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.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)