Support from the following:
1. Global Forest Coaition (New Zealand, Praraguay)
2. Pojoaju - The Association of NGOs (Paraguay)
3. Kalpavriksha (India)
4. Equations (India)
5. The Timber Watch (South Africa)
6. O'le Siosiomaga Society (Samoa)
7. Lensat/ Amigos De la Tienna (Colombia)
8. CDO (Nepal)
9. Global Justice Ecology Project (USA)
10. Forest Peoples Programme (UK)
11. World Rainforest Movement (Uruguay)
12. Friends of the Earth International
13. COECO-CEIBA/ Friends of the Earth-Costa Rica
14. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers(ICSF) (India)
15. Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV)
16. Ecological Society of the Philippines an IUCN-MemberIUCN-CEESP (Philippines)
17. CODDEFFAGOLF, Honduras AND REDMANGLAR INTERNATIONAL
18. ALMACIGA (Spain)
19. Waikiki Hawaiian Civic Club (Hawai'i)
20. Na Koa Ikaika o ka Lahui Hawai'i (Hawai'i)'
21. Ilio'ulaokalani Coalition (Hawai'i)
22. IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP);-
23. Centre for Sustainable Development (CENESTA, Iran);-
24. World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP)
.................the list is open, if you wish to add your signatures. Thank you
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Final Statement: February 15, 2008- English
Indigenous Committee on Conservation,
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity
2nd Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Protected Areas,
Rome, Italy, 11 – 15 February, 2008
Final Statement
15th February, 2008
Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates,
Yesterday morning, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) withdrew from the Working Group on Protected Areas because on the previous two days, indigenous peoples were not given the floor on matters of concern to them in a timely manner. This led to missed opportunities for indigenous peoples’ comments and proposed text to be appropriately discussed and reflected in the conference room papers (CRPs).
In light of the seriousness of this issue to us, and after evaluating our participation in the CBD process as a whole, and the impacts of its decisions to our lives, the IIFB has decided to maintain this withdrawal for the duration of the Working Group meeting.
We deeply appreciate the meeting between the IIFB representatives and the Bureau to address our concerns, which subsequently resulted in the Chairman’s announcement to allow indigenous and local communities and civil society to intervene in a timely manner on issues that relate to us. However, our right to full and effective participation remained unfulfilled. The IIFB therefore reaffirmed the decision to maintain the withdrawal and decided to continue to use the remaining time to discuss possible ways forward towards achieving full and effective participation in all future meetings of the CBD.
We appreciate the support of the Parties who have worked so hard with us and have understood and respected our decisions. We recognize that this is a process of understanding and mutual respect and trust.
We affirm that the CBD belongs to all of us – the Parties and the broader society, as set out in the CBD Strategic Plan. Therefore, our involvement and full and effective participation in this process is vital. The IIFB remains committed to the implementation of the CBD and we will continue to devote our efforts towards the protection of peoples and the planet.
Since the preamble of the CBD also recognizes the close relationship between biodiversity and indigenous peoples, we ask Parties and governments to take our views and concerns seriously, especially on this critical issue of protected areas.
We call on all Parties to work harder to foster the fullest participation possible for indigenous and local communities, and civil society, at all levels of the CBD implementation. This is our common responsibility.
Thank you.
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity
2nd Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Protected Areas,
Rome, Italy, 11 – 15 February, 2008
Final Statement
15th February, 2008
Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates,
Yesterday morning, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) withdrew from the Working Group on Protected Areas because on the previous two days, indigenous peoples were not given the floor on matters of concern to them in a timely manner. This led to missed opportunities for indigenous peoples’ comments and proposed text to be appropriately discussed and reflected in the conference room papers (CRPs).
In light of the seriousness of this issue to us, and after evaluating our participation in the CBD process as a whole, and the impacts of its decisions to our lives, the IIFB has decided to maintain this withdrawal for the duration of the Working Group meeting.
We deeply appreciate the meeting between the IIFB representatives and the Bureau to address our concerns, which subsequently resulted in the Chairman’s announcement to allow indigenous and local communities and civil society to intervene in a timely manner on issues that relate to us. However, our right to full and effective participation remained unfulfilled. The IIFB therefore reaffirmed the decision to maintain the withdrawal and decided to continue to use the remaining time to discuss possible ways forward towards achieving full and effective participation in all future meetings of the CBD.
We appreciate the support of the Parties who have worked so hard with us and have understood and respected our decisions. We recognize that this is a process of understanding and mutual respect and trust.
We affirm that the CBD belongs to all of us – the Parties and the broader society, as set out in the CBD Strategic Plan. Therefore, our involvement and full and effective participation in this process is vital. The IIFB remains committed to the implementation of the CBD and we will continue to devote our efforts towards the protection of peoples and the planet.
Since the preamble of the CBD also recognizes the close relationship between biodiversity and indigenous peoples, we ask Parties and governments to take our views and concerns seriously, especially on this critical issue of protected areas.
We call on all Parties to work harder to foster the fullest participation possible for indigenous and local communities, and civil society, at all levels of the CBD implementation. This is our common responsibility.
Thank you.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Final Statement: February 15, 2008- Espanol
Comité Indígena sobre Conservación
Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad
Segunda Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo Especial de Composición Abierta
sobre Áreas Protegidas
Roma, Italia, 11 al 15 de febrero de 2008
Declaración de Clausura
15 de febrero de2008
Sr. Presidente, distinguidos delegados,
Ayer en la mañana, el Foro Internacional Indígenas sobre Biodiversidad (FIIB) se retiró del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas porque, durante los dos días anteriores, no se dio la palabra de una forma oportuna a los pueblos indígenas sobre temas que les conciernen. Eso resulto en la perdida de oportunidades para presentar y discutir nuestros comentarios y propuestas de texto y reflejarlos en los documentos de la sala de conferencia (CRPs.)
Tomando en cuenta lo grave de este tema para nosotros, y después de evaluar sobre nuestra participación en el proceso de CDB en su totalidad y sobre los impactos de sus decisiones sobre nuestras vidas, el FIIB decidió mantener su retiro durante el tiempo restante de la reunión del Grupo de Trabajo.
Apreciamos profundamente la reunión entre los representantes del FIIB y el Buro para abordar nuestras preocupaciones, que resultó en que el Presidente comunicara que se permitía a las comunidades indígenas y locales y la sociedad civil para intervenir en una manera puntual sobre los temas que nos conciernan. Sin embargo, nuestro derecho a la participación plena y efectiva se quedó truncado. El FIIB, por lo tanto, reafirmó su decisión a mantener la retirada y decidió continuar debatiendo los restantes días sobre las maneras de avanzar en el logro de la participación plena y efectiva en las reuniones futuras del CDB.
A las Partes que han trabajado arduamente junto a nosotros y han comprendido y respetado nuestras decisiones, los pueblos indígenas apreciamos su apoyo. Reconocemos que eso es un proceso de entendimiento mutuo, respeto y confianza.
Afirmamos que el CDB pertenece a todos nosotros – a las partes y a la sociedad en general, tal como se establece en el Plan Estratégico del CDB. Por lo tanto, nuestro involucramiento y nuestra participación plena y efectiva en este proceso son vitales. El FIIB sigue comprometido con la implementación del CDB y va a seguir dedicando sus esfuerzos para proteger a los pueblos y al planeta.
En este sentido, tomando en cuenta que el preámbulo del CDB también reconoce la relación estrecha entre la biodiversidad y los pueblos indígenas, solicitamos que las Partes y los gobiernos tomen muy en serio nuestros puntos de vista y preocupaciones, especialmente sobre el tema tan importante sobre las áreas protegidas.
Hacemos una llamado a todas las Partes a trabajar arduamente a promover la más amplia participación para las comunidades indígenas y locales y la sociedad civil en todos lo niveles de la aplicación del CDB. Esa es nuestra responsabilidad conjunta.
Gracias.
Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad
Segunda Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo Especial de Composición Abierta
sobre Áreas Protegidas
Roma, Italia, 11 al 15 de febrero de 2008
Declaración de Clausura
15 de febrero de2008
Sr. Presidente, distinguidos delegados,
Ayer en la mañana, el Foro Internacional Indígenas sobre Biodiversidad (FIIB) se retiró del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas porque, durante los dos días anteriores, no se dio la palabra de una forma oportuna a los pueblos indígenas sobre temas que les conciernen. Eso resulto en la perdida de oportunidades para presentar y discutir nuestros comentarios y propuestas de texto y reflejarlos en los documentos de la sala de conferencia (CRPs.)
Tomando en cuenta lo grave de este tema para nosotros, y después de evaluar sobre nuestra participación en el proceso de CDB en su totalidad y sobre los impactos de sus decisiones sobre nuestras vidas, el FIIB decidió mantener su retiro durante el tiempo restante de la reunión del Grupo de Trabajo.
Apreciamos profundamente la reunión entre los representantes del FIIB y el Buro para abordar nuestras preocupaciones, que resultó en que el Presidente comunicara que se permitía a las comunidades indígenas y locales y la sociedad civil para intervenir en una manera puntual sobre los temas que nos conciernan. Sin embargo, nuestro derecho a la participación plena y efectiva se quedó truncado. El FIIB, por lo tanto, reafirmó su decisión a mantener la retirada y decidió continuar debatiendo los restantes días sobre las maneras de avanzar en el logro de la participación plena y efectiva en las reuniones futuras del CDB.
A las Partes que han trabajado arduamente junto a nosotros y han comprendido y respetado nuestras decisiones, los pueblos indígenas apreciamos su apoyo. Reconocemos que eso es un proceso de entendimiento mutuo, respeto y confianza.
Afirmamos que el CDB pertenece a todos nosotros – a las partes y a la sociedad en general, tal como se establece en el Plan Estratégico del CDB. Por lo tanto, nuestro involucramiento y nuestra participación plena y efectiva en este proceso son vitales. El FIIB sigue comprometido con la implementación del CDB y va a seguir dedicando sus esfuerzos para proteger a los pueblos y al planeta.
En este sentido, tomando en cuenta que el preámbulo del CDB también reconoce la relación estrecha entre la biodiversidad y los pueblos indígenas, solicitamos que las Partes y los gobiernos tomen muy en serio nuestros puntos de vista y preocupaciones, especialmente sobre el tema tan importante sobre las áreas protegidas.
Hacemos una llamado a todas las Partes a trabajar arduamente a promover la más amplia participación para las comunidades indígenas y locales y la sociedad civil en todos lo niveles de la aplicación del CDB. Esa es nuestra responsabilidad conjunta.
Gracias.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Responses and support
I support the Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity ontheir decision to walk out of the Working Group onProtected Areas unless their voices are trulyincorporated as priority voices (not marginalized butgiven the special attention that they merit for manyreasons). They should not just be "heard" from time totime.
The problem in this meeting reflects the problem onthe ground where PAs are implemented. It is time toface this.
Cynthia
Assistant Professor, Wofford College
South Carolina, USA
__________________________________________________________________
Dear friends,
The Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV) expresses its full support for the statement made by indigenous peoples at the Working Group on Protected Areas in Rome, Italy on February 14, 2008.We believe that the exclusion of indigenous peoples from this process is a serious violation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007.
Best wishes,
Mr. Leo van der VlistNetherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV)
_________________________________________________________________
I support the Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity ontheir decision to walk out of the Working Group onProtected Areas unless their voices are trulyincorporated as priority voices (not marginalized butgiven the special attention that they merit for manyreasons). They should not just be "heard" from time totime. The problem in this meeting reflects the problem onthe ground where PAs are implemented. It is time toface this.-Janis Alcorn
The problem in this meeting reflects the problem onthe ground where PAs are implemented. It is time toface this.
Cynthia
Assistant Professor, Wofford College
South Carolina, USA
__________________________________________________________________
Dear friends,
The Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV) expresses its full support for the statement made by indigenous peoples at the Working Group on Protected Areas in Rome, Italy on February 14, 2008.We believe that the exclusion of indigenous peoples from this process is a serious violation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007.
Best wishes,
Mr. Leo van der VlistNetherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV)
_________________________________________________________________
I support the Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity ontheir decision to walk out of the Working Group onProtected Areas unless their voices are trulyincorporated as priority voices (not marginalized butgiven the special attention that they merit for manyreasons). They should not just be "heard" from time totime. The problem in this meeting reflects the problem onthe ground where PAs are implemented. It is time toface this.-Janis Alcorn
Thursday, February 14, 2008
PRESS RELEASE - English
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ VOICE SUPPRESSED AT UNITED NATIONS
Rome, Feb. 14, 2008 - This morning Indigenous Peoples’ representatives formally withdrew from meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas of the International Convention on Biological Diversity to protest their suppression of their effective participation at the meeting, being held at FAO headquarters in the Italian capital.
Before leaving the plenary, Indigenous leaders put on symbolic gags and held up protest signs. After Jannie Lasimbang of the Kadazan People of Malaysia read a statement, the indigenous delegation and some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) left the meeting which was suspended upon their departure.
The Indigenous Peoples’ statement read: “Mr. Chairman, we have made great efforts to be part of this process. However, it is with great disappointment that from the very beginning of this Working Group on Protected Areas meeting we have found ourselves marginalized and without opportunity to take the floor in a timely manner to express our points of view. Yesterday afternoon at a critical moment, we were silenced from providing our contributions to the deliberations on the recommendations on implementation of the Programme of Work. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, despite your assurances that all recommendations would be included in the Conference Room Paper (CRP), none of our recommendations were included in CRP2 [on moblization of financial resoucres for protected areas]. This is extremely disturbing in light of the relevance of these recommendations to our lives, lands and the effective implementation of the Programme of Work.
“We denounce the denial of Indigenous Peoples’ right to full an affective participation which contravenes prior decisions of the Parties,” said Onel Masardule and Jannie Lasimbang, Co-Chairs of the Indigenous Peoples’ Committee on Conservation of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity which is made up of Indigenous leaders from Asia, Africa, Russia, the Pacific, North America and Latin America.
The protest was supported by many NGOs attending the UN meeting who also criticized the negative attitude of the Chair of the Working Group and the collapse of the political space for dialogue. The Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network warned “that the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples not only endangers the democratic processes in the United Nations but also ignores that the General Assembly just approved the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007.”
Contacts:
Mrinalini Rai, mrinalini_rai@yahoo.com
Hortencia Hidalgo – Ramiro BatzinComunicación FIIB Email comunicacionfiib@gmail.com
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ VOICE SUPPRESSED AT UNITED NATIONS
Rome, Feb. 14, 2008 - This morning Indigenous Peoples’ representatives formally withdrew from meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas of the International Convention on Biological Diversity to protest their suppression of their effective participation at the meeting, being held at FAO headquarters in the Italian capital.
Before leaving the plenary, Indigenous leaders put on symbolic gags and held up protest signs. After Jannie Lasimbang of the Kadazan People of Malaysia read a statement, the indigenous delegation and some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) left the meeting which was suspended upon their departure.
The Indigenous Peoples’ statement read: “Mr. Chairman, we have made great efforts to be part of this process. However, it is with great disappointment that from the very beginning of this Working Group on Protected Areas meeting we have found ourselves marginalized and without opportunity to take the floor in a timely manner to express our points of view. Yesterday afternoon at a critical moment, we were silenced from providing our contributions to the deliberations on the recommendations on implementation of the Programme of Work. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, despite your assurances that all recommendations would be included in the Conference Room Paper (CRP), none of our recommendations were included in CRP2 [on moblization of financial resoucres for protected areas]. This is extremely disturbing in light of the relevance of these recommendations to our lives, lands and the effective implementation of the Programme of Work.
“We denounce the denial of Indigenous Peoples’ right to full an affective participation which contravenes prior decisions of the Parties,” said Onel Masardule and Jannie Lasimbang, Co-Chairs of the Indigenous Peoples’ Committee on Conservation of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity which is made up of Indigenous leaders from Asia, Africa, Russia, the Pacific, North America and Latin America.
The protest was supported by many NGOs attending the UN meeting who also criticized the negative attitude of the Chair of the Working Group and the collapse of the political space for dialogue. The Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network warned “that the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples not only endangers the democratic processes in the United Nations but also ignores that the General Assembly just approved the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007.”
Contacts:
Mrinalini Rai, mrinalini_rai@yahoo.com
Hortencia Hidalgo – Ramiro BatzinComunicación FIIB Email comunicacionfiib@gmail.com
PRESS RELEASE - Espanol
BOLETIN DE PRENSA
Italia- Roma 14 de Febrero del 2008-02-14
LA VOZ DE LOS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS FUE CENSURADA EN NACIONES UNIDAS
Esta mañana en la capital italiana durante la segunda Reunión del Grupo especial de composición abierta sobre el programa de trabajo de Áreas Protegidas (APs) del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica (CDB), en las instalaciones de la FAO. Los representantes indígenas se retiraron del proceso del grupo de trabajo por protesta a la exclusión en el grupo de trabajo.
Antes de su retirada se amordazaron la boca y manifestaron a través de pancartas en protesta por la situación. Jennie Lasimmang, indígena Kadazart de Malasiad leyó la declaración de protesta, una vez leída los indígenas y algunas ONGs se retiraron de la plenaria. Lo que significo suspender la plenaria para evaluar la situación.
En discurso del comité de pueblos indígenas expresaron “Sr. Presidente, hemos hecho gran esfuerzos para formar parte de este proceso. Sin embargo, nos desilusionó profundamente que, desde el inicio de esta segunda reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas, nos han marginalizado y no contamos con la oportunidad de tomar la palabra de una forma puntual para expresar nuestros puntos de vista. Ayer en la tarde nos fueron silenciados en un momento crítico de la discusión y no fuimos permitido a hacer aportes a las deliberaciones sobre las recomendaciones sobre la aplicación del Programa de Trabajo. Además, a pesar de sus afirmaciones, Sr. Presidente, de que todas nuestras recomendaciones se iban a incluir en el documento CRP, ninguna de nuestras recomendaciones fueron incluidas en el CRP2. Eso nos consterna profundamente por lo que significan estas recomendaciones para nuestras vidas, tierras y la aplicación efectiva del Programa de Trabajo”.
Onel Masardule y Jannie Lasimbang co - presidentes del Comité de los Pueblos Indígenas de Conservación del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad (FIIB), compuesto por indígenas de las regiones de: Asia, África, Rusia, Pacifico, Norte América y América Latina, manifestaron su malestar por la limitada participación plena y efectiva de los pueblos indígenas, contraria a las dediciones de las mismas partes.
Estas acciones fueron apoyadas por la mayoría de las ONG presentes en esta reunión de trabajo, las que manifestaron la negativa actitud tomadas por el presidente de trabajo, las ONG consideran que los espacios de dialogo se están cerrando. La Red de Mujeres Indígenas sobre Biodiversidad planteó: “que es peligroso para los procesos democráticos de Naciones Unidas, tomando en cuenta que en septiembre del 2008 se aprobó la declaración de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, de las Naciones Unidas”.
Declaración leída por: Jennie Lasimmang, en representaron del foro indígena
Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
Sr. Presidente, Damas y Caballeros
En los últimos quince años, los pueblos indígenas hemos estado participando en el proceso del CDB contribuyendo a su trabajo e aplicación, aportando lo mejor de nuestras experiencias, conocimientos y buena voluntad.
Nuestros esfuerzos se han reconocido en muchas ocasiones y, por lo tanto, hemos podido participar y contribuir a las deliberaciones y resultados positivos. Durante este plazo, hemos podido expresar nuestros puntos de vista y preocupaciones sobre nuestros derechos fundamentales, que son un aspecto crucial de la biodiversidad y la conservación y de las obligaciones internacionales de todos los estados Partes.
El CDB llama por la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales en la aplicación y procesos del Convenio, a nivel nacional, regional e internacional (meta 4.3 del Plan Estratégico y de la Meta de Biodiversidad de 2010). Como es de su conocimiento, la COP 5 formalmente reconoció el Foro internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad como un órgano asesor del CDB. Además la, Decisión 8/24 enfatizó la necesidad de la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales y el respeto pleno de sus derechos en consonancia con legislación nacional y obligaciones internacionales.
Sr. Presidente, hemos hecho gran esfuerzos para formar parte de este proceso. Sin embargo, nos desilusionó profundamente que, desde el inicio de esta segunda reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas, nos han marginado y no contamos con la oportunidad de tomar la palabra de una forma puntual para expresar nuestros puntos de vista. Ayer en la tarde nos fueron silenciados en un momento crítico de la discusión y no fuimos permitido a hacer aportes a las deliberaciones sobre las recomendaciones sobre la aplicación del Programa de Trabajo. Además, a pesar de sus afirmaciones, Sr. Presidente, de que todas nuestras recomendaciones se iban a incluir en el documento CRP, ninguna de nuestras recomendaciones fueron incluidas en el CRP2. Eso nos consterna profundamente por lo que significan estas recomendaciones para nuestras vidas, tierras y la aplicación efectiva del Programa de Trabajo.
Sr. Presidente, en vista de esta inaceptable censura, el Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad expresa su enérgica protesta por este trato y por unanimidad, ha decidido dejar este proceso, que claramente no respeta nuestros derechos y la participación. Nos negamos a participar en un proceso que la toma decisiones sobre nuestras vidas y, sin embargo, esperan que seamos observadores silenciosos.
Vamos a considerar nuevas medidas apropiadas. Se nos ha informado por parte de varias organizaciones no gubernamentales su apoyo a nuestra decisión.
Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
Hortencia Hidalgo – Ramiro Batzin
Comunicación FIIB
comunicacionfiib@gmail.com
Italia- Roma 14 de Febrero del 2008-02-14
LA VOZ DE LOS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS FUE CENSURADA EN NACIONES UNIDAS
Esta mañana en la capital italiana durante la segunda Reunión del Grupo especial de composición abierta sobre el programa de trabajo de Áreas Protegidas (APs) del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica (CDB), en las instalaciones de la FAO. Los representantes indígenas se retiraron del proceso del grupo de trabajo por protesta a la exclusión en el grupo de trabajo.
Antes de su retirada se amordazaron la boca y manifestaron a través de pancartas en protesta por la situación. Jennie Lasimmang, indígena Kadazart de Malasiad leyó la declaración de protesta, una vez leída los indígenas y algunas ONGs se retiraron de la plenaria. Lo que significo suspender la plenaria para evaluar la situación.
En discurso del comité de pueblos indígenas expresaron “Sr. Presidente, hemos hecho gran esfuerzos para formar parte de este proceso. Sin embargo, nos desilusionó profundamente que, desde el inicio de esta segunda reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas, nos han marginalizado y no contamos con la oportunidad de tomar la palabra de una forma puntual para expresar nuestros puntos de vista. Ayer en la tarde nos fueron silenciados en un momento crítico de la discusión y no fuimos permitido a hacer aportes a las deliberaciones sobre las recomendaciones sobre la aplicación del Programa de Trabajo. Además, a pesar de sus afirmaciones, Sr. Presidente, de que todas nuestras recomendaciones se iban a incluir en el documento CRP, ninguna de nuestras recomendaciones fueron incluidas en el CRP2. Eso nos consterna profundamente por lo que significan estas recomendaciones para nuestras vidas, tierras y la aplicación efectiva del Programa de Trabajo”.
Onel Masardule y Jannie Lasimbang co - presidentes del Comité de los Pueblos Indígenas de Conservación del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad (FIIB), compuesto por indígenas de las regiones de: Asia, África, Rusia, Pacifico, Norte América y América Latina, manifestaron su malestar por la limitada participación plena y efectiva de los pueblos indígenas, contraria a las dediciones de las mismas partes.
Estas acciones fueron apoyadas por la mayoría de las ONG presentes en esta reunión de trabajo, las que manifestaron la negativa actitud tomadas por el presidente de trabajo, las ONG consideran que los espacios de dialogo se están cerrando. La Red de Mujeres Indígenas sobre Biodiversidad planteó: “que es peligroso para los procesos democráticos de Naciones Unidas, tomando en cuenta que en septiembre del 2008 se aprobó la declaración de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, de las Naciones Unidas”.
Declaración leída por: Jennie Lasimmang, en representaron del foro indígena
Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
Sr. Presidente, Damas y Caballeros
En los últimos quince años, los pueblos indígenas hemos estado participando en el proceso del CDB contribuyendo a su trabajo e aplicación, aportando lo mejor de nuestras experiencias, conocimientos y buena voluntad.
Nuestros esfuerzos se han reconocido en muchas ocasiones y, por lo tanto, hemos podido participar y contribuir a las deliberaciones y resultados positivos. Durante este plazo, hemos podido expresar nuestros puntos de vista y preocupaciones sobre nuestros derechos fundamentales, que son un aspecto crucial de la biodiversidad y la conservación y de las obligaciones internacionales de todos los estados Partes.
El CDB llama por la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales en la aplicación y procesos del Convenio, a nivel nacional, regional e internacional (meta 4.3 del Plan Estratégico y de la Meta de Biodiversidad de 2010). Como es de su conocimiento, la COP 5 formalmente reconoció el Foro internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad como un órgano asesor del CDB. Además la, Decisión 8/24 enfatizó la necesidad de la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales y el respeto pleno de sus derechos en consonancia con legislación nacional y obligaciones internacionales.
Sr. Presidente, hemos hecho gran esfuerzos para formar parte de este proceso. Sin embargo, nos desilusionó profundamente que, desde el inicio de esta segunda reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas, nos han marginado y no contamos con la oportunidad de tomar la palabra de una forma puntual para expresar nuestros puntos de vista. Ayer en la tarde nos fueron silenciados en un momento crítico de la discusión y no fuimos permitido a hacer aportes a las deliberaciones sobre las recomendaciones sobre la aplicación del Programa de Trabajo. Además, a pesar de sus afirmaciones, Sr. Presidente, de que todas nuestras recomendaciones se iban a incluir en el documento CRP, ninguna de nuestras recomendaciones fueron incluidas en el CRP2. Eso nos consterna profundamente por lo que significan estas recomendaciones para nuestras vidas, tierras y la aplicación efectiva del Programa de Trabajo.
Sr. Presidente, en vista de esta inaceptable censura, el Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad expresa su enérgica protesta por este trato y por unanimidad, ha decidido dejar este proceso, que claramente no respeta nuestros derechos y la participación. Nos negamos a participar en un proceso que la toma decisiones sobre nuestras vidas y, sin embargo, esperan que seamos observadores silenciosos.
Vamos a considerar nuevas medidas apropiadas. Se nos ha informado por parte de varias organizaciones no gubernamentales su apoyo a nuestra decisión.
Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
Hortencia Hidalgo – Ramiro Batzin
Comunicación FIIB
comunicacionfiib@gmail.com
Satement presented at Plenary February 14, 2008
STATEMENT
Rome, February, 2008
Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished ladies and gentlemen.
Over the last fifteen years indigenous peoples have been participating in the CBD process contributing to its work and implementation with the best of our experiences, knowledge and will. Our efforts have been recognized on many occasions and we therefore have been able to participate and contribute to the deliberations and positive outcomes. Throughout this time we have been able to express our views and concerns regarding our fundamental rights, which are a critical aspect of biological diversity and conservation and of the international obligations of all state Parties.
The CBD calls for full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the implementation and processes of the Convention, at the national, regional and international levels (goal 4.3 of the Strategic Plan and 2010 Biodiversity Target). As you may be aware, COP 5 formally recognized the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity as an advisory body of the CBD. Furthermore, Decision 8/24 stressed the need for the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities respecting fully their rights consistent with national law and applicable international obligations.
Mr. chairman, we have made great efforts to be part of this process. However, it is with great disappointment that right from the beginning of this WGPA-2 meeting we have found ourselves marginalized and without opportunity to take the floor in a timely manner to express our points of view. Yesterday afternoon we were silenced at a critical moment of providing our contributions to the deliberations on the recommendations on implementation of the Programme of Work. Further, despite your assurances, Mr. Chairman, that all recommendations would be included in the CRP, none of our recommendations were included in CRP2. This is extremely disturbing in light of the relevance of these recommendations to our lives, lands and the effective implementation of the Programme of Work.
Mr. Chairman, in view of this unacceptable censoring, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity expresses its strong protest at this treatment and has unanimously decided to leave this process which clearly does not respect our rights and participation. We refuse to participate in a process that is making decisions over our lives and yet expects us to be silent observers.
We will be considering further appropriate measures. We have been advised by several NGOs that we also have their support on our decision.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Rome, February, 2008
Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished ladies and gentlemen.
Over the last fifteen years indigenous peoples have been participating in the CBD process contributing to its work and implementation with the best of our experiences, knowledge and will. Our efforts have been recognized on many occasions and we therefore have been able to participate and contribute to the deliberations and positive outcomes. Throughout this time we have been able to express our views and concerns regarding our fundamental rights, which are a critical aspect of biological diversity and conservation and of the international obligations of all state Parties.
The CBD calls for full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the implementation and processes of the Convention, at the national, regional and international levels (goal 4.3 of the Strategic Plan and 2010 Biodiversity Target). As you may be aware, COP 5 formally recognized the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity as an advisory body of the CBD. Furthermore, Decision 8/24 stressed the need for the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities respecting fully their rights consistent with national law and applicable international obligations.
Mr. chairman, we have made great efforts to be part of this process. However, it is with great disappointment that right from the beginning of this WGPA-2 meeting we have found ourselves marginalized and without opportunity to take the floor in a timely manner to express our points of view. Yesterday afternoon we were silenced at a critical moment of providing our contributions to the deliberations on the recommendations on implementation of the Programme of Work. Further, despite your assurances, Mr. Chairman, that all recommendations would be included in the CRP, none of our recommendations were included in CRP2. This is extremely disturbing in light of the relevance of these recommendations to our lives, lands and the effective implementation of the Programme of Work.
Mr. Chairman, in view of this unacceptable censoring, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity expresses its strong protest at this treatment and has unanimously decided to leave this process which clearly does not respect our rights and participation. We refuse to participate in a process that is making decisions over our lives and yet expects us to be silent observers.
We will be considering further appropriate measures. We have been advised by several NGOs that we also have their support on our decision.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
SHOCKING STEP-BACK FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CBD
14 February 2008
While the CBD calls for full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities and NGOs in the implementation and in the processes of the Convention, at national, regional and international levels (Goal 4.3 of the Strategic Plan and 2010 Biodiversity Target), the meeting on protected areas being held this week at the FAO headquarters in Rome has been a shocking step back.
From day one, upon arrival at the plenary hall, indigenous and NGO delegates found themselves squeezed in tiny seats without access to a microphone and a desk and separated from the government delegates. This built a gap among delegates and sent a negative signal on how participation would unfold.
The worst happened on Wednesday afternoon when the chairperson refused to allow interventions from the representative of the Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation (IPCC). Citing some alien UN rules, he tried to justify something that has not happened since time immemorial. Only after the EU delegate suggested to the chair that indigenous and NGO representatives should be allowed to provide their views during the ongoing informal session, did the chairperson unexpectedly gave the floor to the indigenous and NGO representatives, citing that he was doing so on an exceptional basis. He insisted that only Parties can take part in what he considered was an ‘informal’ session.
The indigenous representative pointed out that Parties were taking important decisions that impact on indigenous peoples’ lives and it is common practice in the CBD for civil society organizations to timely intervene on proposed Conference Room Papers (CRP) text.
Since the chairperson adamantly stuck to his position, the indigenous caucus gracefully walked out. After a group discussion, a note was delivered to the Executive Secretary, Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, requesting him to meet with the caucus in order to bring this unexpected and unacceptable situation to the Bureau.
Has this killed any hope to achieve full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities by 2010?
14 February 2008
While the CBD calls for full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities and NGOs in the implementation and in the processes of the Convention, at national, regional and international levels (Goal 4.3 of the Strategic Plan and 2010 Biodiversity Target), the meeting on protected areas being held this week at the FAO headquarters in Rome has been a shocking step back.
From day one, upon arrival at the plenary hall, indigenous and NGO delegates found themselves squeezed in tiny seats without access to a microphone and a desk and separated from the government delegates. This built a gap among delegates and sent a negative signal on how participation would unfold.
The worst happened on Wednesday afternoon when the chairperson refused to allow interventions from the representative of the Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation (IPCC). Citing some alien UN rules, he tried to justify something that has not happened since time immemorial. Only after the EU delegate suggested to the chair that indigenous and NGO representatives should be allowed to provide their views during the ongoing informal session, did the chairperson unexpectedly gave the floor to the indigenous and NGO representatives, citing that he was doing so on an exceptional basis. He insisted that only Parties can take part in what he considered was an ‘informal’ session.
The indigenous representative pointed out that Parties were taking important decisions that impact on indigenous peoples’ lives and it is common practice in the CBD for civil society organizations to timely intervene on proposed Conference Room Papers (CRP) text.
Since the chairperson adamantly stuck to his position, the indigenous caucus gracefully walked out. After a group discussion, a note was delivered to the Executive Secretary, Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, requesting him to meet with the caucus in order to bring this unexpected and unacceptable situation to the Bureau.
Has this killed any hope to achieve full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities by 2010?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3:SCIENTIFIC AND ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF MARINE AREAS
UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3
Progress Report on Refinement and Consolidation of Scientific AND ECOLOGICAL Criteria for the Identification of Marine Areas in Need of Protection and on Compilation of Biogeographical and Other Ecological Classification Systems
Indigenous Peoples Statement on UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3
Agenda Item 3.1.3
(MARINE PROTECTED AREAS )
Working Group on Protected Areas
Second Meeting
FAO
Rome, February 11th -15th, 2008
Agenda Item 3.1.3
Thank you, Chairman
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for preparing this document UNEP/CBD/WGPA/2/3 which forms the basis of this intervention under Agenda Item 3.1.3.
At the outset, the IIFB are disappointed that despite our calls in Montecatini during the First Working Group Meeting on Protected Areas with regards Indigenous Peoples having first-hand experience about issues relevant to protected areas identification, management, monitoring and evaluation, we continue to see with concern in the content of this document that our traditional knowledge, innovations and practices have not been taken into account even though it is recognized that traditional knowledge plays a valuable role in the sustainable management of fish resources in marine protected areas. As reflected in the complete absence in the text of this document of any reference to Indigenous Peoples and our particular issues on traditional knowledge, free prior and informed consent, and effective participation on identification, designation, and management of marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction have yet again, not taken seriously by the parties.
On the activities for perfecting and reformulating the scientific criteria for the identification of protected areas that need protection and on the compiling of a biogeografic classification system and other ecological classification systems, we are troubled to find that marine protected areas only include scientific criteria and fails to consider key indigenous concerns on social and cultural assessments, food security, and traditional indigenous knowledge. The absence of our indigenous experts in the Scientific Experts’ Workshop on Criteria for Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction hosted by Canada in Ottawa 6 to 8 December 2006, and similarly in the Expert Workshop on Ecological Criteria and Biogeographic Classification Systems for Marine Areas in Need of Protection, hosted by Portugal in Azores 2 to 4 October 2007 are clear examples of ignoring our Indigenous Peoples expertise and contravenes the requirement about participation of indigenous peoples and local communities contained in the PoW, especially Element 2 .
This is further exemplified by leaving out Indigenous Peoples expertise in the compilation of biogeographical and other ecological classification systems reported in paragraphs 6 and 7 of UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3 and in our assessment, again reflect the deliberate attempt to ignore our calls as Indigenous Peoples to be fully involved.
We are confident that the participation of other experts such as that of Indigenous Peoples would help provide a much more enhanced, broader, and holistic assessment of the criteria given that the protected areas in the marine areas outside of national jurisdiction do affect the intrinsic relationship of indigenous peoples and the marine systems that have been the sources of their sustainable livelihood for generations. The Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific, the Caribbean, and fishermen from other parts of the world have fished, and continue to fish in areas often outside national jurisdiction and any criteria considered for identification of marine areas in need of protection and on compilation of biogeographical and other ecological classification systems must take into consideration these traditional experiences of Indigenous Peoples.
For these reasons, the IIFB again call on the Parties to ensure that these concerns of Indigenous Peoples are adequately considered in the outcomes of this Agenda Item 3.1.3 and to ensure that not only text language is incorporated in this regard, but to fully consider Indigenous Peoples Expertise as integral pre-requisites in these criteria assessments and in consideration also of our rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007.
We will therefore give appropriate proposed text in this regard to the Secretariat for its consideration by the Parties during this week’s deliberation on this Agenda Item.
Thanks you.
Progress Report on Refinement and Consolidation of Scientific AND ECOLOGICAL Criteria for the Identification of Marine Areas in Need of Protection and on Compilation of Biogeographical and Other Ecological Classification Systems
Indigenous Peoples Statement on UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3
Agenda Item 3.1.3
(MARINE PROTECTED AREAS )
Working Group on Protected Areas
Second Meeting
FAO
Rome, February 11th -15th, 2008
Agenda Item 3.1.3
Thank you, Chairman
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for preparing this document UNEP/CBD/WGPA/2/3 which forms the basis of this intervention under Agenda Item 3.1.3.
At the outset, the IIFB are disappointed that despite our calls in Montecatini during the First Working Group Meeting on Protected Areas with regards Indigenous Peoples having first-hand experience about issues relevant to protected areas identification, management, monitoring and evaluation, we continue to see with concern in the content of this document that our traditional knowledge, innovations and practices have not been taken into account even though it is recognized that traditional knowledge plays a valuable role in the sustainable management of fish resources in marine protected areas. As reflected in the complete absence in the text of this document of any reference to Indigenous Peoples and our particular issues on traditional knowledge, free prior and informed consent, and effective participation on identification, designation, and management of marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction have yet again, not taken seriously by the parties.
On the activities for perfecting and reformulating the scientific criteria for the identification of protected areas that need protection and on the compiling of a biogeografic classification system and other ecological classification systems, we are troubled to find that marine protected areas only include scientific criteria and fails to consider key indigenous concerns on social and cultural assessments, food security, and traditional indigenous knowledge. The absence of our indigenous experts in the Scientific Experts’ Workshop on Criteria for Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction hosted by Canada in Ottawa 6 to 8 December 2006, and similarly in the Expert Workshop on Ecological Criteria and Biogeographic Classification Systems for Marine Areas in Need of Protection, hosted by Portugal in Azores 2 to 4 October 2007 are clear examples of ignoring our Indigenous Peoples expertise and contravenes the requirement about participation of indigenous peoples and local communities contained in the PoW, especially Element 2 .
This is further exemplified by leaving out Indigenous Peoples expertise in the compilation of biogeographical and other ecological classification systems reported in paragraphs 6 and 7 of UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3 and in our assessment, again reflect the deliberate attempt to ignore our calls as Indigenous Peoples to be fully involved.
We are confident that the participation of other experts such as that of Indigenous Peoples would help provide a much more enhanced, broader, and holistic assessment of the criteria given that the protected areas in the marine areas outside of national jurisdiction do affect the intrinsic relationship of indigenous peoples and the marine systems that have been the sources of their sustainable livelihood for generations. The Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific, the Caribbean, and fishermen from other parts of the world have fished, and continue to fish in areas often outside national jurisdiction and any criteria considered for identification of marine areas in need of protection and on compilation of biogeographical and other ecological classification systems must take into consideration these traditional experiences of Indigenous Peoples.
For these reasons, the IIFB again call on the Parties to ensure that these concerns of Indigenous Peoples are adequately considered in the outcomes of this Agenda Item 3.1.3 and to ensure that not only text language is incorporated in this regard, but to fully consider Indigenous Peoples Expertise as integral pre-requisites in these criteria assessments and in consideration also of our rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007.
We will therefore give appropriate proposed text in this regard to the Secretariat for its consideration by the Parties during this week’s deliberation on this Agenda Item.
Thanks you.
UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/4: MOBILIZING, AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, THROUGH DIFFERENT MECHANISMS ADEQUATE AND TIMELY FINANCIAL RESOURCES
UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/4
EXPLORATION OF OPTIONS FOR MOBILIZING, AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, THROUGH DIFFERENT MECHANISMS ADEQUATE AND TIMELY FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK
Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation
Opening statement on agenda item 3.2
Second Meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas
Of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Rome, Italy
February 12, 2008
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation, a working group of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, it is an honor to take the floor to address the agenda item 3.2 Exploration of options for mobilizing financial resources for the implementation of the programme of work.
With regards to the topic on mobilization of financial resources, we would like to reiterate, as we have underlined in our opening statement that, we highly question the proposed solutions through the innovative financial mechanism contained in the document for failing to take into account the impact of such deals to the indigenous peoples. We are also greatly concerned that the negotiations for such financial options have been conducted without our participation. We request the Executive Secretary to collaborate with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the Human Rights Council about the impacts that the innovative financial mechanisms have on indigenous peoples and to propose alternative options.
We would like to express our concern that the document for this agenda item narrowly refers to finance without taking into account social and cultural impact and infringement on the human rights of indigenous peoples. We believe that adequate financial resources must include funds sufficient to implement programme element 2.0 of the PoW and must involve standards, oversight and accountability arrangements to ensure funds are used in full conformity with COP Decision VII/28 (para 22) taken in 2004 which affirms that “the establishment, management and monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation, and the full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities consistent with domestic law and applicable international obligations.”
To advance the implementation on the PoW, we have prepared the following recommendations.
Under paragraph 2(a) we would like to add 3 new recommendations
(ix) Allocate Financial resources to promote capacity building and legal reforms for guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the establishment and management of PAs to improve their living conditions.
(x) Provide adequate funding to support the recovery and strengthening of traditional knowledge on biodiversity conservation.
(xi) Provide funds to ensure full participation and Free Prior Informed Consent of Indigenous and Local Communities in the implementation of Program of Work.
Under paragraph 2(c), we would also add 3 new paragraphs to GEF:
(ii) Support proposals for the development of innovative financial mechanisms and for the study of impacts of such mechanisms to indigenous and local communities
iii) Review its polices and practices in relation to indigenous and local communities and protected areas, and report it as soon as possible as mandated in decision COPVIII/24, paragraph 22(d).
iv) Report, together with its implementing agencies, on progress in support to community conserved areas and indigenous bio-cultural heritage areas, as mandated in decision COPVIII/24, paragraph 22(d).
v) Allocate funds for studies on the impacts of investment policies of multi lateral financial institutions on the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities.
Finally, we suggest the following new paragraphs:
(d) Invite(s) international and regional development banks, bilateral and multi-lateral donors to report on progress in ensuring coherence with indigenous peoples rights in their institutional policies on protected areas and investment projects.
(e) Invites the Executive Secretary to compile reports submitted by parties and government assessing the socio-economic values of protected area systems, focusing in particular on the critical contribution to poverty alleviation and achievement of the MDGs. This report should be prepared with the involvement of indigenous and local communities, and include specific evaluations of the impacts of the existing variety of funding mechanisms and protected area on indigenous and local communities.
(f) Request the Executive Secretary to consult with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues about the potential impact that the innovative financial mechanisms that are proposed by this working group have on indigenous peoples and local communities.
Thank you.
EXPLORATION OF OPTIONS FOR MOBILIZING, AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, THROUGH DIFFERENT MECHANISMS ADEQUATE AND TIMELY FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK
Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation
Opening statement on agenda item 3.2
Second Meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas
Of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Rome, Italy
February 12, 2008
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation, a working group of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, it is an honor to take the floor to address the agenda item 3.2 Exploration of options for mobilizing financial resources for the implementation of the programme of work.
With regards to the topic on mobilization of financial resources, we would like to reiterate, as we have underlined in our opening statement that, we highly question the proposed solutions through the innovative financial mechanism contained in the document for failing to take into account the impact of such deals to the indigenous peoples. We are also greatly concerned that the negotiations for such financial options have been conducted without our participation. We request the Executive Secretary to collaborate with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the Human Rights Council about the impacts that the innovative financial mechanisms have on indigenous peoples and to propose alternative options.
We would like to express our concern that the document for this agenda item narrowly refers to finance without taking into account social and cultural impact and infringement on the human rights of indigenous peoples. We believe that adequate financial resources must include funds sufficient to implement programme element 2.0 of the PoW and must involve standards, oversight and accountability arrangements to ensure funds are used in full conformity with COP Decision VII/28 (para 22) taken in 2004 which affirms that “the establishment, management and monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation, and the full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities consistent with domestic law and applicable international obligations.”
To advance the implementation on the PoW, we have prepared the following recommendations.
Under paragraph 2(a) we would like to add 3 new recommendations
(ix) Allocate Financial resources to promote capacity building and legal reforms for guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the establishment and management of PAs to improve their living conditions.
(x) Provide adequate funding to support the recovery and strengthening of traditional knowledge on biodiversity conservation.
(xi) Provide funds to ensure full participation and Free Prior Informed Consent of Indigenous and Local Communities in the implementation of Program of Work.
Under paragraph 2(c), we would also add 3 new paragraphs to GEF:
(ii) Support proposals for the development of innovative financial mechanisms and for the study of impacts of such mechanisms to indigenous and local communities
iii) Review its polices and practices in relation to indigenous and local communities and protected areas, and report it as soon as possible as mandated in decision COPVIII/24, paragraph 22(d).
iv) Report, together with its implementing agencies, on progress in support to community conserved areas and indigenous bio-cultural heritage areas, as mandated in decision COPVIII/24, paragraph 22(d).
v) Allocate funds for studies on the impacts of investment policies of multi lateral financial institutions on the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities.
Finally, we suggest the following new paragraphs:
(d) Invite(s) international and regional development banks, bilateral and multi-lateral donors to report on progress in ensuring coherence with indigenous peoples rights in their institutional policies on protected areas and investment projects.
(e) Invites the Executive Secretary to compile reports submitted by parties and government assessing the socio-economic values of protected area systems, focusing in particular on the critical contribution to poverty alleviation and achievement of the MDGs. This report should be prepared with the involvement of indigenous and local communities, and include specific evaluations of the impacts of the existing variety of funding mechanisms and protected area on indigenous and local communities.
(f) Request the Executive Secretary to consult with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues about the potential impact that the innovative financial mechanisms that are proposed by this working group have on indigenous peoples and local communities.
Thank you.
UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/2: REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS FOR THE PERIOD 2004-2007
UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/2
Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation
Statement on UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2
Agenda item 3.1.1 and 3.1.2
11 February, 2008
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for preparing document UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/2.
We are very disappointed by the lack of progress in the implementation of Element 2 of the Programme of Work on governance, equity, participation and benefit-sharing. Despite all the hard work to contribute to the development of the Programme of Work and our efforts at the national level to implement its activities directly relevant to the indigenous peoples and local communities, we have met many obstacles and in many cases Parties have preferred to continue with the establishment of protected areas without taking into account our rights and without ensuring our full and effective participation. We acknowledge that the official document in front us, in the executive summary (on page 1), notes that there has been limited progress in the implementation of the two targets under Element 2 of the PoW. There is therefore a recognition even by Parties that there has been very little done to address governance, equity, participation and benefit-sharing. To us, this element is absolutely critical to the implementation of the PoW and the future of biodiversity sustainable use and conservation. It is unacceptable that so little attention has been paid to this vital part of the Programme of Work.
We also note the constraints and obstacles identified in the document. We agree that these represent significant constraints to the implementation of the PoW, but we would like to add that, in our experience, the main constrains is the failure of governments to
- recognize our customary practices and legal system related to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
- Recognize our rights to our territories, lands and resources and the rights of Free Prior Informed Consent
- Review and reform national protected areas policies and laws that contravene the goals and targets of program element 2.
- Train protected areas managers and personnel to participatory approaches and to recognize and respect our rights
This failure has generally lead to a narrow focus on achieving quantitative protected areas targets without paying sufficient attention to social, cultural and justice aspects of protected areas. The rush to expand protected areas networks without putting issues of equity and participation as its core of can lead to an unjust and skewed implementation of the PoW.
Given these obstacles, there is a need to urgently focus on ways and means to overcome them. While we support the proposed ways and means in the document, in particular strong political commitment and the establishment of institutional mechanisms, we recommend the following ways and means:
- ensure a much stronger focus on the implementation of programme element 2, and fully consider its goals and targets in the implementation of the other 3 elements of the Programme of Work.
- carrying out reviews and reforms of national laws and policies on protected areas to make them consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the PoW on PA and other relevant international obligations.
- appreciation, recognition and respect for customary practices, laws and institutions related to biodiversity related to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
- establish training programmes for protected areas managers and personnel on participatory approaches and on recognition and respect of our rights.
We would like to make several changes and additions to the Recommendations in Doc2/2:
2(b) Establish multi-stakeholder coordination committees consisting of representatives from indigenous and local communities, various government agencies and departments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), members of the IUCN-WCPA, which will guide the national focal point in order to accelerate implementation of the programme of work with a view to inter alia:
We propose to change to para 3 (iii) to the following:
(iii) Developing a communication strategy to enhance public awareness about the program of work and traditional natural resource management practices of indigenous and local communities.
We would like to propose the addition of a new paragraph, which will now be:
(iii).bis Recognizing and respecting rights of the indigenous and local communities and ensuring their full and effective participation.
In paragraph 2(c), we would like to suggest addition of some wordings:
Improve and diversify protected-area governance based on Element 2 of the Program of Work by recognizing, where appropriate, community-based organizations as co-managers, incorporating community-conserved areas into the national system of protected areas; and recognizing and integrating local community knowledge into protected area decision- making;
Also paragraph under 2(f), we would like to suggest the additions which will read as follows:
(f) Develop national data networks and structures (indigenous peoples’ organizations, practitioners, academics, NGOs) in order to streamline reporting on national progress in implementing the programme of work, including providing information to the World Database on Protected Areas;
We also have two minor ammends additions under recommendation 3 to ensure participation of indigenous and local communities in ongoing work. These are in:
(a) to insert” indigenous and local communities” after non-governmental organizations.
(b) Encourages Parties, other Governments, indigenous and other organizations to continue assisting the Executive Secretary in organizing subregional workshops on key themes of the programme of work;
Given the acknowledgement on the lack of implementation of Element 2, we would also like to make the following recommendation:
3(e) requests the next meeting of the WGPA to include in its agenda, a focus review of the implementation of Element 2 of the Programme Programme of Work.
Indigenous Peoples Committee on Conservation
Statement on UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2
Agenda item 3.1.1 and 3.1.2
11 February, 2008
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for preparing document UNEP/CBD/WGPA2/2.
We are very disappointed by the lack of progress in the implementation of Element 2 of the Programme of Work on governance, equity, participation and benefit-sharing. Despite all the hard work to contribute to the development of the Programme of Work and our efforts at the national level to implement its activities directly relevant to the indigenous peoples and local communities, we have met many obstacles and in many cases Parties have preferred to continue with the establishment of protected areas without taking into account our rights and without ensuring our full and effective participation. We acknowledge that the official document in front us, in the executive summary (on page 1), notes that there has been limited progress in the implementation of the two targets under Element 2 of the PoW. There is therefore a recognition even by Parties that there has been very little done to address governance, equity, participation and benefit-sharing. To us, this element is absolutely critical to the implementation of the PoW and the future of biodiversity sustainable use and conservation. It is unacceptable that so little attention has been paid to this vital part of the Programme of Work.
We also note the constraints and obstacles identified in the document. We agree that these represent significant constraints to the implementation of the PoW, but we would like to add that, in our experience, the main constrains is the failure of governments to
- recognize our customary practices and legal system related to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
- Recognize our rights to our territories, lands and resources and the rights of Free Prior Informed Consent
- Review and reform national protected areas policies and laws that contravene the goals and targets of program element 2.
- Train protected areas managers and personnel to participatory approaches and to recognize and respect our rights
This failure has generally lead to a narrow focus on achieving quantitative protected areas targets without paying sufficient attention to social, cultural and justice aspects of protected areas. The rush to expand protected areas networks without putting issues of equity and participation as its core of can lead to an unjust and skewed implementation of the PoW.
Given these obstacles, there is a need to urgently focus on ways and means to overcome them. While we support the proposed ways and means in the document, in particular strong political commitment and the establishment of institutional mechanisms, we recommend the following ways and means:
- ensure a much stronger focus on the implementation of programme element 2, and fully consider its goals and targets in the implementation of the other 3 elements of the Programme of Work.
- carrying out reviews and reforms of national laws and policies on protected areas to make them consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the PoW on PA and other relevant international obligations.
- appreciation, recognition and respect for customary practices, laws and institutions related to biodiversity related to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
- establish training programmes for protected areas managers and personnel on participatory approaches and on recognition and respect of our rights.
We would like to make several changes and additions to the Recommendations in Doc2/2:
2(b) Establish multi-stakeholder coordination committees consisting of representatives from indigenous and local communities, various government agencies and departments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), members of the IUCN-WCPA, which will guide the national focal point in order to accelerate implementation of the programme of work with a view to inter alia:
We propose to change to para 3 (iii) to the following:
(iii) Developing a communication strategy to enhance public awareness about the program of work and traditional natural resource management practices of indigenous and local communities.
We would like to propose the addition of a new paragraph, which will now be:
(iii).bis Recognizing and respecting rights of the indigenous and local communities and ensuring their full and effective participation.
In paragraph 2(c), we would like to suggest addition of some wordings:
Improve and diversify protected-area governance based on Element 2 of the Program of Work by recognizing, where appropriate, community-based organizations as co-managers, incorporating community-conserved areas into the national system of protected areas; and recognizing and integrating local community knowledge into protected area decision- making;
Also paragraph under 2(f), we would like to suggest the additions which will read as follows:
(f) Develop national data networks and structures (indigenous peoples’ organizations, practitioners, academics, NGOs) in order to streamline reporting on national progress in implementing the programme of work, including providing information to the World Database on Protected Areas;
We also have two minor ammends additions under recommendation 3 to ensure participation of indigenous and local communities in ongoing work. These are in:
(a) to insert” indigenous and local communities” after non-governmental organizations.
(b) Encourages Parties, other Governments, indigenous and other organizations to continue assisting the Executive Secretary in organizing subregional workshops on key themes of the programme of work;
Given the acknowledgement on the lack of implementation of Element 2, we would also like to make the following recommendation:
3(e) requests the next meeting of the WGPA to include in its agenda, a focus review of the implementation of Element 2 of the Programme Programme of Work.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Opening Statement -Espanol
Foro Internacional Indígena sobre biodiversidad
Declaración de Apertura
Segunda Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica
Roma, Italia 11 de Febrero de 2008
Buon Giorno a Tutti!
Gracias, Señor Presidente.
En nombre del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad, me honra tomar la palabra para informarles que los Pueblos Indígenas realizamos una reunión preparatoria el 9 y 10 de febrero en esta bella ciudad, en lo cual se analizó la situación actual de la implementación del programa de trabajo incluyendo los impactos de las áreas protegidas sobre las tierras y territorios de los Pueblos Indígenas. Teníamos muchas esperanzas cuando el Programa de Trabajo aprobado en 2004, pero en realidad, el establecimiento continuo de las áreas protegidas en las tierras y territorios indígenas sigue violando los derechos humanos y colectivos de los Pueblos Indígenas incluyendo el consentimiento previo, libre e informado de los Pueblos Indígenas.
Recodamos a las Partes que la decisión VII/28 plantea claramente “que el establecimiento, gestión y vigilancia de las áreas protegidas deberían realizarse con la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales, y respetando plenamente sus derechos.” El establecimiento de áreas protegidas sigue resultando en la apropiación indebida de nuestras tierras, territorios, recursos y la perdida de nuestras culturas y sustento. Este resultado lamentable debe detenerse y se requiere establecer una nueva ética de conservación. Exigimos el reconocimiento de nuestros derechos y la restitución de nuestras tierras. Sin estés prerrequisitos, la creación de las áreas protegidas seguirá aumentando la inequidad y la pobreza, los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio no se lograrán.
Estamos profundamente desilusionados que ni esta decisión ni el Elemento 2 del Programa de Trabajo sobre Gobernabilidad, Equidad, Participación y el Reparto de Beneficios se están abordado o implementando. El Secretariado notó con toda certeza en el documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2 que “el progreso ha sido limitado en el logro de los objetivos y las metas del Elemento 2.”
Sin la reforma de los marcos jurídicos y políticas nacionales e internacionales, para asegurar la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas en la toma de decisiones, la implementación justa y equitativa del Programa de Trabajo es imposible. En ese sentido, recordamos a las Partes que el 13 de septiembre de 2007, la Asamblea General de la ONU aprobó por mayoría abrumadora la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Los artículos 25 al 32 de esta declaración histórica son de suma importancia para las deliberaciones de este Grupo de Trabajo. La Declaración se debe considerar como la base fundamental para la implementación del Programa de Trabajo.
En cuanto el tema de la movilización de los mecanismos financieros, estamos gravemente preocupados sobre las implicaciones y los impactos negativos de algunos de los mecanismos financieros contenidos en el documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/4. Rechazamos las soluciones propuestas tales como el comercio de carbono, industrias extractivas, canje de deuda por naturaleza, privatización de agua, permisos de bioprospeción, ecoturismo negativo, servicios ambientales, pago para servicios de ecosistema y RED, ya que son sumamente controvertidos y contrarios a la cosmovisión y derechos indígenas.
En cuanto al documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3, estos criterios contenidos en este documento para el establecimiento de las áreas protegidas marinas no contemplan criterios socioculturales, ignoran los conocimientos tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales y ignoran sus derechos. Estás omisiones niegan la relación intrínseca entre los pueblos indígenas y biodiversidad marina y el trasfondo del elemento 2 del Programa de Trabajo.
Quisiéramos aprovechar esta oportunidad para agradecer al Secretariado por haber incluido algunos de los insumos presentados por los pueblos indígenas en los documentos. Instamos al Secretariado a seguir con esas buenas prácticas y le solicitamos de la forma más cordial que los plazos sean lo suficiente ampliados y flexibles para que las comunidades indígenas y locales puedan consultar y responder.
Señor Presidente, bajo su liderazgo destacado, en el transcurso de la semana les estaremos haciendo llegar nuestras propuestas concretas sobre el texto de las recomendaciones de los documentos de este Grupo de Trabajo.
Grazie.
Declaración de Apertura
Segunda Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Áreas Protegidas del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica
Roma, Italia 11 de Febrero de 2008
Buon Giorno a Tutti!
Gracias, Señor Presidente.
En nombre del Foro Internacional Indígena sobre Biodiversidad, me honra tomar la palabra para informarles que los Pueblos Indígenas realizamos una reunión preparatoria el 9 y 10 de febrero en esta bella ciudad, en lo cual se analizó la situación actual de la implementación del programa de trabajo incluyendo los impactos de las áreas protegidas sobre las tierras y territorios de los Pueblos Indígenas. Teníamos muchas esperanzas cuando el Programa de Trabajo aprobado en 2004, pero en realidad, el establecimiento continuo de las áreas protegidas en las tierras y territorios indígenas sigue violando los derechos humanos y colectivos de los Pueblos Indígenas incluyendo el consentimiento previo, libre e informado de los Pueblos Indígenas.
Recodamos a las Partes que la decisión VII/28 plantea claramente “que el establecimiento, gestión y vigilancia de las áreas protegidas deberían realizarse con la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales, y respetando plenamente sus derechos.” El establecimiento de áreas protegidas sigue resultando en la apropiación indebida de nuestras tierras, territorios, recursos y la perdida de nuestras culturas y sustento. Este resultado lamentable debe detenerse y se requiere establecer una nueva ética de conservación. Exigimos el reconocimiento de nuestros derechos y la restitución de nuestras tierras. Sin estés prerrequisitos, la creación de las áreas protegidas seguirá aumentando la inequidad y la pobreza, los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio no se lograrán.
Estamos profundamente desilusionados que ni esta decisión ni el Elemento 2 del Programa de Trabajo sobre Gobernabilidad, Equidad, Participación y el Reparto de Beneficios se están abordado o implementando. El Secretariado notó con toda certeza en el documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2 que “el progreso ha sido limitado en el logro de los objetivos y las metas del Elemento 2.”
Sin la reforma de los marcos jurídicos y políticas nacionales e internacionales, para asegurar la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas en la toma de decisiones, la implementación justa y equitativa del Programa de Trabajo es imposible. En ese sentido, recordamos a las Partes que el 13 de septiembre de 2007, la Asamblea General de la ONU aprobó por mayoría abrumadora la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Los artículos 25 al 32 de esta declaración histórica son de suma importancia para las deliberaciones de este Grupo de Trabajo. La Declaración se debe considerar como la base fundamental para la implementación del Programa de Trabajo.
En cuanto el tema de la movilización de los mecanismos financieros, estamos gravemente preocupados sobre las implicaciones y los impactos negativos de algunos de los mecanismos financieros contenidos en el documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/4. Rechazamos las soluciones propuestas tales como el comercio de carbono, industrias extractivas, canje de deuda por naturaleza, privatización de agua, permisos de bioprospeción, ecoturismo negativo, servicios ambientales, pago para servicios de ecosistema y RED, ya que son sumamente controvertidos y contrarios a la cosmovisión y derechos indígenas.
En cuanto al documento UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3, estos criterios contenidos en este documento para el establecimiento de las áreas protegidas marinas no contemplan criterios socioculturales, ignoran los conocimientos tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales y ignoran sus derechos. Estás omisiones niegan la relación intrínseca entre los pueblos indígenas y biodiversidad marina y el trasfondo del elemento 2 del Programa de Trabajo.
Quisiéramos aprovechar esta oportunidad para agradecer al Secretariado por haber incluido algunos de los insumos presentados por los pueblos indígenas en los documentos. Instamos al Secretariado a seguir con esas buenas prácticas y le solicitamos de la forma más cordial que los plazos sean lo suficiente ampliados y flexibles para que las comunidades indígenas y locales puedan consultar y responder.
Señor Presidente, bajo su liderazgo destacado, en el transcurso de la semana les estaremos haciendo llegar nuestras propuestas concretas sobre el texto de las recomendaciones de los documentos de este Grupo de Trabajo.
Grazie.
Opening Statement -English
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity
Opening Statement
Second Meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas
of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Rome, Italy
February 11, 2008
Buon Giorno a Tutti!
Thank you, Mr. President.
On behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, it is an honor to take the floor to inform you of the Indigenous Peoples preparatory meeting held on February 9th and 10th in this beautiful city in which we analyzed the current situation of the implementation of the Program of Work, including impacts of protected areas on Indigenous Peoples’ lands and territories.. We had high hopes when the Program of Work was adopted in 2004, but in reality, the continued establishment of protected areas in indigenous land and territories still violates the human rights and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, including to right to free prior informed consent.
We remind Parties that decision VII/28 clearly states that “the establishment, management and monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation of, and full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities”. The establishment of protected areas continues to result in the expropriation of our lands, territories, resources and the loss of our cultures and livelihoods. Such undesirable outcome must stop and a new ethic of conservation be established. We demand the recognition of our rights and the restitution of our lands. Without these prerequisites, the creation of protected areas will continue to increase inequality and poverty, and the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved.
We are profoundly disappointed that neither this decision nor Element 2 of the Program of Work on Governance, Equity, Participation and Benefit Sharing are being effectively addressed and implemented. The Secretariat rightly noted in document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2 that “progress has been limited in the achievement of the goals and targets of Element 2.”
Without reforming the national and international legal frameworks and policies to ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision making, a fair and just implementation of the Program of Work would remain impossible. In this regard, we remind the Parties that on September 13th, 2007, the General Assembly of the UN approved by overwhelming majority the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Articles 25 to 32 of this historic declaration are of particular importance for the deliberations of this Working Group. The Declaration must be considered as the fundamental basis for any further implementation of the Programme of Work.
Regarding the topic of mobilization of financial resources, we are deeply concerned about the implication and negative impacts of some of the financial mechanisms contained in document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/4. We reject proposed solutions such as carbon trading, extractive industries, nature-for-debt swaps, privatization of water, bio-prospecting permits, negative ecotourism, environmental services, payment for eco-system services and REDD, because they are very controversial and contrary to our worldview and rights,.
In reference to document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3, the criteria addressed in this document for establishing marine protected areas do not include socio-cultural criteria, ignore the vast traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, and disregard their rights. These omissions deny the intrinsic relationship between Indigenous Peoples and marine biodiversity, and the essence of program element 2 of the Programme of Work.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for having incorporated some of the submissions of Indigenous Peoples in the documents. We urge the Secretariat to continue with these good practices and cordially request that the timeframe be sufficient and flexible enough for indigenous and local communities to be able to consult and submit feedbacks
Mr. President, under your distinguished leadership, in the course of this week, we will present our concrete proposals on the text of the recommendations of the documents of this Working Group.
Grazie.
Opening Statement
Second Meeting of the Working Group on Protected Areas
of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Rome, Italy
February 11, 2008
Buon Giorno a Tutti!
Thank you, Mr. President.
On behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, it is an honor to take the floor to inform you of the Indigenous Peoples preparatory meeting held on February 9th and 10th in this beautiful city in which we analyzed the current situation of the implementation of the Program of Work, including impacts of protected areas on Indigenous Peoples’ lands and territories.. We had high hopes when the Program of Work was adopted in 2004, but in reality, the continued establishment of protected areas in indigenous land and territories still violates the human rights and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, including to right to free prior informed consent.
We remind Parties that decision VII/28 clearly states that “the establishment, management and monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation of, and full respect for the rights of, indigenous and local communities”. The establishment of protected areas continues to result in the expropriation of our lands, territories, resources and the loss of our cultures and livelihoods. Such undesirable outcome must stop and a new ethic of conservation be established. We demand the recognition of our rights and the restitution of our lands. Without these prerequisites, the creation of protected areas will continue to increase inequality and poverty, and the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved.
We are profoundly disappointed that neither this decision nor Element 2 of the Program of Work on Governance, Equity, Participation and Benefit Sharing are being effectively addressed and implemented. The Secretariat rightly noted in document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2 that “progress has been limited in the achievement of the goals and targets of Element 2.”
Without reforming the national and international legal frameworks and policies to ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision making, a fair and just implementation of the Program of Work would remain impossible. In this regard, we remind the Parties that on September 13th, 2007, the General Assembly of the UN approved by overwhelming majority the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Articles 25 to 32 of this historic declaration are of particular importance for the deliberations of this Working Group. The Declaration must be considered as the fundamental basis for any further implementation of the Programme of Work.
Regarding the topic of mobilization of financial resources, we are deeply concerned about the implication and negative impacts of some of the financial mechanisms contained in document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/4. We reject proposed solutions such as carbon trading, extractive industries, nature-for-debt swaps, privatization of water, bio-prospecting permits, negative ecotourism, environmental services, payment for eco-system services and REDD, because they are very controversial and contrary to our worldview and rights,.
In reference to document UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/3, the criteria addressed in this document for establishing marine protected areas do not include socio-cultural criteria, ignore the vast traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, and disregard their rights. These omissions deny the intrinsic relationship between Indigenous Peoples and marine biodiversity, and the essence of program element 2 of the Programme of Work.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for having incorporated some of the submissions of Indigenous Peoples in the documents. We urge the Secretariat to continue with these good practices and cordially request that the timeframe be sufficient and flexible enough for indigenous and local communities to be able to consult and submit feedbacks
Mr. President, under your distinguished leadership, in the course of this week, we will present our concrete proposals on the text of the recommendations of the documents of this Working Group.
Grazie.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Civil Society Statement - English
CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS
CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS
(Delivered on 11th February 2008, at the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Protected Areas, 2nd Meeting, Rome)
As civil society organizations gathered at the 2nd meeting of the CBD Working Group on Protected Areas, we express serious concern about the continued loss of biodiversity, and lack of progress with achieving agreed targets to reduce and halt this loss. There remain serious threats from extractive and other industries such as logging and mining, new processes such as the promotion of agrofuels, and other such factors. The loss of biodiversity also continues to have serious impacts on the survival and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities. The CBD parties must announce a moratorium on extractive and other industries in areas considered important for biodiversity conservation.
Ironically, some the most effective means of reaching the targets to reduce and halt biodiversity loss remain neglected aspects of the CBD Protected Areas Programme of Work (PA POW). This includes, especially, the recognition of the practices of indigenous and local communities in community conserved areas, and through the involvement of such communities in the establishment and management of government protected areas. Also neglected in the move to expand protected areas are spaces like the high seas, which are crucial to future of the planet. Finally, the general landscape of degradation is being neglected, in the move to set up protected areas as islands.
We also point to the recently adopted Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The rights enshrined in this declaration should guide the implementation of the Programme of Work on PAs and all other aspects of the CBD. This is crucial because our experience shows that in most countries, protected areas continue to be established and run in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, despite the commitment to change which is embedded in the PA POW.
We recognize that there has been some progress on implementation of the PA POW, but our concerns remain on the following points:
The rush to meet the targets of the PA POW through narrowly ‘scientific’ criteria without considering their social and cultural aspects, and without diversifying PA governance, continues to undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Many of the targets of the PA POW could be effectively reached if governments were to put a moratorium on industrial and commercial extractions of resources in areas of biodiversity importance, while simultaneously recognizing the rights of IP/LCs to participate in PA establishment and management. Criteria for identifying and establishing protected areas need to take on board social and cultural issues, and indigenous knowledge; expansion of the protected area systems must rely on diversification of governance in particular community conserved areas.
Most countries appear not to have put in the policies, laws, and institutional mechanisms needed to implement the recommendations regarding governance and benefit-sharing committed to in Element 2 of the PA POW. There is also a clear need for capacity-building in the governance aspects of PA management. Governments should fully recognize the rights of indigenous and local communities in PA systems, and to fully redress the imbalance between local and national/global costs and benefits. There is also a clear need to build capacity within government agencies on governance aspects, and we strongly recommend a series of regional workshops dedicated to this.
Reporting by governments on the implementation of the PA POW remains very weak, with very few parties having sent in their reports, and many of them not reporting on the governance and social aspects of PAs. In most countries, reports have not been prepared through participatory ways despite relevant COP decisions on this. We admit also that civil society reporting on this needs to be stronger and more independent. Parties must be made accountable to adequate and participatory reporting; we also urge the need to support and recognise independent reporting by indigenous peoples, local communities, and civil society organizations.
PA schemes and poverty and livelihood schemes in countries are still delinked, creating artificial shortages of finances for conservation and driving governments towards private sector funding and management of PAs, even further undermining IP/LC rights. There is a need to link various programmes of the govt, and to democratize their planning and implementation with IP/LC participation, to support PAs as the ‘commons’ that are critical for ecological security and for the livelihood security of IPs/LCs.
So-called ‘innovative mechanisms’ for financing PAs such as carbon and biodiversity offsets are of serious concern to us, if they provide an escape route to those most responsible for the destruction of our planet, and if they are being used by governments to continue carrying out activities in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, as if often the case. Governments and donors need to commit to putting in the funds needed from public funds first and foremost, and where relying on other innovative mechanisms, to ensure ecological sustainability and the full respect of the rights and participation of IPs/LCs.
Finally, we support the following draft recommendations made in the Secretariat note UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2, but would like to stress that IP/LC participation in these has to be central:
(i) establishment of multi-stakeholder coordination committees in each country, to help implement the POW (with the proviso that IP/LCs be seen as rightsholders, not mere ‘stakeholders’);
(ii) improvement and diversification of PA governance and in particular co-management and community conserved areas.
Signed(On behalf of civil society organizations / NGOs)
CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS
(Delivered on 11th February 2008, at the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Protected Areas, 2nd Meeting, Rome)
As civil society organizations gathered at the 2nd meeting of the CBD Working Group on Protected Areas, we express serious concern about the continued loss of biodiversity, and lack of progress with achieving agreed targets to reduce and halt this loss. There remain serious threats from extractive and other industries such as logging and mining, new processes such as the promotion of agrofuels, and other such factors. The loss of biodiversity also continues to have serious impacts on the survival and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities. The CBD parties must announce a moratorium on extractive and other industries in areas considered important for biodiversity conservation.
Ironically, some the most effective means of reaching the targets to reduce and halt biodiversity loss remain neglected aspects of the CBD Protected Areas Programme of Work (PA POW). This includes, especially, the recognition of the practices of indigenous and local communities in community conserved areas, and through the involvement of such communities in the establishment and management of government protected areas. Also neglected in the move to expand protected areas are spaces like the high seas, which are crucial to future of the planet. Finally, the general landscape of degradation is being neglected, in the move to set up protected areas as islands.
We also point to the recently adopted Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The rights enshrined in this declaration should guide the implementation of the Programme of Work on PAs and all other aspects of the CBD. This is crucial because our experience shows that in most countries, protected areas continue to be established and run in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, despite the commitment to change which is embedded in the PA POW.
We recognize that there has been some progress on implementation of the PA POW, but our concerns remain on the following points:
The rush to meet the targets of the PA POW through narrowly ‘scientific’ criteria without considering their social and cultural aspects, and without diversifying PA governance, continues to undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Many of the targets of the PA POW could be effectively reached if governments were to put a moratorium on industrial and commercial extractions of resources in areas of biodiversity importance, while simultaneously recognizing the rights of IP/LCs to participate in PA establishment and management. Criteria for identifying and establishing protected areas need to take on board social and cultural issues, and indigenous knowledge; expansion of the protected area systems must rely on diversification of governance in particular community conserved areas.
Most countries appear not to have put in the policies, laws, and institutional mechanisms needed to implement the recommendations regarding governance and benefit-sharing committed to in Element 2 of the PA POW. There is also a clear need for capacity-building in the governance aspects of PA management. Governments should fully recognize the rights of indigenous and local communities in PA systems, and to fully redress the imbalance between local and national/global costs and benefits. There is also a clear need to build capacity within government agencies on governance aspects, and we strongly recommend a series of regional workshops dedicated to this.
Reporting by governments on the implementation of the PA POW remains very weak, with very few parties having sent in their reports, and many of them not reporting on the governance and social aspects of PAs. In most countries, reports have not been prepared through participatory ways despite relevant COP decisions on this. We admit also that civil society reporting on this needs to be stronger and more independent. Parties must be made accountable to adequate and participatory reporting; we also urge the need to support and recognise independent reporting by indigenous peoples, local communities, and civil society organizations.
PA schemes and poverty and livelihood schemes in countries are still delinked, creating artificial shortages of finances for conservation and driving governments towards private sector funding and management of PAs, even further undermining IP/LC rights. There is a need to link various programmes of the govt, and to democratize their planning and implementation with IP/LC participation, to support PAs as the ‘commons’ that are critical for ecological security and for the livelihood security of IPs/LCs.
So-called ‘innovative mechanisms’ for financing PAs such as carbon and biodiversity offsets are of serious concern to us, if they provide an escape route to those most responsible for the destruction of our planet, and if they are being used by governments to continue carrying out activities in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, as if often the case. Governments and donors need to commit to putting in the funds needed from public funds first and foremost, and where relying on other innovative mechanisms, to ensure ecological sustainability and the full respect of the rights and participation of IPs/LCs.
Finally, we support the following draft recommendations made in the Secretariat note UNEP/CBD/WG-PA/2/2, but would like to stress that IP/LC participation in these has to be central:
(i) establishment of multi-stakeholder coordination committees in each country, to help implement the POW (with the proviso that IP/LCs be seen as rightsholders, not mere ‘stakeholders’);
(ii) improvement and diversification of PA governance and in particular co-management and community conserved areas.
Signed(On behalf of civil society organizations / NGOs)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)