR 4/2012: Allegations conerning human rights violations against the Mbororo people
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 04/04/2013
State reply: 19/11/2013
25. On 4 April 2013, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government regarding alleged threats and reprisals against members of the Mbororo indigenous people. In particular, the Special Rapporteur expressed his concerns about allegations received that threats and reprisals have been perpetrated against Mbororo individuals as a result of his 25 October 2012 communication and of their ongoing work in defense and promotion of the human rights of Mbororo indigenous people. In that earlier communication the Special Rapporteur had brought to the attention of the Government of Cameroon allegations received regarding persistent human rights violations against the Mbororo indigenous people in the Northwest region of the country at the hands of a local landowner. According to the information received, the Mbororo had allegedly endured dispossession of their land; illegal and unjust imprisonment; loss of cattle; the calling into question their leadership structures and institutions; and sexual exploitation of Mbororo women. Serious concerns had been expressed that the government did not take sufficient measures to investigate, punish and prevent the alleged human rights violations committed by the landowner against members of the Mbororo indigenous people.
Reply of the Government
26. In its response of 19 November 2013, the Government informed that in 2008 it initiated a study regarding the definition of “indigenous peoples” within the national context. This study has identified six criteria that, taken together, should be used to understand whether a group may be considered “indigenous” in Cameroon. It noted that the preliminary results of this indicate that only “the Pygmies” meet all the criteria identified, and that that Mbororo meet only some of these criteria. However, the Government noted that self-identification is still an important factor in determining whether a group is “indigenous”.
27. Further, the Government denied that the landowner has broken Cameroon law in acquiring property under his name. It stated that adequate legal mechanisms exist for the Mbororo to object to the establishment of title by that landowner; however they have not pursued those legal avenues. At the same time, it informed that investigations initiated in 2003 on the alleged encroachment on Mbororo lands by that landowner are still ongoing. The Government provided information denying the allegations of false imprisonment, racist attacks against the Mbororo in the media, and disruption of Mbororo leadership structures allegedly committed by the landowner. It also stated that no legal complaints have been made against the landowner for the alleged sexual exploitation of Mbororo women.
28. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government of Cameroon for its response of 19 November 2013. He takes note of the information provided by the Government that it is carrying out a study to determine which groups in the country may be considered indigenous. However, he is concerned that the development of a definition for “indigenous peoples” or the use of restrictive criteria to determine a group’s indigenous status could be problematic. In particular, the Special Rapporteur fears that this could lead to the failure to apply international standards that are most appropriate to address the kinds of human rights concerns that certain groups face in common with groups that are generally identified as indigenous. He urges the Government to not be restrictive in its approach on this matter.
29. Further, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the information provided regarding the allegations concerning human rights abuses against indigenous peoples at the hands of a landowner. He is interested to hear that the Government initiated investigations into possible encroachments into Mbororo lands, but notes that there seems to be significant delays in finalizing that investigation. Finally, the Special Rapporteur notes that the Government did not provide information on measures taken to investigate the incidents described in the communication of 4 April 2013 related to threats and reprisals against Mbororo individuals. He again urges the Government to investigate the matters raised in the that communication and to take all necessary measures to protect the Mbororo human rights defenders against possible risks to their life and personal integrity as a result of their human rights work.
Caso No. CMR 4/2013: Allegations of threats against MBOSCUDA members
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 04/09/2013
State reply: None within period covered by report
30. In a joint allegation letter dated 4 September 2013, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples brought to the attention of the Government of Cameroon information received concerning allegations of attempted murder and acts of harassment against human rights defenders affiliated with the organisation Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association – MBOSCUDA (Association pour le dévelopment social et culturel Mbororo).
31. According to the information received, on 1 July 2012, there was an attempted murder of Mr. Jeidoh Duni, a lawyer within the organization MBOSCUDA. It is alleged that, following their participation as witnesses in an investigation, Messrs. Jeidoh Duni, Adamou Isa Sali Haman, Dahiru Beloumi and Njawga Duni were summoned to appear before a military court in Bafoussam on 23 April 2013 for possession of illegal firearms. On 10 May 2013, Mr. Musa Usman Ndamba, Vice-President of the organization MBOSCUDA appeared before the court of First Instance in Bamenda under chargers for spreading false information. The trial was adjourned to 27 May 2013 and 19 August 2013. It is alleged that these measures are linked to the report submitted by the organization MBOSCUDA at the second Universal Periodic Review of Cameroon.
32. The Special Rapporteur regrets that there is no response from the Government of Cameroon to the communication of 4 September 2013 in the records of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights within the period covered by the present report. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about information he continues to receive about persistent threats, harassment and attacks against members of MBOSCUDA. As stated in the communication, the information received raises serious concerns about the risks to the rights to life, freedom of expression and assembly and other fundamental rights of members of MBOSCUDA as a result of their advocacy for the rights of the Mbororo people and for their participation and cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms and institutions.
33. The Special Rapporteur would like to again urge the Government of Cameroon to adopt all necessary measures to ensure the protection of the human rights of the individuals mentioned and investigate and sanction those responsible for the alleged actions against these individuals. Additionally, he again urges the Government to adopt appropriate measures to prevent the repetition of these types of acts.
Case No. CAN 4/2013: Allegations of discrimination in funding and retaliation acts against Ms. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 07/11/2013
State reply: 10/01/2014
34. In his letter of 7 November 2012, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, raised concerns regarding allegations of discrimination in funding and retaliation acts against Ms. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. According to the information received, in 2007 the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada filed a complaint against the Government of Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act, before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination in the funding provided to First Nations for child welfare. Reportedly, after the case was filed in 2007, Ms Blackstock and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada experienced what they perceived as several forms of retaliation by the Government of Canada. This allegedly included the monitoring of Ms Blackstock’s personal Facebook page, her professional meetings and presentations, and her Indian Status registry.
Reply of the Government
35. In its response of 9 January 2014, the Government of Canada provided general information on the protections in Canadian law to ensure that public officials respect and protect individuals’ privacy and freedom of association. In relation to the specific allegations raised, the Government asserted that 1) funding levels for the provision of child and family services on reserve have increased subsequent to the filing of the 2007 Canadian Human Rights Act complaint; 2) funding of the Caring Society has not changed as a result of the 2007 Canadian Human Rights Act complaint; 3) that public officials conducted themselves with reasonable prudence in light of the 2007 Canadian Human Rights Act complaint, and that there was no retaliation against Ms Blackstock; and 4) that the allegations relating to the collection and use of Ms Blackstock’s personal information have been investigated and appropriately addressed. The Government noted that in May 2013, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner issued a report on the case in response to a complaint filed by Ms Blackstock, which determined that some of the allegations made were well-founded while others were not. The Government stated that it has accepted and is taking steps to implement the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations. In conclusion, the Government stated that it has acted in full accordance with domestic legal obligations and the treaties to which it is a party, in relation to the situation of Ms Blackstock.
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
36. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Canada for its reply. He notes that there still appears to be divergent perspectives regarding the facts of the case. Nonetheless, the Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the information provided by Canada that it accepts and is complying with the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, and he hopes that this will assist in addressing any outstanding concerns relating to Ms Blackstock . With respect to the broader issue of allegations of discrimination in the funding provided to First Nations for child welfare, the Special Rapporteur would like to draw attention to the observations and recommendations made in this regard in his report on the Situation of indigenous peoples in Canada (A/HRC/27/52.Add.2).
Caso No. CHL 1/2013: Presuntas amenazas contra el líder indígena mapuche Francisco Millaquén y su familia con motivo de su trabajo en defensa de los derechos del pueblo indígena mapuche
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 03/09/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 01/10/2013
37. En una comunicación enviada conjuntamente con la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de derechos humanos el 3 de septiembre de 2013, el Relator Especial transmitió las alegaciones en relación con las presuntas amenazas en contra del líder indígena mapuche Francisco Vera Millaquén y su familia con motivo de su trabajo en defensa de los derechos del pueblo indígena mapuche. Según la información recibida, Francisco Vera Millaquén es un werken, o dirigente, de la comunidad indígena mapuche huilliche de Pepiukelen, en el sector Pargua, región de Los Lagos. Durante varios años, el Sr. Vera Millaquén ha trabajado en contra de la presencia de empresas salmoneras en el territorio tradicional de la comunidad de Pepiukelen, y él es reconocido como un defensor de los derechos territoriales del pueblo mapuche a nivel nacional. Desde abril de 2012, el Sr. Vera Millaquén ha denunciado una serie de actos de amenaza de muerte en su contra.
Respuesta del Gobierno
38. En su respuesta del 1 de octubre de 2013, el Gobierno de Chile informó que existen tres investigaciones criminales vigentes en donde el Sr. Vera Millaquén ostenta la calidad de víctima y/o denunciante. Según informa el Gobierno, dos de las investigaciones se refieren al delito de amenazas en la cual el Sr. Vera Millaquén es la víctima. La tercera investigación corresponde a una querella interpuesta por el Sr. Vera Millaquén en contra de un tercero por incumplimiento de una norma que protegía su propiedad. De acuerdo al Gobierno, existen diversas diligencias pendientes de realización con respecto a esas investigaciones, sin embargo no es posible divulgar sus resultados debido a que la normativa penal dispone el carácter secreto de las investigaciones para terceros ajenos al procedimiento. El Gobierno afirmó que esas investigaciones son permanentemente monitoreadas por la Fiscalía Regional de Los Lagos, y tanto el Sr. Vera Millaquén como sus hijas son beneficiarios de programas de protección de la Unidad Regional de Atención a Víctimas y testigos de esa Fiscalía Regional.
Observaciones del Relator Especial
39. El Relator Especial agradece al Gobierno de Chile por su respuesta y valora la información proporcionada en relación a las investigaciones y medidas de protección adoptadas en beneficio del Sr. Francisco Vera Millaquén y sus hijas. El Relator Especial espera que estas medidas sean efectivas para prevenir futuros actos de amenazas y posibles violaciones de los derechos humanos del Sr. Vera Millaquén y su familia. A la vez, espera que las personas que pudieran ser responsables de los actos de amenaza denunciados sean sancionadas en conformidad con la ley.
Caso No. CHL 2/2013: Intercambio de información relacionado al proyecto minero El Morro y el deber de la consulta
Carta del Relator Especial: 07/11/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 06/01/2014
40. En su comunicación del 7 de noviembre de 2013, el Relator Especial trasmitió al Gobierno de Chile alegaciones sobre la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental para el proyecto minero El Morro por parte del Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental de Chile. Según la información recibida, el proyecto afectaría a la Comunidad Agrícola Diaguita de los Huascoaltinos. Se informó de que luego de varios intentos de iniciar un proceso de consulta con la comunidad con respecto al proyecto, el Gobierno habría decidido desistir de sus intentos de consultar a la comunidad supuestamente por la negativa de la comunidad de participar en un proceso de consulta.
41. El Relator Especial expresó su preocupación sobre una nota emitida en octubre de 2013 por el Director Nacional de la Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena (CONADI) relativa al proyecto y que hace referencia de manera incompleta a unas declaraciones que el Relator Especial previamente había hecho sobre el tema del deber estatal de consultar a los pueblos indígenas. El Relator Especial brindó al Gobierno una clarificación de los puntos que él previamente había expuesto sobre el deber de la consulta y, asimismo, solicitó al Gobierno información sobre la forma en que se ha cumplido con ese deber en relación con los pueblos indígenas afectados por el proyecto El Morro.
Respuesta del Gobierno
42. En su respuesta con fecha de 6 de enero de 2014, el Gobierno expresó su compromiso de cumplir con el deber de consultar a los pueblos indígenas conforme a los estándares internacionales aplicables. En su respuesta, el Gobierno brindó información detallada sobre los esfuerzos que el Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental habría realizado por más de un año para solicitar reuniones con la comunidad de Los Huascoaltinos con el fin de determinar el inicio de un proceso de consulta y sobre una respuesta por parte de la comunidad a las propuestas hechas por el Gobierno con respecto al procedimiento de consulta previa. Según el Gobierno, dada la supuesta negativa de la comunidad de responder de manera concreta a sus propuestas relacionadas con la consulta previa, el Gobierno decidió proceder con la evaluación ambiental del proyecto lo cual dio lugar a su aprobación final. A la vez, el Gobierno informó que tras la aprobación del proyecto, la comunidad de Los Huascoaltinos interpuso un recurso legal ante la Corte de Apelaciones de Copiapó y un recurso administrativo ante el Comité de Ministros del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente en contra de la resolución que dio la certificación ambiental a favor del proyecto.
43. El Gobierno mantiene que si bien el consentimiento por la parte indígena es el objeto de la consulta, no es un requisito en este caso, al no presentarse la posibilidad de que la comunidad sea reasentada como consecuencia del proyecto. Por tanto, según el Gobierno, al haber cumplido de buena fe con sus esfuerzos de desarrollar un proceso de consulta con el fin de alcanzar acuerdos, y al no lograrse un acuerdo, el Estado puede tomar una decisión sobre la medida en cuestión lo cual en este caso fue proceder con la aprobación del proyecto. Finalmente, el Gobierno afirma que en el marco del proceso de evaluación ambiental realizado para el proyecto El Morro, se han previsto las medidas de mitigación y compensación adecuadas por cualquier impacto ambiental que tuviese el proyecto sobre las comunidades indígenas aledañas.
44. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno de Chile por su respuesta y toma nota de los pasos que ha dado el Gobierno para concertar con la comunidad Diaguita de Los Huascoaltinos un proceso de consulta previa en relación con el proyecto El Morro. Asimismo, toma nota de los motivos expuestos por el Gobierno por los cuales habría considerado que los esfuerzos para iniciar un proceso de consulta previa no dieron resultados. No obstante lo expuesto por el Gobierno, el Relator Especial no puede valorar si en efecto la comunidad Diaguita había rehusado claramente ser consultado y así renunciado su derecho a la consulta previa. Por otro lado, debe tenerse en cuenta, tal como informa el Gobierno, que la comunidad de Los Huascoaltinos interpuso acciones legales y administrativas en contra de la resolución ambiental a favor del proyecto. Independientemente de los resultados de las acciones legales referidas, el Relator Especial quisiera reiterar sus apreciaciones sobre el deber de la consulta previa y los casos en que el Estado debe obtener el consentimiento de la parte indígena en relación con proyectos de aprovechamiento de recursos naturales que les afectan.
45. Como había expuesto el Relator Especial en su comunicación anterior al Gobierno, al presentarse un caso en que los pueblos indígenas se oponen a ser consultados (lo que la CONADI afirma haya sido la postura de la comunidad de Los Huascoaltinos y de otras comunidades indígenas posiblemente afectadas por el proyecto), estos pueblos estarían negando su consentimiento al igual que si hubiesen entrado en un proceso de consulta y hubiesen rehusado otorgar su consentimiento o entrar en acuerdos dentro de ese proceso. Si, en ausencia del consentimiento, el Estado decide proceder con una medida o actividad que resulte en una restricción de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, debe cumplir con los criterios internacionales relacionados con las limitaciones permisibles a los derechos humanos, tal como ha explicado el Relator Especial anteriormente (A/HRC/21/41, paras. 31-36). Es decir, las limitaciones a los derechos humanos deben cumplir con los criterios de necesidad y proporcionalidad en relación con una finalidad pública válida dentro del marco de la protección a los derechos humanos.
46. De esa manera, si el impacto de una actividad propuesta tuviese un impacto profundo y significativo sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas - tal como suele ser el caso de una mina en un territorio indígena – ello haría difícil que en tales situaciones se pudiera demostrar una necesidad y proporcionalidad sin el consentimiento de la parte indígena, aunque hubiera un propósito estatal válido. Por lo tanto, en tales circunstancias de impactos significativos se debe considerar que, por lo general, el consentimiento es exigible, más allá de ser un objetivo de la consulta (A/HRC/21/41, párr. 65). Si bien, como señala el Gobierno, el reasentamiento es uno de los supuestos señalados en los instrumentos internacionales sobre derechos de los pueblos indígenas en donde el consentimiento es exigible, existan otras posibles afectaciones significativas a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que solo deberían realizarse con el consentimiento de la parte indígena (A/HRC/12/34, párr. 47). Por otro lado, el Relator Especial también considera que es necesario que toda decisión del Estado de permitir una actividad extractiva sin el consentimiento de la parte indígena afectada sea susceptible de una revisión judicial independiente con el fin de garantizar el cumplimiento de las normas internacionales aplicables a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, y determinar de manera independiente si el Estado ha cumplido o no con su obligación de justificar toda limitación de derechos y de cumplir con las otras salvaguardas aplicables (A/HRC/21/41, párrs. 39, 87).
Caso No. COL 7/2013: Alegaciones relacionadas con varios temas en seguimiento al informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas en Colombia
Carta del Relator Especial: 08/07/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 11/09/2013
47. En su comunicación del 8 de julio de 2013, el Relator Especial transmitió las alegaciones relacionadas con varios temas en seguimiento a su informe sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas en Colombia (A/HRC/15/37.Add.3) del 2010. Según la información recibida desde la publicación del informe del Relator Especial, los pueblos indígenas en Colombia han continuado enfrentando una serie de problemas, incluyendo casos de asesinatos, amenazas, desaparición, desplazamientos y confinamientos de miembros de pueblos indígenas; de retrasos en la implementación de planes de salvaguarda y otras medidas de protección a favor de pueblos indígenas en riesgo de extinción; de los riesgos generados por la presencia y actuación de los actores del conflicto armado y la presencia del crimen organizado en los territorios indígenas; de retrasos en los procesos de reconocimiento, ampliación y restitución de territorios indígenas; y de la implementación del deber de la consulta en el contexto de proyectos de industrias extractivas propuestos en o alrededor de territorios indígenas.
Respuesta del Gobierno
48. El Gobierno de Colombia en su respuesta del 11 de septiembre de 2013 proporcionó información sobre medidas que se habrían adoptado en seguimiento a las observaciones y recomendaciones que hizo el Relator Especial en su informe de 2010. Éstas incluyen una serie de medidas de protección desarrolladas por la Unidad Nacional de Protección (adscrita al Ministerio del Interior) a favor de personas y pueblos indígenas en situaciones de riesgo o amenaza a sus derechos humanos.
49. Con respecto al tema de la consulta previa, el Gobierno informó que se ha trabajado en un proyecto de ley estatutaria para reglamentar la consulta el cual se encuentra en etapa de socialización “con cada uno de los sectores que pueden verse involucrados en el desarrollo de la Consulta”. Asimismo, informó sobre la atención que se ha dado al tema por parte de la Dirección de Consulta Previa del Ministerio del Interior, la entidad estatal encargada de coordinar los procesos de consulta previa. Señaló como etapa fundamental para procesos de consulta previa relacionados con obras o proyectos de aprovechamiento de recursos naturales, la protocolización de acuerdos entre las partes interesadas en realizar la obra o proyecto y los pueblos indígenas afectados.
50. El Gobierno informó que se habría formulado, en consulta con representantes indígenas, el Programa Nacional de Garantía de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en Colombia. Según el Gobierno, en este proceso se llegaron a acuerdos que incluyeron líneas de acción en áreas tales como territorio, autonomía y autogobierno, adecuación institucional, participación indígena y políticas de Estado, consulta previa, fortalecimiento de la identidad cultural, salud, y derechos humanos. Sin embargo, no informó sobre el nivel de implementación de las líneas de acción acordadas en el marco de este programa.
51. También afirmó que se habrían consultado con los pueblos indígenas concernidos los planes de salvaguarda étnica y planes de atención de urgencia ordenados por la Corte Constitucional de Colombia en sus Autos 004/09, 382/10 y 174/11. Según el Gobierno, entre 2009 y 2011 se adelantó el proceso de diseño de planes de salvaguarda étnica con nueve pueblos indígenas y un plan de atención de urgencia con el pueblo Awá.
52. Por otro lado, el Gobierno informó que se ha avanzado en el diseño de un programa de sensibilización y educación de miembros de las fuerzas armadas en materia de derechos humanos de los pueblos indígenas. Según el Gobierno, ello contribuiría a mejorar el conocimiento y relacionamiento que tuvieran las fuerzas armadas con los pueblos indígenas.
53. En relación con los procesos de reparación a favor de pueblos indígenas que habrían perdido sus tierras por causa del conflicto armado, el Gobierno informó sobre las medidas iniciales que se han adoptado para implementar el Decreto 4633 de 2011, “Por medio del cual se dictan medidas de asistencia, atención, reparación integral y de restitución de derechos territoriales a las víctimas pertenecientes a los pueblos y comunidades indígenas”. Estas medidas incluyen la recabación de información sobre la población beneficiaria, la socialización del contenido del Decreto 4633 a miembros de pueblos indígenas y funcionarios de Estado, el fortalecimiento organizativo de los pueblos indígenas, la provisión de ayuda humanitaria para pueblos indígenas en situación de emergencia, y la realización de procesos de concertación con determinados pueblos indígenas con el fin de facilitar su retorno a las tierras de donde fueron desplazados. Asimismo, el Gobierno informó que la Unidad de Restitución de Tierras habría realizado un estudio inicial de la situación particular de 14 comunidades indígenas cuyas tierras habrían sido afectadas por el conflicto armado, con el fin de facilitar la restitución de sus tierras.
54. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno de Colombia por su respuesta informando sobre las distintas iniciativas que ha realizado a favor de los pueblos indígenas. El Relator Especial toma nota de las medidas de protección de carácter individual y colectivo a favor de personas y pueblos en situación de riesgo. Espera que estas medidas realmente sean efectivas para atender las distintas situaciones de violencia que continúan enfrentando líderes, autoridades y comunidades indígenas, tal como fue reflejado en la comunicación del Relator Especial del 8 de julio de 2013. Es necesario continuar con el fortalecimiento de los esfuerzos para prevenir la ocurrencia de violencia contra pueblos indígenas así como de investigar y sancionar las personas responsables de esos hechos de violencia.
55. El Relator Especial toma nota de lo informado por el Gobierno sobre el desarrollo de un proyecto de ley estatutaria para reglamentar la consulta previa. El Relator Especial quisiera reiterar su recomendación de que la definición y adopción de políticas públicas y leyes relacionadas con los pueblos indígenas deben contar con la participación plena y efectiva de las autoridades y representantes indígenas (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 57). Asimismo enfatiza que en todo caso los procesos de consulta en relación con medidas legislativas o administrativas, o actividades de aprovechamiento de recursos naturales que afecten a los pueblos indígenas sean realizados conforme a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, el Convenio No. 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales, y los lineamientos sentados por la jurisprudencia de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia sobre el tema.
56. El Relator Especial agradece la información recibida sobre la realización de acuerdos entre representantes de Gobierno y de los pueblos indígenas en el marco del Programa Nacional de Garantía de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en Colombia. El Relator Especial espera que los distintos acuerdos que resultaron de este proceso sean implementados eficazmente y en coordinación y consulta con los pueblos indígenas concernidos.
57. Con respecto al diseño e implementación de los planes de salvaguardia étnica y de atención de urgencia ordenados por la Corte Constitucional, el Relator Especial reconoce que el diseño de nueve planes de salvaguardia étnica y un plan de atención de urgencia que menciona el Gobierno representan avances importantes. La situación grave y urgente que enfrentan los pueblos indígenas en situación de riesgo de extinción requiere de acciones prontas y decididas para proteger a estos pueblos según lo dispuesto por la Corte Constitucional.
58. El Relator Especial también agradece la información recibida sobre los esfuerzos para capacitar a miembros de las fuerzas armadas en materia de derechos humanos y concuerda con el Gobierno que ello ayudaría mejorar su relacionamiento con los pueblos indígenas. El Relator Especial reitera su recomendación sobre la necesidad de que cualquier presencia necesaria de la fuerza pública en territorios indígenas sea concertada con las autoridades indígenas correspondientes (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 67). Ello representaría un importante principio para el mantenimiento de confianza y buenas relaciones entre la fuerza pública y los pueblos indígenas.
59. Con respecto a las medidas adoptadas por el Gobierno para implementar el Decreto 4633 de 2011 sobre la restitución de tierras a los pueblos indígenas desplazados en el contexto del conflicto armado, el Relator Especial reitera que estas medidas deben ser implementadas con la participación efectiva de los pueblos indígenas y con la debida diligencia y celeridad que amerita la situación. El Relator Especial espera que el Gobierno atienda cualquier preocupación expresada por los pueblos indígenas sobre las reparaciones que requieren teniendo en cuenta sus visiones y propuestas de largo plazo en los aspectos sociales, culturales y ambientales.
60. El Relator Especial observa que la respuesta del Gobierno no incluyó información sobre otros temas relacionados con la constitución, ampliación y saneamiento de territorios indígenas señalados en su comunicación del 8 de julio de 2013. El Relator Especial reitera su recomendación de que el Gobierno tome las medidas necesarias para acelerar los procesos de constitución, ampliación y saneamiento de resguardos indígenas, estableciendo plazos determinados para atender las solicitudes de los pueblos indígenas al respecto (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 73). Tal como notó el Relator Especial en su informe de 2010, “el reconocimiento y protección de los derechos territoriales de los pueblos indígenas es fundamental para establecer condiciones sostenibles de paz y asegurar la supervivencia de los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 74). Asimismo, reitera la necesidad de armonizar la política pública de desarrollo económico del país, en especial en lo que respecta a proyectos extractivos o de infraestructura, con los derechos colectivos e individuales de los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 76).
61. Finalmente, el Relator Especial quisiera reiterar su recomendación de que el Estado busque una salida negociada al conflicto armado teniendo en cuenta las iniciativas de diálogo y de construcción de la paz propuestas por las autoridades indígenas y sus organizaciones (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párr. 59).
Caso No. COL 1/2014: Alegaciones sobre el peligro de asesinato de lideres del pueblo indígena Embera Chamí
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 23/01/2014
Repuesta del Estado: 22/04/2014
62. En una comunicación conjunta del 23 de enero de 2014, el Relator Especial sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y los Relatores Especiales sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, y sobre la tortura y otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes, transmitieron las alegaciones sobre el riesgo de ejecución de un líder del pueblo indígena Embera Chamí, y sobre el asesinato de dos líderes Embera Chamí por miembros de los “grupos armados ilegales post desmovilización”. Según la información recibida, el 1 de enero de 2014, el Sr. Berlain Saigama Javari y el Sr. Jhon Braulio Saigama, sobrinos del líder de la comunidad Embera Chamí de La Esperanza, Sr. Flaminio Onogama Gutiérrez, habrían sido asesinados por supuestos miembros de los “grupos armados ilegales post desmovilización”, en el municipio de El Dovio, Departamento del Valle de Cauca. Según la información, con anterioridad a estos hechos, miembros de los mencionados grupos armados habrían entrado a la comunidad de La Esperanza para cuestionar a los sobrinos del Sr. Flaminio Onogama Gutierrez sobre su paradero. Según la información, el Sr. Flaminio Onogama Gutierrez, se había opuesto abiertamente a la presencia de los “grupos armados ilegales post desmovilización” en su comunidad.
Respuesta del Gobierno
63. En su respuesta del 22 de abril de 2014, el Gobierno informó que la Policía Nacional ha realizado medidas de protección para mitigar el riesgo contra la vida del Sr. Flaminio Onogama que consisten principalmente de rondas policiales en su lugar de residencia y trabajo. Informa que para la protección de los familiares de las víctimas, la Policía Nacional y la Oficina de Derechos Humanos del Departamento de Policía Valle han mantenido contacto con el gobernador del resguardo indígena más cercando de donde ocurrieron los hechos, con el fin de atender cualquier requerimiento en materia de seguridad. El Gobierno agregó que se han realizado reuniones con los habitantes de ese resguardo para capacitarles en materia de derechos de las víctimas en el contexto del conflicto armado. Por otro lado, informó que los hechos referidos ocurrieron fuera de territorio indígena, y que los Srs. Berlain Saigama Javari y Jhon Braulio Saigama no eran parte del resguardo indígena sino que eran personas desplazadas del departamento de Meta. El Gobierno afirmó que la Policía Nacional ha tenido un constante diálogo con las autoridades y organizaciones indígenas regionales para atender a cuestiones de orden público.
64. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno de Colombia por su respuesta del 22 de abril de 2014. Valora la información proporcionada sobre las medidas de protección implementadas a favor del Sr. Flaminio Onogama. A la vez, espera que el Gobierno asegure que las investigaciones respecto a la muerte de los Srs. Berlain Saigama Javari y Jhon Braulio Saigama se realicen con la debida diligencia con el fin de sancionar a las personas responsables. El Relator Especial valora los esfuerzos mencionados para mantener la comunicación entre la Policía Nacional y comunidades indígenas a fin de atender cuestiones de seguridad. El Relator Especial espera que estas iniciativas sean fortalecidas para asegurar el cumplimiento de estándares internacionales de derechos de los pueblos indígenas, en particular en lo que concierne la realización de consultas con pueblos indígenas sobre la presencia de la fuerza pública en sus territorios (Ver, A/HRC/15/37/Add. 2, párr. 67).
65. No obstante las medidas de protección mencionadas por el Gobierno en su respuesta, el Relator Especial mantiene su preocupación sobre la vulnerabilidad que enfrentan los pueblos indígenas debido a las actividades de grupos armados irregulares como los denominados “grupos armados ilegales post desmovilización”. Por tanto, el Relator Especial reitera su recomendación de que se adopten de forma urgente, y de manera consultada con los mismos pueblos, las medidas presupuestarias y operativas para fortalecer los esquemas de protección a favor de los pueblos indígenas, sus líderes y autoridades. Asimismo, reitera su recomendación de que las autoridades del Estado, especialmente la Fiscalía, adopten todas las medidas necesarias para investigar seriamente las violaciones a los derechos humanos de los pueblos indígenas, y llevar a la justicia a los responsables, así como asegurar la no repetición de hechos similares. De acuerdo a lo expuesto en su informe de 2010, el Relator Especial reitera su llamado a la Fiscalía para que de forma urgente disponga la constitución de comisiones especiales de investigadores para los casos de violencia contra los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párrs. 61-63).
Caso No. COL 4/2014: Los supuestos efectos nocivos de la reanudación de los riegos químicos aéreos (fumigaciones) de cultivos ilícitos en Colombia
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 31/03/2014
Repuesta del Estado: Ninguna dentro del periodo del presente informe
66. En su comunicación del 31 de marzo de 2014, el Relator Especial sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas junto con el Relator Especial sobre el derecho de toda persona al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental transmitieron las alegaciones relacionada con los efectos nocivos de la reanudación de los riegos químicos aéreos (fumigaciones) de cultivos ilícitos en Colombia. En febrero de 2014, el Gobierno anunció que iba reanudar las campañas de riegos de cultivos de coca. Se informa que varios expertos habían expresado su preocupación sobre esta práctica, alegando que ha causado impactos perjudiciales significativos en la salud y seguridad alimenticia de comunidades rurales y de pueblos indígenas. Se alega que dicha fumigación ocasiona efectos graves en la salud y no cumple con los fines previstos, que es la destrucción de plantas narcóticas, y contribuye a la destrucción de la vegetación sobre la cual no va dirigida.
67. El Relator Especial toma nota de que no consta en los archivos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos una respuesta del Gobierno de Colombia a su comunicación del 31 de marzo de 2014 dentro del periodo del presente informe. En su informe de 2010 sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas en Colombia (A/HRC/15/37/Add.3), el Relator Especial expresó su preocupación sobre la situación de la fumigación de cultivos de uso ilícito y los efectos particulares que ha tenido sobre los pueblos indígenas. El Relator Especial notó que a pesar de una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional ordenando la suspensión de fumigaciones aéreas de cultivos de uso ilícito hasta realizar consultas previas con los pueblos indígenas, y de los esfuerzos del Gobierno de emprender procesos de consulta al respecto, han persistido las actividades de erradicación de cultivos supuestamente ilícitos y de fumigación con glifosato sin haberse consultado previamente a las comunidades indígenas afectadas, lo cual ha resultado en problemas de salud y de crisis alimentaria.
68. Por tanto, el Relator Especial reitera la recomendación incluida en su informe de 2010 de que “[a] menos que lo pida expresamente una comunidad indígena con previo conocimiento completo de sus implicaciones, no deberán practicarse fumigaciones aéreas en plantíos de cultivos ilícitos cercanas a poblados indígenas o zonas de abastecimiento de estos poblados” (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 3, párrs. 43, 77).
14. Costa Rica
Caso No. CRI 1/2014: Seguimiento al informe del Relator Especial de 2011 sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas afectados por el proyecto hidroeléctrico el Diquís en Costa Rica
Carta del Relator Especial: 25/02/2014
Repuesta del Estado: Ninguna dentro del periodo del presente informe
Carta de seguimiento del Relator Especial
69. En su comunicación del 25 de febrero de 2014, el Relator Especial solicitó al Gobierno información sobre el proceso de consulta que había recomendado el Relator Especial en su informe de 2011 sobre “La situación de los pueblos indígenas afectados por el proyecto hidroeléctrico el Diquís en Costa Rica” (A/HRC/18/35/Add.8). Desde la publicación del informe, el Relator Especial ha continuado monitoreando esta situación, incluyendo durante una visita al país en marzo de 2012. En la carta, el Relator Especial hace una serie de preguntas sobre el estado actual del proyecto y asuntos relacionados. En particular, preguntó sobre los avances que se han dado desde el establecimiento en enero de 2013 de una mesa de diálogo entre representantes del Gobierno y los pueblos indígenas afectados para tratar asuntos relacionados con el proyecto El Diquís y otras cuestiones tal como la revisión de la ley de desarrollo autónomo. El Relator Especial también solicitó información sobre los mecanismos empleados para garantizar la legítima representación de los pueblos indígenas en la mesa de diálogo. Asimismo solicitó información adicional sobre el estado implementación de otras recomendaciones hechas en su informe de 2011 relacionadas con el saneamiento de tierras indígenas en el área de afectación del proyecto.
70. El Relator Especial lamenta que no consta en los archivos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos una respuesta por parte del Gobierno de Costa Rica a su última comunicación del 25 de febrero de 2014. No obstante, valora el diálogo que ha mantenido con el Gobierno de Costa Rica desde la publicación de su informe de 2011 y los esfuerzos que ha dado el Gobierno en implementar las recomendaciones hechas por el Relator Especial. Tal como había manifestado en su último informe de comunicaciones con respecto al presente caso, el Relator Especial espera que la mesa de diálogo referida represente un espacio efectivo para la concertación entre el Estado y los pueblos indígenas para resolver las preocupaciones relacionadas con el proyecto El Diquís y los otros temas de interés para los pueblos indígenas de Costa Rica (A/HRC/24/41/Add. 4, párr. 76). Asimismo, espera que los esfuerzos que el Gobierno previamente había mencionado para resolver cuestiones relacionadas con la delimitación y demarcación de territorios indígenas continúen y que, a la vez sigan adoptándose medidas decididas para prevenir casos de violencia contra los pueblos indígenas en contextos de conflictos generados por las “invasiones” de tierras indígenas por no indígenas.
Caso No. ECU 4/2013: La disolución de la Fundación Pachamama y supuestos actos intimidatorios por desconocidos contras María Belén Páez, Directora de la Fundación Pachamama
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 31/12/2013
Repuesta del Estado: Ninguna dentro del periodo del presente informe
71. En una comunicación conjunta enviada el 31 de diciembre de 2013, el Relator Especial, junto con los Relatores Especiales sobre la promoción y la protección del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión; sobre el derecho a la libertad de reunión y de asociación pacífica; sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, transmitieron las alegaciones relacionadas con el presunto cierre de la Fundación Pachamama, una organización que trabaja por derechos medioambientales y de los pueblos indígenas de la Amazonía. Según las informaciones recibidas, un fotógrafo y un reportero de la Fundación Pachamama habrían participado pacíficamente para fines de cobertura mediática en una manifestación contra la XI Ronda Petrolera en Quito el 28 de noviembre de 2013, durante la cual se alega que habrían tenido lugar actos de agresión contra representantes internacionales. El 1 de diciembre de 2013, se habría acusado públicamente a la Fundación de estar involucrada en dichos actos violentos. El 4 de diciembre de 2013, un operativo del Estado habría cerrado la sede de la Fundación Pachamama, citando la participación de ésta en la manifestación del 28 de noviembre como causal de su disolución. Se informa también, que el 26 de diciembre de 2013, la directora de Pachamama habría sido sujeta a actos intimidatorios por desconocidos.
72. El Relator Especial lamenta que no se haya registrado ninguna respuesta por parte del Gobierno del Ecuador a la comunicación conjunta del 31 de diciembre de 2012. El Relator Especial reitera la preocupación expresada en esa comunicación sobre el cierre de la Fundación Pachamama. Es particularmente preocupante la alegación de que el cierre de la organización fue motivada por el cuestionamiento que haya hecho esa organización a las políticas de desarrollo extractivo promovidas por el Gobierno y sus efectos sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas.
73. Por tanto, de acuerdo a lo expresado en la comunicación conjunta, el Relator Especial espera que el Gobierno garantice procedimientos legales y administrativos eficaces para que, conforme a los derechos de defensa y debido proceso legal, los miembros de esta organización tengan la oportunidad de cumplir con cualquier requisito legal necesario para poder volver a constituirse como organización, y por otro lado, para que también tengan la oportunidad de exponer sus argumentos y defensas en relación con los motivos por los cuales fue cerrada su organización. Asimismo, el Relator Especial reitera el llamado al Gobierno a que adopte las medidas necesarias para asegurar el derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión, y de reunión y de asociación de los pueblos indígenas y de las organizaciones que defienden los derechos de los pueblos indígenas.
Case No. ETH 5/2012: The situation of the alleged resettlement of agro-pastoralist groups in the lower Omo valley in the context of large-scale agricultural development projects associated with the Gibe III hydroelectric dam
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 21/06/2013
State reply: 20/08/2013
Letter in follow up to allegations previously transmitted
74. On 21 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Ethiopia, in follow up to an earlier communication of 22 October 2012 transmitting allegations regarding agricultural development in the lower Omo valley associated with the construction of the Gibe III hydroelectric project, as well as about the Government‘s “villagization” programme. According to the information received, resettlements of indigenous agro-pastoralist groups are underway in the lower Omo valley and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region to make way for the Government’s proposed development plans for these areas. The resettlements are reportedly part of the Ethiopian Government’s larger “villagization” program instituted in at least four other regions of the country. The program consists of the relocation of pastoralist, agro-pastoralist and shifting cultivators into sedentary villages where they are supposedly provided with improved social services, housing and infrastructure. Numerous concerns have been raised in relation to this programme, including that the Government has failed to obtain the consent of affected indigenous groups prior to resettlement and the lack of services provided at resettlement sites.
75. In his follow up letter of 21 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur urged, as a preliminary matter, the Government to immediately undertake an evaluation of the potential effects of any resettlement efforts on the rights of the Suri, Bodi, Mursi, Kwegu and other affected indigenous agro-pastoralist groups in the lower Omo valley. This evaluation should bear in mind relevant contemporary international human rights standards, including their rights to property, self-determination, and culture, as well as their rights to set their own priorities for development. The analysis should guide the Government of Ethiopia as it moves forward with development plans in the lower Omo valley area.
76. The Special Rapporteur noted that, based on the information received and other reliable sources, there are strong indications that the indigenous agro-pastoralist groups potentially affected by the resettlements have been living in the lower Omo valley area for many years, maintaining their culturally distinctive land tenure and way of life, including their traditional flood retreat agriculture practices. Under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (article 26) and other international sources of authority, indigenous peoples such as these agro-pastoralist groups have rights over the lands they traditionally use and occupy.
77. Yet, the Special Rapporteur noted, it appears that, thus far the rights of the agro-pastoralist groups to their traditional lands in the area have not been adequately recognized and respected by the Government of Ethiopia, and are not being taken into account in the resettlement process. The lack of consideration of the potential land and resources rights of affected agro-pastoralist groups runs counter to contemporary human rights standards regarding indigenous peoples, as well as to relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The Special Rapporteur recalled that, while the Constitution vests all land and resources in the State and the people of Ethiopia (article 40.3), it also recognizes that pastoralists can use land for grazing and cultivation and that they have the “the right not to be displaced from their own lands” (article 40.5).
78. The Special Rapporteur stated that, like other property interests, the property rights of indigenous peoples based on their traditional land and resource tenure may be subject to limitations for legitimate, non-discriminatory public purposes in accordance with the law. He pointed out, however, that he had not received information from the Government regarding the purpose and design of the resettlement programs in the lower Omo valley despite his request for information in this regard. The Special Rapporteur indicated that he continued to welcome such information. However, he understood from the information available that the Government of Ethiopia considers the resettlement to be necessary to make land available for agricultural and other development projects deemed crucial for the national economy.
79. The Special Rapporteur declined to offer comments about the adequacy of this justificaiton under relevant human rights standards. However, even if, after careful analysis bearing in mind relevant human rights standards, a restriction of the rights to land and reosuces of these groups is considered a legitimate option, these restrictions should only take place with adequate mitigation measures and, in the case of any removals, with the agreement of the affected indigenous peoples within a participatory, consensus-building process, and the opportunity to return to their traditional lands.
80. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur expressed concerns about the allegations received that no monetary or other compensation has been provided to resettled groups, and that the living conditions in the resettlement areas are inadequate, especially with respect to access to sufficient water to graze livestock and plant crops. He recalled that under article 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, indigenous peoples have the right “to redress, which can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damanged without their free, prior and informed consent” and “[u]nless otherwise freely agreed upon by the indigneous peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress”.
81. The Special Rapportuer also expressed concern about the allgations that affected indigenous agro-pastoralist groups have been participating in the resettlement involuntarily, and that the Government is attempting to coerce specific groups to be relocated, including by preventing individuals from planting crops or grazing their cattle in the areas from which they are to be moved. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur noted that while, in general, removals of people from their traditional lands have serious implications for a wide range of human rights, these implcations are greater for indigenous peoples, who generally hold bonds of deep historical and cultural significance to the lands in which they live. Thus, he noted, consent is a precondition for any removal of indigenous peoples from their lands, according to article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that “[i]ndigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigneous peoples concerned”.
82. The Special Rapporteur urged the Government to evaluate any resettlement efforts in the lower Omo valley to ensure consistency with international standards, as well as with the Ethiopian Constitution, especially article 40.5. He emphasized that unless and until any resettlements can take place in accordance with these standards and adequate safeguards are put in place to mitigate any unavoidable impacts on human rights, Ethiopia should cease the resettlement of agro-pastorialist individual groups in the lower Omo valley.
Reply of the Government
83. In its reply of 20 August 2013, the Government stated generally that the Constitution upholds fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to property, to self-determination, and economic, social and cultural rights. The Government noted that the main source of economic growth in the country is agriculture by small-holder farming and therefore the Government’s development policy has given priority to supporting smallholding farming. The Government stated that its development policy is aimed at improving the well-being of all Ethiopians. The letter identified the development initiatives in the lower Omo valley such as the Kuraz sugar development project and the Gilgel Gibe III hydroelectic project.
84. With respect to the Kuraz sugar development project, the Government highlighted that it is only being carried out in uncultivated land and that adequate environmental, cultural and socio-economic impact assessments have been carried out. Similarly, with respect to the Gilgel Gibe III hydroelectric project, the Government noted that the project is being implemented in an area that has not been utilized or inhabited and that environmental, socio-economic and other impact studies were developed and assessed by local and international experts. These studies concluded that the project will have significant positive social and environmental impacts, and will not negatively affect pastoralists or fishers in the area.The response also provided information on the consultations carried out in relation to both development projects. It stated that following these consultations, people living around the project area consented to voluntarily resettle. In terms of resettlement, the Government stated that in general, plots of land similar to previous holdings and proportional compensation will be given to those resettling.
85. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Ethiopia for its reply. He takes note of the information provided by the Government arguing the benefits of the development projects in the lower Omo valley. He is perplexed however, about the radical differences between the perspectives expressed by the Government and those expressed by non-governmental sources, and he finds it difficult to reconcile such opposing views. In any event, he would like to reiterate the observations and recommendations he made in his follow up letter of 21 June 2013 regarding the land rights and resettlement of indigenous agro-pastoralist people living in the lower Omo Valley, above, which he considers are still valid.
Case number FRA 1/2014, OTH 1/2014 and OTH 2/2014: Concerns regarding the importaion and sale in France of cultural heritage items of indigenous peoples in the United States.
Letter of Special Rapporteur: 18/03/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
Letter to Société EVE: 18/03/2014
Reply of Société EVE: None within period covered by report
Letter to Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou: 18/03/2014
Reply of Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou: 06/05/2014
86. In separate letters each dated 18 March 2014, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples brought to the attention of the Government of France, and the auction houses Société EVE and Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou, the human rights concerns related to the importation and sale in France of cultural heritage items considered sacred by indigenous peoples of the United States. According to the information received, on two separate occasions in 2013, the two art auction houses in Paris publicly sold objects considered to be sacred by Hopi and other indigenous peoples. Concerns over the observance of international human rights standards related to the rights to culture and religion have been raised by this matter due to the deeply offensive nature of the public display and sale of these sacred objects to the indigenous peoples concerned, and because the auction of these items was done without their the consent or authorization. In addition, information was received about the inability of members of the indigenous peoples concerned to successfully use the French legal system to prevent the importation into and sale of sacred cultural items in France.
Response of Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou
87. On 6 May 2014, Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou provided a response to the Special Rapporteur. In its letter, the Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou Company stated that it is not the owner of the objects it sold. It noted that the United States Embassy tried to intervene when it was auctioning the items; however a court judgment authorized the sale of those items. The Company mentioned how “international decisions” have not been complied with by Governments, citizens or its institutions, such as museums. The Company stated it was listening to the demands of those who want to reclaim their cultural property and has promised to inform one of the indigenous peoples affected, the Laguna Pueblo, in the event of future sales involving their sacred objects.
88. The Special Rapporteur notes that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights do not reflect responses from the Government of France or from Société EVE to his communication of 18 March 2014 during the period covered by this report. The Special Rapporteur hopes the Government will take measures to address the concerns raised in his letter, taking into account the international standards cited in the letter concerning the rights of indigenous peoples to the respect of and recovery of their traditional spiritual and ceremonial items.
89. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank Néret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou for its response of 6 May 2014. He takes note of the company’s willingness to consider the demands of indigenous peoples concerning cultural property as part of its business practices, and to inform the Laguna Pueblo of future instances of cultural items being sold. However, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the company’s response implies that it proceeded with the sale of the items, despite knowing of the opposition by the indigenous peoples concerned, because a court judgment permitted the sale. The Special Rapporteur would like to point out that while the court judgment did not deem the sale of the sacred items to be illegal under French law, that judgment did not restrict the company’s ability to act in ways more respectful of the rights of indigenous peoples.
90. The Special Rapporteur would like to again highlight the relevance here of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which affirm the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights and avoid infringing on the human rights of others. This is a responsibility which “exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations…And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights” (A/HRC/17/31, Principle 11). In addition, businesses should seek to “prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations… even if they have not contributed to those impacts” (Principle 13).
91. The Special Rapporteur hopes that the companies involved base their future business practices on the respect of and special attention to the concerns of indigenous peoples whose sacred items and other cultural property it might have in its possession. To that end, it is important that the development of its future business practices and policies be informed by the particular international human rights standards applicable to specific groups such as indigenous peoples, as suggested in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Principle 12). In that regard, the Special Rapporteur reiterates the applicable standards under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the rights of indigenous peoples to the protection of the past, present and future manifestations of their culture (art. 11); their right to restitution of their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs (art. 11(2)); and the right to the repatriation of their ceremonial objects through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms (art. 12(2)).
92. In addition, the Special Rapporteur hopes that the companies’ policies and practices will conform to international standards and conventions related to cultural property mentioned in his communication of 18 March 2014, even if the companies themselves may not be legally mandated to do so by domestic law. These include the provisions of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970, and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects of 1995.
93. The Special Rapporteur hopes that, with these international standards in mind, the companies will make efforts to investigate the origin of items under their possession and cooperate with indigenous peoples, as well as with French and other State Government authorities, in order to prevent future instances of importation and sale of items of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples undertaken without their consent or authorization.
Caso no. GTM 4/2013: El proceso de reparación de los daños sufridos por 33 comunidades indígenas mayas por causa de la construcción de la represa hidroeléctrica Chixoy
Carta del Relator Especial: 17/04/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 06/01/2014
Carta de seguimiento del Relator Especial: 17/03/2014
94. En su carta con fecha del 14 de marzo de 2014, el Relator Especial solicitó información actualizada sobre el proceso de reparación de los daños sufridos por 33 comunidades indígenas mayas por causa de la construcción de la represa hidroeléctrica Chixoy entre 1975 y 1983. Este asunto fue objeto de un anterior intercambio de información entre el Relator Especial y el Gobierno. (Ver A/HRC/18/51, pág. 89). El Relator Especial tomó nota de la respuesta del Gobierno del 6 de enero de 2014, en la cual informó sobre la provisión de viviendas, puestos de salud y otros servicios sociales en beneficio de algunas de las familias afectadas, y de su intención de proponer un acuerdo gobernativo para brindar servicios sociales adicionales a dichas familias. Sin embargo, se ha informado que las víctimas de la represa Chixoy continúan viviendo en condiciones de vivienda y salud precarias y exigen el cumplimiento del plan de reparación acordado con el Gobierno en 2010. El plan de reparación comprende indemnizaciones de carácter individual y colectivo para las víctimas, además del otorgamiento de tierras, vivienda y servicios sociales entre otras cuestiones. Por otro lado, el Gobierno informó que no existe un marco legal para presupuestar los recursos destinados para indemnizar a las víctimas, y según lo indicado, descartó cualquier reconocimiento de una “deuda por concepto de daños y perjuicios ya que el período de prescripción ha concluido”.
95. La comunicación tomó nota de las disposiciones de una ley de asignaciones del Gobierno de Estados Unidos en la cual la provisión de fondos de asistencia para el ejército de Guatemala estaba condicionada a que el Gobierno de Guatemala diera pasos creíbles para implementar el “Plan de Reparación de daños y perjuicios sufridos por las comunidades afectadas por la construcción de la hidroeléctrica Chixoy”. En vista de ello, el Relator Especial solicitó al Gobierno información actualizada sobre las medidas que ha adoptado para implementar el plan de reparación referido.
96. El Relator Especial lamenta que no consta en los archivos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos una respuesta por parte del Gobierno de Guatemala a su última comunicación del 14 de marzo de 2014. No obstante, valora el diálogo que anteriormente ha tenido con el Gobierno de Guatemala sobre el presente caso. El Relator Especial quisiera reiterar que el plan de reparación negociado entre el Gobierno y las víctimas de la represa Chixoy, en el cual el Gobierno reconoció su responsabilidad en relación con las violaciones a los derechos humanos que se dieron por motivo de la represa y en el que se comprometió a reparar esas violaciones, representa un importante precedente a nivel internacional en cuanto a las medidas necesarias para reparar las violaciones de los derechos humanos sufridas por los pueblos indígenas en el contexto de proyectos de inversión a gran escala.
97. Con respecto a lo aducido por el Gobierno de que ha prescrito la obligación de reparar cualquier deuda por concepto de daños o perjuicios, el Relator Especial reitera que las violaciones de los derechos humanos no tienen prescripción y la obligación de repararlas deviene de los compromisos internacionales en materia de derechos humanos que ha asumido el Gobierno de Guatemala. En ese sentido, el Relator Especial señala que las condiciones impuestas por el Gobierno estadounidense en la ley de asignaciones anteriormente referida recalca la seriedad e importancia del proceso negociado entre el Gobierno y las víctimas de la represa Chixoy, y de la necesidad de reparar a las víctimas. Por tanto, el Relator Especial espera que el Gobierno tome las medidas necesarias para agilizar la reparación de las víctimas de la represa Chixoy.
Caso no. GTM 10/2013: Supuestos ataques a través de diferentes medios de comunicaciones dirigidos en contra de los magistrados de la Sala Tercera de la Corte de Apelaciones de ramo Civil y Mercantil
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 06/12/2013
Repuesta del Estado: Ninguna dentro del periodo del presente informe
98. En una comunicación conjunta del 6 de diciembre de 2013, se transmitieron las alegaciones sobre supuestos actos de intimidación en contra de tres magistrados. Según la información recibida, los magistrados María Cristina Fernández García, Herberth Arturo Valencia Aquino y Érick Gustavo Santiago de León, integrantes de la Sala Tercera de la Corte de Apelaciones del ramo Civil y Mercantil, habrían sido atacados en distintos medios de comunicación por haber dictado sentencias en las cuales se amparó a comunidades indígenas que denunciaron la violación a sus derechos a la propiedad ancestral sobre la tierra y el territorio. Estos actos de intimidación vendrían de particulares y de funcionarios públicos, y se enmarcarían en un clima creciente de actos de intimidación y desprestigio contra defensores y defensoras de los derechos humanos, incluyendo a operadores de justicia. Se alega además que debido a la presión a la que estarían siendo sometidos estos magistrados, otros jueces no estarían dispuestos a defender los derechos de los pueblos indígenas.
99. El Relator Especial lamenta que no consta en los archivos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos una respuesta del Gobierno de Guatemala a la comunicación del 6 de diciembre de 2013. El Relator Especial reitera a su preocupación, expresada en su comunicación al Gobierno, de que los hechos alegados indican una situación de injerencia en el funcionamiento del sistema judicial y de la independencia de los jueces encargados de impartir justicia en casos relacionados con los derechos de los pueblos indígenas. El Relator Especial considera que tal situación representaría un obstáculo al cumplimiento de las obligaciones internacionales asumidas por el Gobierno de Guatemala en materia de derechos humanos de los pueblos indígenas, particularmente con respecto al reconocimiento y protección de los derechos sobre sus tierras y recursos naturales tradicionales.
100. En ese orden de ideas, el Relator Especial hace recordar que, conforme a la Declaración sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, los pueblos indígenas tienen derechos a obtener la reparación por violaciones a sus derechos sobre sus tierras y recursos naturales tradicionales (arts. 27 y 28). Para tal fin, como dispone el Convenio No. 169, los pueblos indígenas deben poder participar en procesos legales para asegurar el respeto efectivo de sus derechos (art. 12) y deben instituirse “procedimientos adecuados en el marco del sistema jurídico nacional para solucionar las reivindicaciones de tierras formuladas por los pueblos interesados” (art. 14.3).
Caso no. HND 4/2013: Alegaciones de continuas amenazas, actos de intimidación y asesinatos de defensores de derechos humanos en Honduras
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 27/08/2013
Repuesta del Estado: 20/09/2013
Carta de seguimiento de Relatores Especiales: 11/04/2014
101. La comunicación conjunta del 27 de agosto de 2013 transmitió las alegaciones sobre presuntos asesinatos, amenazas y otros actos intimidatorios en contra de defensores de derechos medio-ambientales, derechos a la tierra y derechos de los pueblos indígenas. Según la información recibida, el 24 de mayo de 2013, Berta Cáceres y Tomás Gómez Membreño, integrantes del Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas (COPINH), habrían sido detenidos en una operación militar por la supuesta posesión ilegal de un arma. Sin embargo, se alegó que esta detención se dio como consecuencia de sus labores en oposición al proyecto hidroeléctrico Agua Zarca que afectaría a comunidades indígenas lencas. Se ha alegado además que en represalia por las labores de dicha organización en contra de la represa Agua Zarca, la Sra. Cáceres y los Sres. Tomás Gómez Membreño y Aureliano Molina, también dirigentes de COPINH, fueron acusados judicialmente por presuntos actos de incitación a causar daños a los bienes de la empresa constructora de la represa hidroeléctrica durante actos de protesta realizados por miembros de las comunidades indígenas afectadas por la represa. Asimismo, se alegó que el dirigente indígena lenca Tomás García habría sido asesinado por el Ejército Hondureño durante una manifestación en contra de la represa Agua Zarca que tuvo lugar el 15 de julio de 2013.
Respuesta del Estado
102. En su respuesta del 20 de septiembre de 2013, el Gobierno de Honduras brindó información sobre las circunstancias en que fue detenida la Sra. Bertha Cáceres por la supuesta posesión ilegal de un arma, los procesos judiciales que se habían realizado en su contra, y las garantías procesales que le fueron ofrecidas. Asimismo, proporcionó información sobre los procesos legales en contra de la Sra. Cáceres y los Sres. Gómez y Molina, por el supuesto delito de incitación a causar daños en perjuicio de la empresa Desarrollos Energéticos S.A. y la naturaleza de los delitos de los que se les acusaba. El Gobierno afirmó que no se ha dado un uso indebido del sistema de justicia con el propósito de restringir las actividades de las tres personas referidas en su condición de miembros de la organización indígena COPINH. En relación con el asesinato del Sr. Tomás García, el Gobierno informó que habrían iniciado las investigaciones sobre los hechos ocurridos en donde también resulto herido el hijo del Sr. García. Según informó el Gobierno, se habría dictaminado de manera preliminar un auto de prisión al oficial militar presuntamente responsable de la muerte del Sr. García.
Observaciones del Relator Especial
103. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno por su respuesta. Toma nota de la información sobre las investigaciones en torno a la muerte del Sr. Tomás García y las medidas judiciales adoptadas en contra del presunto responsable de ese hecho. El Relator Especial espera que las investigaciones, procesos judiciales y la imposición de las penas correspondientes se lleven a cabo con la debida diligencia. Asimismo, el Relator Especial quisiera señalar la importancia de que las investigaciones referidas también comprendan las responsabilidades en la cadena de mando en relación con las actuaciones del ejército durante los sucesos que resultaron en la muerte del Sr. García.
104. El Relator Especial toma nota de la información respecto a los procesos judiciales emprendidos contra la Sra. Cáceres y los Sres. Gómez y Molina, y las afirmaciones de que no se ha buscado penalizar a estas personas por su participación en actos de protesta contra la represa Agua Zarca. Al respecto, el Relator Especial toma nota de la información que fue reflejada en la comunicación que envió posteriormente al Gobierno de Honduras el 11 de abril de 2014, la cual indicaba que en febrero de 2014 un tribunal habría dictado el sobreseimiento definitivo de la Sra. Cáceres en relación con los cargos de posesión ilegal de armas de fuego, lo cual resultó en la revocación de las acciones penales impuestas en contra de la Sra. Cáceres. Asimismo, también se había informado que otro tribunal habría dictado el sobreseimiento provisional con respecto a los cargos de incitación y daños a la propiedad que enfrentaban la Sra. Cáceres, el Sr. Gómez y el Sr. Molina.
105. El Relator Especial recalca la necesidad de garantizar la existencia de medidas efectivas para asegurar el cumplimiento de normas internacionales relativas al debido proceso en los procesos legales contra personas indígenas que se hayan dado en contextos de protesta social en reivindicación de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas. Asimismo, en relación con el presente caso resulta necesario atender la problemática subyacente relacionada con los temas de derechos de tierras y consulta previa que reclaman los pueblos indígenas presuntamente afectados por la represa Agua Zarca.
Caso no. HND 3/2014: La situación de las comunidades indígenas lencas afectadas por la construcción del proyecto hidroeléctrico Agua Zarca en la región de Rio Blanco, Intibucá.
Carta de Relatores Especiales: 11/04/2014
Repuesta del Estado: Ninguna dentro del periodo del presente informe
106. En su comunicación conjunta del 11 de abril de 2014, el Relator Especial, junto con la Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, dieron seguimiento al llamamiento conjunto urgente del 27 de agosto de 2013 que trataba sobre la situación de la Sra. Bertha Cáceres y otros dirigentes indígenas del Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras (COPINH) quienes supuestamente fueron objeto de procesos legales por su trabajo en oposición al proyecto hidroeléctrico Agua Zarca. La comunicación del 11 de 2014 transmitió al Gobierno las alegaciones específicas relacionadas con los supuestos efectos del proyecto Agua Zarca sobre los derechos de las comunidades lencas de la región de Río Blanco a sus tierras y recursos naturales. Las alegaciones transmitidas versaban sobre las vulneraciones a los derechos de las comunidades indígenas de Río Blanco sobre sus tierras y recursos naturales tradicionales por causa del proyecto Agua Zarca, la falta de una consulta adecuada de manera previa a la aprobación del proyecto, y los actos de violencia y persecución penal en contra de dirigentes indígenas y miembros de las comunidades de Río Blanco que se han opuesto al proyecto. La carta también hizo mención de sucesos recientes en relación con las acciones penales que se habían iniciado en contra de la Sra. Cáceres y los Sres. Tomás Gómez Membreño y Aureliano Molina.
107. El Relator Especial lamenta que no consta en los archivos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos una respuesta por parte del Gobierno de Honduras en relación con las alegaciones sobre violaciones a los derechos territoriales de las comunidades de Río Blanco a raíz de la aprobación del proyecto Río Blanco. Con base en la información recibida por el Relator Especial que formó parte de las comunicaciones conjuntas del 25 de agosto de 2013 y del 11 de abril de 2014, considera que existen fuertes indicios de una situación de conflictividad social en el contexto del proyecto Agua Zarca. El Relator Especial espera que el Gobierno adopte las medidas necesarias para resolver esta situación tomando en cuenta los compromisos internacionales en materia de derechos humanos adquiridos bajo el Convenio No. 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo sobre pueblos indígenas, ratificado por el Estado de Honduras, y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, aprobada por la Asamblea General con el voto afirmativo de Honduras.
108. A la vez, el Relator Especial quisiera hacer referencia a sus informes anuales de 2012 y 2013 al Consejo de Derechos Humanos sobre la aplicación de estándares internacionales sobre derechos de los pueblos indígenas en el contexto de actividades de industrias extractivas, lo cual es de relevancia en los casos de otras actividades de aprovechamiento de recursos naturales, como ser proyectos hidroeléctricos, que afectan a los pueblos indígenas. En particular, considera necesario señalar la necesidad de evaluar el impacto sobre los derechos sustantivos de los pueblos indígenas en cuestión, y garantizar procesos de consulta previa adecuados con los pueblos indígenas, estudios de impactos, así como medidas de mitigación y de compensación, como mecanismos de salvaguardia de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/21/47, párrs. 47-53). También deben tenerse en cuenta los criterios para determinar la exigibilidad de obtener el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de los pueblos indígenas concernidos en el marco de una evaluación sobre si la actividad en cuestión representaría una limitación permisible de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas de acuerdo a la doctrina internacional aplicable (A/HRC/24/41, párrs. 27-40). Por otro lado, cabe señalar el derecho de los pueblos indígenas, en conformidad con sus derechos a la libertad de expresión y a la participación, consagrados en el derecho internacional, de oponerse a proyectos que pudieran afectarles sin estar sujetos a represalias o a la violencia (A/HRC/24/41, párrs. 19-23).
Case No. IND 9/2013: Alleged recent removal of indigenous consent requirements in the context of infrastructure development projects affecting indigenous forestlands and resources
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 08/07/2013
State reply confirming receipt: 09/07/2013
109. In his letter of 8 July 2013, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the alleged recent removal of indigenous consent requirements in the context of infrastructure development projects affecting indigenous forestlands and resources. According to the information received, in February 2013, the Ministry of Environment and Forests allegedly revised previous policy directives that made consent by Gram Sabhas (local village councils) mandatory for projects that involve using forest lands for non-forest purposes such as commercial and development projects and activities. The Ministry of Environment and Forests reportedly created an exemption for consent requirements in the case of modifications to the use of forest lands for the development of what are termed “linear projects”. It is alleged that this consent exemption provision will negatively affect the rights of many indigenous peoples in India who are not “pre-agricultural communities” or “primitive tribal groups” but rather fall under the category of “Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes” or “other traditional forest dwellers”. It is feared that the removal of the consent requirement will facilitate the development of potentially damaging projects in traditional forestlands without prior consultation or consent of indigenous peoples.
110. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no substantive response by the Government of India to his communication of 8 July 2013 appears in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. As noted in his communication to the Government, earlier policy statements issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests requiring the consent of Gram Sabhas for projects involving use of indigenous forest lands constituted a Government practice that appeared generally consistent with international human rights standards on land and natural resource rights and consultation and consent requirements.
111. The Special Rapporteur notes the concerns expressed over the possible social, cultural and environmental impacts of projects under the category of “linear projects” which include roads, canal systems, optical fiber transmission lines, pipelines, and other similar projects. The allegations raised indicate that the types of projects contemplated may include activities that are sufficiently large in scope to affect the lands, forest resources, health and well being of forest-dwelling indigenous peoples. In this respect the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the relevant international standards, including those articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples pertaining to their rights participate in decision-making in matters affecting them (art. 18); to the respect of their own traditional political, economic and social institutions and means of subsistence (art. 20); and to be consulted, in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent, prior to adopting or implementing legislative or administrative measures or development project or other activities affecting them (arts. 19, 32). In addition, the Special Rapporteur would also like to refer to article 28 of the Declaration which provides for the right of indigenous peoples to redress “by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned … and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Case No. ISR 6/2013: Alleged plans to enact the “Law for the Regulation of Bedouin Settlement in the Negev-2013”, also known as the Prawer-Begin bill
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 11/06/2013
State reply: None within period covered by report
112. In his letter of 11 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living and on the Right to Non-Discrimination in this Context, and the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, raised concerns regarding the alleged risk of eviction and forced displacement of a large number of Arab Bedouins in the Naqab (Negev) desert in the south of Israel. According to the information received, the proposed “Law for the Regulation of Bedouin Settlement in the Negev- 2013”, a bill also known as the Prawer-Begin Bill, would lead to the eviction and forced displacement of more than 70,000 Arab Bedouins in the Naqab (Negev) desert in the south of Israel. Allegedly this would mean the destruction of most of the remaining unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages in this region. Concerns also include severance of the historical ties to land of the Bedouin community, strict limits and conditions to access and receive adequate compensation whether in money or land, and the use of force in the form of the deployment of additional police officers in charge of the implementation of this Plan.
113. The Special Rapporteur regrets that there is no response to his communication of 11 June 2013 by the Government of Israel in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights as of the time of writing this report. However, the Special Rapporteur was pleased to learn that the Prawer-Begin Bill was withdrawn from consideration in December 2013, which he notes is a welcome development. The Special Rapporteur again brings the attention of the Government to his observations and recommendations previously made in this case (A/HRC/18/35.Add.1), which he considers are still relevant. In particular, he would like to reiterate his recommendation that the Government “embrace a long-term vision for social and economic development of the Negev, including in the unrecognized Bedouin villages, bearing in mind the historical and cultural importance of these villages to the Bedouin and to the society at large. This long-term vision for development of the Negev should enable the Bedouin to become active participants in and direct beneficiaries of any development initiatives affecting the lands they traditionally use and occupy within the Negev.”
Case No. KEN 7/2013: Alleged burning of Maasai houses and property in the community of Narasha and alleged expansion of the KenGen geothermal project operating in the area
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 01/11/2013
State reply: None within period covered by report
114. In his letter of 1 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the alleged burning of Maasai houses and property and the alleged failure of the Government to provide compensation. According to the information received, on 26 July 2013, a convoy of vehicles arrived in the community of Narasha, Naivsha, in the Great Rift Valley, which is located on the traditional lands of the Maasai people. Throughout that day, the group burned numerous Maasai homes destroying items within the houses. It is reported that, while State authorities have promised Narasha community members that they will be compensated for their loss, over two months since the incident no compensation has been provided to the victims. In the meantime, numerous Maasai families have had to endure bouts of rain without any adequate shelter following the destruction of their houses. The letter also raised related concerns regarding the alleged proposed expansion of the KenGen geothermal project operating in the area within the traditional, but as of yet, untitled lands of the surrounding Maasai communities.
115. The Special Rapporteur notes there is no record of a reply from the Government to his communication of 1 November 2013 in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the time of finalization of this report.
116. Regarding the allegations of burned Maasai houses, the Special Rapporteur again calls upon the Government to provide compensation to those who had their homes and possessions burned, if it has not already done so. With respect to allegations concerning the proposed expansion of the KenGen geothermal project, the Special Rapporteur draws the attention of the Government to the observations and recommendations made in his final thematic report to the Human Rights Council on the issue of extractive industries and indigenous peoples (A/HRC/24/41). The Special Rapporteur notes in particular the paragraphs of that report dealing with rights-centered, equitable agreements and partnership (paragraphs 72-78). In this connection, he would like to highlight his recommendation that “Agreements with indigenous peoples allowing for extractive projects within their territories must be crafted on the basis of full respect for their rights in relation to the affected lands and resources and, in particular, should include provisions providing for impact mitigation, for equitable distribution of the benefits of the projects within a framework of genuine partnership, and grievance mechanisms” (paragraph 92). The Special Rapporteur hopes that these observations and recommendations will help guide the Government as it moves forward with any expansion of the geothermal project.
Case No. KEN 1/2014: Alleged imminent threats of eviction faced by the Sengwer indigenous people
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 10/01/2014
Press release by Special Rapporteur: 13/01/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
117. In his letter of 10 January 2014, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the alleged imminent threat of eviction faced by the Sengwer indigenous people. According to the information received, police were poised to forcibly evict Sengwer indigenous people from their homes in the Embobut Forest area. For centuries, the Sengwer indigenous people, also known as the Cherangany indigenous people, have lived, hunted and gathered in the Embobut Forest area in the Rift Valley of Kenya. Sengwer continue to live n or near the Embobut Forest and to engage in cultural and subsistence practices in the area. According to reports, police forces had been gathering in the Embobut Forest area in preparation of evictions ordered by the Government in pursuit of forest and water conservation objectives. Sources reported that since the 1970s, Kenyan authorities had made repeated efforts to forcibly evict the Sengwer from the forest for resettlement in other areas. In light of the information received, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the human rights of Sengwer people are fully respected, in strict compliance with international standards protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.
Observations by the Special Rapporteur
118. The Special Rapporteur notes that there is no record of a reply by the Government of Kenya to his communication of 10 January 2014 in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the time of finalization of this report. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate the call to the Government, which he made in his public statement of 31 January 2014 on this issue, that it “ensure that the human rights of the Sengwer indigenous peoples are fully respected, in strict compliance with international standards protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.” The Special Rapporteur also reminded Kenya that, in accordance with article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.”
119. The Special Rapporteur also notes the apparent similarities between this case and a case upon which he has previously provided detailed observations and recommendations, the case of the Ogiek indigenous peoples in the Mau Forest Complex, which involved the alleged removal of members of this indigenous group purportedly for purposes of environmental rehabilitation of that forest. He would like to refer the Government, the Sengwer people and others involved to the observations and recommends he made previously in that case (A/HRC/15/37.Add.1, paragraphs 240-271).
26. Papua New Guinea
Case No. PNG 1/2014: Impact of large-scale land acquisitions under the Special Agricultural and Business Leases scheme on the rights of indigenous communities in Papua New Guinea
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 18/02/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
120. In a letter of 18 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, and the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, raised concerns regarding the alleged negative impact on several human rights of large-scale land acquisitions under the State’s Special Agricultural and Business Leases (SABLs) scheme. According to the information received, large-scale land acquisitions have been granted without due respect for legal procedures and safeguards and have negatively affected the ability of indigenous communities to maintain customary land use patterns, sustain their traditional way of living, access land or secure their right to food and right to water. Reportedly, concessions for the development of customary land have been granted without consultation and consent and there have been incidents of violence or intimidation against landowners that expressed opposition to the SABLs.
121. According to the information received, a Commission of Inquiry on SABLs, was formed by the Government in 2011 which issued a final report in June 2013 critical of the overall SABL scheme and finding that a significant loss of customary land ownership occurred through illegal conversion of customary lands into agricultural leasehold lands. The Commission of Inquiry reportedly recommended that the current SABL structure be eliminated, that steps be taken to ensure that the land that was irregularly or illegally alienated under this scheme be returned to local landowners, and that all persons and entities implicated in unlawful activities under this scheme be prosecuted. Following the publication of this report, the Prime Minister reportedly expressed his support of the Commission of Inquiry’s conclusions, declared that the SABL scheme was a failure, and appointed a task force to develop a new legislative framework to provide for the conversion of customary land into lease hold land in a manner more respectful of the rights of landowners.
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
122. The Special Rapporteur regrets that there is no response from the Government of Papua New Guinea in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights received during period covered by this report.
123. As is indicated in the communication of 18 February 2014, violations of the customary land rights of indigenous populations were confirmed by the Government-appointed Commission of Inquiry on SABLs. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the Prime Minister’s public statements indicating that he will follow the Commissions of Inquiry’s conclusions and considers that said conclusions provide an important framework by which to redress the violations allegedly experienced by indigenous peoples as a result of the SABL scheme. The Special Rapporteur would like to encourage the Government to develop an action plan and timeline to promptly implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry dealing with the return of irregularly or illegally obtained customary land and for the prosecution of those responsible for the illegal alienation of customary land.
124. The Special Rapporteur understands that the Government will undertake a process of reform of the legislative framework related to agricultural leasehold lands. He hopes that the reform process institutes measures to prevent a repetition of the problems identified with the SABL scheme which contravene the rights of local indigenous communities, particularly in relation to the unauthorized alienation of customary lands, the social, cultural and environmental effects alleged to have occurred as a result of SABL- related projects, and cases of fraud, threats and intimidation associated with the process of land alienation.
125. To that end, the Special Rapporteur would like to point out provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples related to indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired, and to the requirement that States to give legal recognition to those lands, territories and resources with due respect to their customs, traditional and land tenure systems (art. 26). The Special Rapporteur would also like to refer to the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples, through their own representative institutions, in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resource s (art. 32). In addition, the Special Rapporteur would like to point out article 28 providing for the right of indigenous peoples to redress, including restitution, or if not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation for the traditional lands and resources of indigenous peoples that have been “confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent”. That compensation may include “lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or of other appropriate redress”.
Case No. PHL 1/2013: Alleged harassment and displacement of B’laan indigenous communities in Davao del Sur by members of the Philippine Army
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 08/07/2013
State reply: None within period covered by report
126. In his letter of 8 July 2013, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the alleged harassment and displacement of B’laan indigenous communities in Davao del Sur by members of the Philippine Army. According to the information received, in April 2013, a unit of the Philippine Army landed by helicopter at Sitio Tah Canten, Malawanit, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur, Philippines. Armed confrontations between the New People’s Army (NPA), a Maoist guerrilla organization, and the army battalion ensued. It is alleged that the conflict resulted in the temporary displacement of B’laan indigenous villagers from their houses. In addition, members of the military allegedly harassed and conducted interrogations of B’laan indigenous villagers based on the unsubstantiated suspicion that they were either supporters or members of the NPA.
127. The Special Rapporteur regrets that there is no response from the Government of the Philippines to his communication of 8 July 2013 in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. As the Special Rapporteur indicated in his communication, a previous joint communication sent on 28 December 2012 to the Government of the Philippines concerned alleged reports of killing, harassment, threats and stigmatization of indigenous rights defenders. That communication included reported incidents of B’laan indigenous persons in Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur and Mindanao who were allegedly killed by members of the Philippine Army due to their work in defense of indigenous rights. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur expressed concern that the information contained in his communication of 8 July 2013 indicated a possible pattern of human rights violations committed by military officials against B’laan and other indigenous peoples in the Philippines that needs to be thoroughly addressed and investigated by the Government.
128. The Special Rapporteur notes that the information received in this case is consistent with concerns expressed by indigenous peoples in the Asian region due to the presence of military forces in their territories in the context of counterinsurgency campaigns, as evidenced in the Special Rapporteur’s report that resulted from a consultation he held in March 2013 regarding the situation of indigenous peoples in Asia, which included the participation of indigenous representatives from the Philippines. As that report recommended to Asian States in general, the presence of military forces in indigenous territories should be guided by article 30 of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which provides that military activities shall not take place on indigenous lands or territories unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed to or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned (A/HRC/24/41/Add. 3, para. 50). In addition, the Special Rapporteur would like to make reference to other recommendations calling for the identification and abandonment of counter-insurgency programmes that result in violation of indigenous peoples’ rights and prompt investigations and, where alleged abuses of indigenous rights are confirmed, prosecutions of those responsible, including military officers (A/HRC/24/41/Add. 3, paras. 51, 52). In addition, the recommendations also called for a stop to the categorical labeling of indigenous peoples as insurgent groups due to their efforts to advocate for their rights (A/HRC/24/41/Add. 3, para. 53).
129. The Special Rapporteur hopes that the observations and recommendations made in his 2013 report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Asia, help provide useful parameters to the Government of the Philippines in addressing the concerns brought forth in the Special Rapporteur’s communication concerning B’laan indigenous communities and the presence of military forces in their territory.
Case no. RUS 1/2014: The situation of the Evenki “Dylacha” community
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 28/01/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
130. In his letter of 28 January 2014, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, raised concerns regarding allegations of economic discrimination against the indigenous Evenki “Dylacha” community. According to the information received, “Dylacha” is an indigenous Evenki obshchina (clan community) founded in 1992 and located in Bauntovski Evenkiisky District, Baikal region, Republic of Buryatia. Dylacha holds a license to carry out mining and related processing of nephrite, a type of jade. The mining and processing of nephrite has been a traditional livelihood of the indigenous peoples of the Baikal region dating back hundreds of years. Reportedly, Dylacha has complied with relevant Russian legislation and regulations in carrying out its activities, including its mining operations. It is alleged that despite this, government authorities have dissolved Dylacha on the basis that its activities were in violation of current Russian legislation. Specifically, it was alleged that the community is not permitted to carry out “non-traditional activities”. Rather, the community is only permitted to generate earnings from fishing, hunting and reindeer husbandry. These actions against Dylacha have allegedly caused it to experience significant economic hardship.
Reply of the Government
131. In its reply of 14 May 2014, the Government of the Russian Federation provided a detailed description of the legal proceeding in the case. It noted that the Dylacha enterprise was closed because nephrite mining is not listed in the federal inventory of traditional economic activities of indigenous small numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The Government further notes that the Dylacha enterprise acted for profit, which contravenes the federal act on organization of “obschinas” that requires them to be non-profits. It also confirmed that a “Federal Agency for Resource Use” suspended Dylacha’s license to the Kavoktinskoye nephrite deposit effective 13 December 2013. The letter noted that a corporation named Zabaikalskoye gornorudnoye predpreyatie (transbaikal metal mining corporation) has obtained a short-term license for exploration and mining.
132. Further, the Government noted that the court determined that the Dylacha had violated environmental legislation during its mining activities by using heavy machinery and explosives, and thus, according to the Government, the operations were in fact an obstacle to the sustainable development of the Evenks. The letter also noted that there has been evidence of illegal extraction in the area. Regarding the kidnapping of two staff members of Dylacha by the police, the Government states that the matters has been investigated and it was decided not to pursue criminal charges against the police. Finally, the Russian Federation expressed its view that the mandate of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights does not include the authorization to consider individual complaints.
133. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply to his letter of 28 January 2014. The Special Rapporteur notes that in his 2010 report on the situation of indigenous peoples in Russia (A/HRC/15/37/Add.5, paras. 60-65), he provided observations and recommendations that are relevant to the present case, which he would like to reiterate now.
134. Specifically, he noted that Government’s principal policy with regard to indigenous peoples is to ensure the preservation of their unique cultures by supporting their traditional economic activities. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur noted that he had observed that many Government officials with whom he met seemed to operate under the assumption that if indigenous people carry out non-traditional, mainstream economic activities, their cultures and identities, and, consequently, their status as protected small-numbered indigenous peoples will be threatened.
135. However, the Special Rapporteur noted that examples in Russia and other parts of the world have shown that indigenous communities are able to enter into successful entrepreneurship that extends beyond activities characterized as “traditional”, without having to sacrifice their unique cultures, and often are able to do so in a way that strengthens their capacity to maintain the integrity of the cultures. In this connection, articles 3, 20 and 23 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples state that indigenous peoples have the right to “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”, to maintain and develop their economic systems, and “to determine and develop priorities for exercising their right to development”. The right to development includes the right to preserve and continue traditional economic activities and the right to choose to develop those activities in the modern world and participate in broader spheres of economic life.
136. In his report the Special Rapporteur noted that indigenous communities in Russia with whom he spoke expressed a strong desire to participate much more actively in economic activities that are not considered traditional, such as oil development or other commercial and industrial enterprises, or development of tourist destinations around historic sites. They view this as a way to ensure the economic viability of their communities without a long-term dependence on Government subsidies.
137. The Special Rapporteur expressed his hope that Government officials will develop a long-term vision of economic development in indigenous areas, and strive to support and encourage various models of economic exchange and enterprises, including support for and development of non-traditional economic activities. The Special Rapporteur also recommended that the federal and regional governments should consider providing encouragement and support for indigenous entrepreneurship in economic activities not necessarily limited to smaller-scale traditional activities, as a way of strengthening communities and enabling self-governance, job creation and self-sufficiency (A/HRC/15/37/Add.5, para. 91).
Case No. TZA 3/2013: Alleged forcible evictions and other human rights issues affecting indigenous Maasai pastoralists in the area of Sukenya Farm, Arusha Region
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 14/11/2013
State reply: None within period covered by report
138. In his letter of 14 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Working Group on the use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination, raised concerns regarding the alleged forcible eviction and other alleged human rights violations affecting indigenous Maasai pastoralists. According to the information received, Sukenya Farm is a locality in the Loliondo Division, Ngorongoro District, in the Arusha Region of Kenya. Reportedly, Sukenya Farm is a large grazing area that constitutes part of the ancestral territories of Maasai pastoralists. Maasai groups have used this territory to carry out their traditional activities including grazing cattle and accessing important water sources. In 1984, the Government of Tanzania in conjunction with the Ngorongoro District Council allocated 10,000 acres within the Soitsambu village to the company Tanzanian Breweries Limited (TBL). Subsequently, in 2006, TBL sold its leasehold to a tourism company known as Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL). It is reported that since the 2006 evictions, private security guards connected to TCL and local police have continually subjected Maasai pastoralists to acts of intimidation, harassment, and beatings when they have attempted to graze their cattle or access water points in the disputed land area.
139. The Special Rapporteur notes that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights do not reflect a response from the Government of Tanzania to his communication of 14 November 2013 within the period covered by this report. The Special Rapporteur is concerned by the Government’s lack of response to this and all previous communications, which were sent on 23 March 2009, 23 September 2009, 12 April 2010, and 8 May 2013, regarding the forced removal of and incidents of violence against various indigenous pastoralist groups throughout the Ngorongoro and Kilosa Districts, and ongoing threats to their use of traditional lands and natural resources of. He cannot help but harbor deep concern over the information received regarding continuing cases of conflict due to conservation or tourist initiatives affecting traditional Maasai pastoralists in Sukenya Farm as well as in other areas of Tanzania.
140. As noted in his last communication to Tanzania on 14 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur provided specific recommendations to the Government regarding the alleged eviction of Maasai pastoralists in the Kilosa and Ngorongoro Districts, which are also be applicable in the present case. These recommendations included the adoption of measures to cease and desist from further removals of indigenous pastoralist groups from their traditional lands; to establish effective mechanisms to identify and protect indigenous land rights in accordance with their customary laws and practices; to establish an adequate mechanism by which affected pastoralist groups can obtain redress and reparations for any restrictions to their lands and resources, including evictions; to carry out independent and impartial investigations into forced removal of indigenous groups; and to provide for active participation of and direct benefits to indigenous pastoralist groups with respect to natural wildlife conservation and other economic development plans (A/HRC/15/37/Add. 1, para. 455).
141. Further, as the Special Rapporteur also noted in his 14 November 2014 communication, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed concern about the forced eviction of Maasai pastoralists from Sukenya Farm. In March 2009, within its early warning and urgent action procedure, the Committee requested the Government of Tanzania to take various interim measures to safeguard the land and natural resource rights of the Maasai in Soitsambu village until their rights were officially determined by the Government of through national legal processes.
142. The Special Rapporteur hopes the Government of Tanzania takes decided measures to safeguard the rights of indigenous pastoralist groups in Sukenya Farm and other areas of Tanzania in order to prevent further social conflicts, evictions and incidents of violence faced by these groups. To that end, he hopes the Government seriously considers implementing his previous recommendations on this issue as well as the interim measures requested by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the case of Sukenya Farm.
Case No. TZA 1/2014: Alleged beatings of three Maasai pastoralists from Sukenya village, an area subject to ongoing dispute regarding access to land
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 02/04/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
143. In his letter of 2 April 2014, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Working Group on the use of Mercenaries as a means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination, raised concerns regarding the alleged beatings of three Maasai pastoralists, Munjaa son of Musa, Kendo son of Maiwa, and Naboye Ngukwo, of Sukenya Village, an area subject to ongoing dispute regarding access by Maasai pastoralists. According to information received, Sukenya Farm constitutes the ancestral territory of Maasai pastoralists from both Sukenya and Mondorosi villages. Since 2006, the Maasai have no longer been able to access their traditionally held lands and its resources freely as Sukenya Farm’s leasehold was sold by Tanzania Breweries Limited (TBL) to Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL) for tourism purposes. Due to the land dispute, it is alleged that in the past years, agents and employees including private security guards of Thomson Safaris have been exerting pressure on Maasai pastoralists to leave the Sukenya Farm area. Maasai pastoralists are alleged to have been subjected to forcible evictions, beatings, arrests and detentions when they have attempted to access Sukenya Farm.
144. The Special Rapporteur notes that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to not reflect a response from the Government of Tanzania to his letter of 2 April 2014 within the time period covered by this report. The Special Rapporteur again expresses his concern over the allegations of acts of violence against Maasai individuals particularly in light of the information he has previously received about the alleged conflict situation in the Sukenya Farm area, which was the subject of a previous communication on 14 November 2013. The Special Rapporteur hopes the Government of Tanzania conducts prompt investigations of the specific alleged incidents of violence and that it sanction the responsible parties. In addition, adequate compensation should be provided to the alleged victims for the harms they suffered. Furthermore, measures need to be taken to ensure police and private security personnel are provided with adequate human rights training, particularly with regards to the rights of indigenous peoples.
31. United States of America
Case No. USA 7/2013: Increasing number of state-level regulations that restrict the religious freedoms of Native American prisoners, including their participation in religious ceremonies and possession of religious items
Letter by Special Rapporteurs: 05/06/2013
State reply acknowledging receipt: 05/05/2014
145. In his letter of 5 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, raised concerns regarding the alleged increasing number of state-level regulations that restrict the religious freedoms of Native American prisoners. According to the information received, indigenous peoples in the United States face high rates of imprisonment with an approximate 29,700 Native Americans incarcerated in prisons across the country as of 2011. Reportedly, while in prison, a significant number of Native Americans rely upon their freedom to carry out traditional religious practices for rehabilitation purposes and as a means to maintain their identity as members of indigenous peoples. However, numerous recent regulations in state correctional facilities have allegedly restricted Native American prisoners from engaging in traditional religious practices and possessing religious items. It is further alleged that the majority of these regulations are modified or created without meaningful consultation with Native Americans beyond processes for general public comment.
Observations by the Special Rapporteur
146. The Special Rapporteur notes that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights do not reflect a reply by the Government to his communication of 5 June 2013 within the time period covered by this report. However, he would like to again call the Government’s attention to article 12 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that indigenous peoples “have the rights to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies”. He hopes that the Government will take into account the centrality of traditional religious practices for maintaining the prisoners’ identity as indigenous peoples and also for their rehabilitation. The Special Rapporteur would welcome any information by the Government regarding the reasons behind the restriction of the prisoners’ traditional medicinal practices, but in absence of any such information, he questions whether these limitations are permissible under international human rights standards.
32. United States of America
Case No. USA 16/2013: The situation of “Veronica”, an indigenous child who was the subject of a custody dispute
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 09/09/2013
Press release by Special Rapporteur: 10/09/2013
State reply: 15/11/2013
147. In his letter of 9 September 2013, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the situation of “Veronica”, an indigenous child who was the subject of a custody dispute. According to the information received, Veronica, a Cherokee child who is the daughter of a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, faced judicially ordered removal from her indigenous family and community to the custody of a non-indigenous couple. Reportedly, a court in the state of South Carolina awarded custody to the non-indigenous couple without allowing for a hearing or full determination about the best interests of Veronica, as ordinarily is done when custody or adoption is contested by a biological parent.
Reply of the Government of the United States of America
148. In its response of 15 November 2014, the Government of the United States of America stated that the custody dispute case over Veronica came to a close on 23 September 2013, when the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted custody of Veronica to her adoptive parents. The Government noted that Veronica’s biological father returned the child to her adoptive parents and on 10 October 2013 and stated his intention to cease any further legal action in the custody dispute. The letter reaffirmed the purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act and stated that the United States remains committed to examining ways to promote compliance with the Act.
149. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States for its response to his letter of 9 September 2013. The situation of baby Veronica relates to concerns raised in his 2012 report on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States (A/HRC/ 21/47/Add.1, paras. 45-47). In that report the Special Rapporteur noted that the pattern of placing indigenous children in non-indigenous care under state custody proceedings, which continued in the United States until well into the 1970s, had devastating effects on indigenous individuals and communities. He further noted that, while past practices of removal of Indian children from their families and communities have been partially blunted by passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, which advances a strong presumption of indigenous custody for indigenous children, this law continues to face barriers to its implementation. The Special Rapporteur again urges the United States to work with indigenous peoples, state authorities and other interested parties to investigate the current state of affairs relating to the practices of foster care and adoption of indigenous children, and to develop procedures for ensuring that the rights of these children are adequately protected in adoption cases, fully taking into account their rights to maintain their cultural identity and to maintain relations with their indigenous family and people.
33. United States of America
Case No. USA 2/2014: The situation of the Jemez Pueblo and its efforts to recover traditional lands located within the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 31/01/2014
State reply: 29/04/2014
Letter by the Special Rapporteur
150. In his letter of 31 January 2014, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the efforts of the Jemez Pueblo, an indigenous people, to recover traditional lands located within the Valles Caldera National Preserve in the state of New Mexico. According to the information received, the area currently known as the Valles Caldera National Preserve and surrounding areas in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico are part of the traditional territory of the Jemez Pueblo by virtue of the Pueblo’s historical land use and occupancy. The Jemez Pueblo has continued to access the area and carry out traditional cultural and religious activities, despite the area having been conveyed by the United States to private parties in the latter half of the 19th century and despite the subsequent reacquisition of this area by the United States and the creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve in 2000. It is reported that the Jemez Pueblo did not agree or consent to the granting of these lands to private parties or their taking by the United States. The Jemez Pueblo currently seeks the return of the area encompassing the Valles Caldera National Preserve. The Special Rapportuer also raised concerns about a proposal to increase public access to the preserve for unstructured hiking, which would allegedly threaten Jemez sacred sites and religious practices within the preserve.
Reply of the Government of the United States of America
151. In its response of 29 April 2014, the Government of the United States noted, with respect to access of the Jemez Pueblo to sacred sites within the Valles Caldera National Preserve, that there is a policy and process to allow for tribal access within the national preserve for religious and cultural uses, which it states is consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and other statutes. In this connection, regarding the possible impacts of the plan to increase public access within the national preserve on these religious and cultural practices and sites, the Government stated that the governing authority is developing measures, in consultation with neighboring tribes including the Jemez Pueblo, to address this concern, and that it has considered limiting public access within certain areas. The Government affirmed that the plan to increase public access to the national preserve is on hold until an adequate solution can be found. Finally, with respect the request of the Jemez Pueblo for the return of lands within the national preserve, the Government noted that the Jemez Pueblo has filed a lawsuit in this regard, which is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Government stated that it would not comment on matters currently in litigation.
152. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States for its response of 29 April 2014. From the information provided, it appears that the Valles Caldera Trust, which administers the Valles Caldera National Preserve on behalf of the Government, is taking steps to address the concerns of the Pueblo of Jemez regarding access to and protection of sites of cultural and religious significance within the preserve. In particular, the Special Rapporteur takes note of the information provided that there is a policy and process in place to allow for tribal access to the national preserve for religious and cultural purposes. Regarding the plan to increase public access to the national preserve for unstructured hiking, the Special Rapporteur notes the information provided that the Valles Caldera Trust is developing measures, in consultation with neighboring tribes including the Pueblo of Jemez, to address their concerns over the possible impacts of the plan’s implementation on the religious and cultural practices and sites. He encourages the Government to ensure that the plan for increased public access for hiking within the national preserve continues on hold until an agreed-upon solution is found.
153. Relevant in this regard is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States has endorsed and declared will inform United States policy toward the indigenous peoples of the country. Article 25 of the Declaration affirms that “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.” The Special Rapporteur hopes that, in addition to relevant domestic laws like the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, this provision guides the development of measures to ensure access to and protection of areas of cultural and religious significance to the Jemez Pueblo and other indigenous peoples within the Valles Calderas National Preserve.
154. With respect to Jemez Pueblo’s claim of ownership of lands within the national preserve on the basis of traditional use and occupancy, the Government noted that the pueblo has filed a lawsuit on this issue, which is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and stated that the Government cannot comment on cases under litigation. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that it is a matter of public record that during litigation in this case, the United States has opposed the Jemez Pueblo’s request for a judicial declaration that the pueblo has “exclusive right to use, occupy and possess the lands of the Valles Caldera National Preserve pursuant to its continuing aboriginal Indian title to such lands.”1 In its motion to dismiss before the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the Government set forth a number of jurisdictional, procedural and substantive challenges to the Jemez Pueblo’s claim and argued that any aboriginal title the pueblo may have had in the area was extinguished by the United States Congress, under its “superior” authority, when it established the Valles Calderas National Preserve.2
155. Without providing specific views on the arguments presented by the United States in this case and notwithstanding the eventual decision by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Special Rapporteur again draws attention to the United State’s international human rights obligations as informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to lands that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used (article 26), reflecting a standard that is implicit in human rights treaties to which the United States is a party and that are binding upon it, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination (CERD), in authoritatively interpreting the obligations of States parties under the convention against discrimination, has called upon States parties to the convention to “recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources” (CERD General Recommendation 23, article 5). In a similar vein, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has instructed that the right to culture that States are to protect under article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain all the aspects of their distinctive cultural identities, including their historical and ongoing connections with land resources (Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23, para. 7).
156. It bears emphasizing that theories of extinguishment of indigenous rights in lands and resources that have persisted since colonial times in the United States and other countries are at odds with the contemporary international standards grounded in universal human rights of equality, cultural integrity and property. As affirmed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in relation to States’ obligations to refrain from discrimination in relation to property, “where [indigenous peoples] have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used without their free and informed consent,” the State has an obligation to “take steps to return those lands and territories” (CERD, General Recommendation 23, para. 5).
157. Further, “Only when this is for factual reasons not possible, the right to restitution should be substituted by the right to just, fair and prompt compensation. Such compensation should as far as possible take the form of lands and territories” (Ibid.). This standard is reiterated by the Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in the following terms: “Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent” (article 28). As stated in the Special Rapporteur’s 2012 report on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States, executive, legislative and judicial authorities of the United States should endeavor to act in a manner consistent with the United States’ international human rights obligations and policy commitments, and in doing so should interpret and apply the relevant federal law in light of those commitments (A/HRC/21/47.Add.1, paras. 94-105).
158. The Special Rapporteur observes that, whether or not United States domestic law compels return of lands within the Valles Calderas National Preserve to the Jemez Pueblo or other tribes that can demonstrate traditional use and occupancy within the preserve, there is nothing in domestic law that impedes the United States from doing so, through appropriate executive or legislative action, in compliance with the international standards to which it has committed. In fact, as the Special Rapporteur pointed out in his 2012 report, there are already important precedents in this regard, including the return of the sacred Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo and the restoration of land to the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe ((A/HRC/21/47.Add.1, para. 90). Similar to what could be the case with regard to the Valles Caldera National Preserve, both land areas were restored from land under federal administration, with no consequence for any individual property interests.
159. Finally, the Special Rapporteur stresses that a position that promotes indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in lands to which they maintain a cultural or religious attachment, rather than opposes them, could go a long way in promoting the much-needed reconciliation and healing. As he noted in his 2012 report, “What is now needed is a resolve to take action to address the pending, deep-seated concerns of indigenous peoples, but within current notions of justice and the human rights of indigenous peoples” (A/HRC/21/47.Add.1, para.78).
34. United States of America
Case No. USA 5/2014: Allegations and follow-up on various issues examined in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States of America
Letter by Special Rapporteur: 20/02/2014
State reply: None within period covered by report
160. In his letter of 20 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government information in follow up to the observations and recommendations made in the Special Rapporteur’s report, “The situation of indigenous peoples in the United States of America” (A/HRC/21/47/Add.1) of 30 August 2012. Subsequent to the publication of the report, the Special Rapporteur has continued to monitor the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States. The allegations received indicate that many Native American tribes and other indigenous communities still face persistent barriers to the realization of their human rights as indigenous peoples, including with respect to lands and sacred places, preservation of their languages and cultural artifacts, and the welfare of their children and communities. In addition, the Special Rapporteur has received information regarding ongoing grievances with special legal and policy regimes that affect indigenous peoples in Maine, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam.
Reply of the Government of the United States
161. The Special Rapporteur notes that the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights do not reflect a reply by the Government to his communication of 20 February 2014 within the time period covered by this report. He hopes that his successor will continue to monitor the issues raised in this communication, with a view towards providing future observations and recommendations about the specific issues raised.
35. Other letters
Case No. OTH 4/2013 and OTH 8/2013: Alleged authorization of mining rights and a related hydroelectric project in the traditional territory of the Saramaka Maroon people (Suriname)
Joint follow-up letter to IAMGOLD Corporation: 11/11/2013
IAMGOLD reply: 11/02/2014
Follow up to previous exchange of information
162. In a letter of 11 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises followed up to their previous exchange of information with IAMGOLD Corporation regarding allegations of violations of the rights of the Saramaka people resulting from a mineral extraction concession granted to the company. In its response to the initial communication from the experts, IAMGOLD had disputed the allegations transmitted. In their follow-up letter, the Working Group and Special Rapporteur thanked IAMGOD for its willingness to engage with them on the issue and addressed concerns raised by the company about the communications procedure. The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples also referred to his earlier comments on this case. In those earlier comments he had stated that he cannot but help notice the significant differences between the company’s assessment of the facts and the allegations received with respect to the extent of current and planned mining activities, and the extent of their potential impact on the lands and resources of the Saramaka people. He also noted the divergent views with regards to the adequacy of consultation processes that have or would be undertaken in connection with any mining exploration or exploitation, whether future mining will require the relocation of Saramaka communities, and whether the current and possible new mining activities contravene the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning the Saramaka people.
Response by IAMGOLD
163. In a response of 11 February 2014, IAMGOLD thanked the experts for the clarification in their letter about the nature of communications from Special Procedures mandate holders. It stated that companies working in the extractive sector are often subject to various claims on the nature of the impacts on indigenous peoples, noting that some such claims are based on reliable evidence but many are sensationalized and not based in fact. The company referred to the Special Rapporteur’s observations regarding the “significant differences between the company’s assessment of the facts and allegations received” and agreed with this observation, asserting that the source of the information had misrepresented the scope of the alleged violations. IAMGOLD again referred the experts to its initial response of 5 June 2013 regarding the Rosebel project.
164. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the IAMGOLD Corporation for its continued interest in maintaining a dialogue regarding the present case. At the same time, he notes with concern the Government of Suriname’s lack of response to his previous communications to the Government on this matter.
165. The mining concession granted to IAMGOLD is a matter of central concern in relation to the Government’s compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Inter-American Court, in a resolution of September 2013, called upon Suriname to present to the Court detailed information on the concession awarded to IAMGOLD, including information on the concession’s scope and content; whether the Saramaka people were consulted and measures taken to that end; whether environmental and social assessment studies were undertaken prior to the concession; and any benefits for the Saramaka people.3
166. The Special Rapporteur considers that the Inter-American Court’s mechanism for monitoring compliance with its judgment in Saramaka represents the most appropriate avenue by which to resolve the significant factual disputes presented in this case and encourages the Government and Saramaka representatives to cooperate with and participate effectively in this monitoring process.
167. The Special Rapporteur hopes that improved relations and mutual understanding can be reached between the Government of Suriname, IAMGOLD Corporation and the Saramaka people. He encourages all parties concerned to give consideration, within the framework of steps being taken to implement the Inter-American Court’s decision in the Saramaka, to the Special Rapporteur’s earlier report on Measures needed to secure indigenous and tribal peoples’ land and related rights in Suriname (A/HRC/18/35/Add. 7), as well as to his 2012 and 2013 annual thematic reports to the Human Rights Council concerning the application of international human rights standards on indigenous peoples in the context of extractive industries (A/HRC/21/47 and A/HRC/24/41).
36. Other letters
Case No. OTH 3/2014: The advocacy campaign to raise awareness regarding the use of the term “Redskins” as a team mascot by the Washington football team (United States)
Letter by Special Rapporteur to majority owner of team: 10/04/2014
Press release by Special Rapporteur: 11/04/2014
Reply: None within period covered by report
168. In his letter of 10 April 2014 to the majority owner of the Washington Redskins football team, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns regarding the alleged pejorative connotations of the team mascot. The letter pointed out that the Oneida Indian Nation had initiated a campaign to change the mascot of this team and to call attention to the fact that for many, the term “redskins” was a hurtful reminder of the long history of mistreatment of Native American people in the United States. The campaign has highlighted the particular effects of the term´s usage on American Indian youth, who already face serious challenges in terms of image and self-esteem.
169. The Special Rapporteur notes there is no record of a reply from the majority owner of the Washington Redskins football team to his communication of 10 April 2014 in the files of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights within the period covered by this report.
170. While the Special Rapporteur is aware that there are some divergent views on this issue, he urges the team owners to consider that the term “redskin” for many is inextricably linked to a history of suffering and dispossession, and that it is understood to be a pejorative and disparaging term that fails to respect and honour the historical and cultural legacy of Native Americans in the United States. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur notes that recently, the United States Patent and Trademark office denied protection for the use of the term name “redskins” under trademark laws because it is a “derogatory slang word”.
171. Further, in reference to the negative consequences that continual use of American Indian mascots perpetrates, the Special Rapporteur calls attention to research performed by the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. Both professional organizations have identified the following effects, among others, of using these types of mascots in sports: undermining educational experiences of those who have had little or no contact with indigenous peoples; creating an hostile learning environment for American Indians; undermining the ability of the American Indian Nations themselves to accurately self-identify and self-portray images of their cultures and traditions; creating incorrect stereotypes of American Indians that lead to prejudice of the dominant society against racial/ethnic minorities; and perpetuating negative relations between groups (American Psychological Association, Summary of the APA Resolution Recommending Retirement of American Indian Mascots (2005); American Sociological Association, Statement by the Council of the American Sociological Association on Discontinuing the Use of Native American Nicknames, Logos an Mascots in Sport (6 March 2007)).
172. It is worth noting also that, recognizing these harmful effects, the National Collegiate Athletic Association placed restrictions on universities use of tribal mascots, nicknames or imagery, stating that “mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at championship events hosted by the association” (NCAA News Release, NCAA Executive Committee Issues Guidelines for use of Native American Mascots at Championship Events, (5 August 2005)). The association also encouraged member institutions “to educate their internal and external constituents on the understanding and awareness of the negative impact of hostile or abusive symbols, names and imagery, and to create a greater level of knowledge of Native American culture” (Ibid.).
173. The Special Rapporteur notes that he has examined this issue previously. In his report on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States of 2012, he observted that “[w]ithin the United States stereotypes persist that tend to render Native Americans relics of the past, perpetuated by the use of Indian names by professional and other high-profile sports teams, caricatures in the popular media and even mainstream education on history and social studies”. He further highlighted complaints heard during his official visit to the United States about how these stereotypes “obscure understanding of the reality of Native Americans today and instead help to keep alive racially discriminatory attitudes.” (A/HRC/21/47.Add.1, para. 9).
174. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur highlights that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states in its article 15 that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.” It further affirms in that article that States must take measures “to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society.”
175. Independent of the responsibilities of States with respect to the promotion and protection of human rights, private actors also have responsibilities within the international human rights framework. These responsibilities have been outlined most comprehensively in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2011 (Human Rights Council Resolution 17/4). Under the Guiding Principles, business enterprises, such as the Washington football team, have a responsibility to respect human rights, which means that “they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.”
176. In light of the above, the Special Rapporteur again urges the team owners to consider a name change to the Washington football team and to initiate a genuine dialogue with the concerned indigenous nations, organizations and leaders on this issue.
37. Other letters
Case No. OTH 10/2013: Letter concerning recent developments regarding the nomination and declaration of world heritage sites by the World Heritage Committee
Letter by Special Rapporteur to UNESCO World Heritage Committee: 18/11/2013
Response by the World Heritage Centre: 04/12/2013
Letter by the Special Rapporteur
177. In his letter of 18 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur raised concerns about recent developments regarding the nomination and declaration of world heritage sites by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In this letter, the Special Rapporteur noted that the World Heritage Committee would hold a discussion on potential reforms to site nomination criteria and the Advisory Bodies’ evaluation process at its annual session. According to the information received, reform efforts had arisen in part due to the difficulties in the nomination process of the Pimachiowin Aki site in Canada, an indigenous-led nomination developed through a collaborative process between the Government of Canada and First Nations. The site was nominated as “mixed property” for both its cultural and natural significance under the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. However, the World Heritage Committee reportedly deferred the Pimachiowin Aki nomination in large part because the Advisory Bodies were unable to concurrently consider natural and cultural values under the present criteria and evaluation processes.
Reply by the World Heritage Centre
178. In its reply of 4 December 2014, the World Heritage Centre emphasized that UNESCO aligns itself fully with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It further stated that in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, States are called upon to ensure the participation of local communities, including indigenous peoples, in the world heritage site nomination process. The World Heritage Centre described efforts to address indigenous peoples’ rights, interests and concerns in the nomination process of world heritage sites, including recommendations made during a workshop on the issue. It noted that the issues would be taken up again during the next session of the World Heritage Committee in 2015, where potential revisions to the Operational Guidelines would also be discussed. The World Heritage Centre concluded by saying that it would transmit the Special Rapporteur’s letter to the Advisory Bodies and to the World Heritage Committee.
Observations by the Special Rapporteur
179. The Special Rapporteur thanks the World Heritage Centre for its response to his letter of 4 December 2014. He is pleased that issues concerning indigenous peoples relating to the world heritage site nomination process will be discussed during the next session of the World Heritage Committee in 2015. He hopes that these discussions will lead to the development of measures to facilitate the nomination and designation of “mixed property” sites that have both cultural and natural significance. Further, the Special Rapporteur hopes that discussions surrounding reforms to the Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the World Heritage Convention include reforms that specifically require States to provide information on the indigenous peoples living in or around a site nominated for world heritage designation and to review the kind of impact a site might have on the rights of these peoples, as well as to ensure that indigenous peoples are able to participate in the nomination of world heritage sites and share in the benefits derived from world heritage site designation.
* * Reproduced as received.
1 United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Pueblo of Jemez v. United States of America, Case No. 1:12-cv-00800(RCB)(RHS), Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1.
2 Ibid., pp. 23-26.
3 IA Court, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment (4 September 2013), para. 25.