The unanimous approval of the creation of the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples by ECOSOC in July 2000 and subsequently by the General Assembly in December mean that two critically important processes now follow a parallel course in the United Nations: the implementation of the Permanent Forum within ECOSOC and the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the Commission on Human Rights.
Within the context of the first process, indigenous peoples' organisations are engaged in regional consultations which should enable them to adopt a definitive position on the ways and means of implementing the Permanent Forum, in particular regarding the nomination of their respective representatives. To give but two examples of forthcoming consultations, the Asian Indigenous Peoples' Pact is organising a meeting at the beginning of May 2001 in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and national meetings are scheduled for February in Bolivia and Australia. In spite of all the difficulties and expenditure involved in such consultations, indigenous peoples' organisations do their utmost to achieve unified and representative proposals. According to our information, the next stage of the UN process is due to begin in May and culminate at the next ECOSOC meeting, which is to be held in Geneva. A decision will most likely be taken there to hold the first meeting of the Permanent Forum in Geneva in July 2002, either immediately before or after the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
The second process concerns the Working Group on the Draft Declaration. The report on the proceedings of the most recent meeting represents the key issue of this newsletter. This summary proved particularly difficult to write up owing to many informal meetings which punctuated the discussions and of which often no written trace exists. Furthermore, several governments were opposed to some of their interventions being collected and we had at times to use our own notes. We would therefore ask the reader to kindly take this into consideration. Finally, this report does not claim to be exhaustive, especially as far as the section containing the Article-by-Article analysis of the Declaration is concerned. It emphasises the governments' position and in particular their reasons for wishing to amend Articles, as indigenous peoples themselves have wished to do on many occasions. Of particular note is the fact that while several Articles were discussed, none were actually ratified.
A number of other major international events concerning indigenous peoples have also been held recently. The UNCTAD brought together governments, intergovernmental organisations, UN specialized agencies, indigenous peoples' organisations, NGOs, and experts with a view to discussing national systems and exchanging experiences related to knowledge, innovations and traditional practices. A great many authorities are in fact currently working on this issue, notably the WIPO, Biodiversity Convention, ILO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, World Bank, WTO and, it goes without saying, the Subcommittee on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, with the study by special rapporteur Mrs. Erica-Irene Daes on the protection of the heritage of indigenous peoples. Seven indigenous organisations were represented there and the report on the proceedings was written up by one of their delegates.
Last but by no means least, the Second International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Climate Change was held at The Hague in December 2000. It gave rise to a Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, which we have been asked to publish.
The Indigenous Caucus submitted the following proposals to the Chairman-Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Enrique Chávez (Peru): (1) a discussion of the process, in particular the full and equal participation of indigenous peoples in the working group; (2) the inclusion of an agenda item entitled "General debate" and focussing on self-determination, land rights and natural resources; (3) the nomination of Mr. Wilton Littlechild of IOIRD as an indigenous co-chair.
The first two proposals were adopted, while the third was rejected on the grounds that UN rules of procedure do not permit the appointment of a co-chair. The following programme was adopted: (1) General debate on the process (formal plenary); (2) General debate on core issues, including self-determination, land rights and natural resources (formal plenary); (3) Consideration of Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 44 and 45 (informal plenary). An informal consultation on the World Conference against Racism was held prior to the adoption of the report. Article 13 was not discussed due to time constraints. Closed government meetings took place parallel to this procedure.
This report on the general debate, including process and core issues, is based on written statements and draft report E/CN.4/2000/WG.15/CRP.1.
As the indigenous delegations requested to express their positions throughout the discussions, we have chosen to focus on them in this part. We also summarize the general ideas expressed unanimously by indigenous peoples' (IPs) delegations, as well as specific proposals and comments on the process, without including all their statements due to the limited available space. A list of IPs organisations which took the floor under this item is included at the end of this part.
While governments justified their use of closed sessions in an effort to find a common position on the text of the Draft Declaration (DD) which they were unwilling to adopt as it stood, indigenous representatives stressed that they were entitled to full participation on an equal footing with States and that they were unable to accept changes that did not uphold the principle of racial equality and non-discrimination, that were inconsistent with existing international standards or that altered the core principles.
Canada , the informal coordinator of the closed government sessions, explained the purpose of these unofficial meetings, namely to bring States' positions closer together in order to present fewer proposals (supported by Australia and Norway) . Denmark suggested that government meetings be opened to indigenous delegates in order to make the process more transparent. Like many governments, Australia was unable to accept the text of the DD as prepared by the WGIP (as was also the case of Norway , although it agreed on most of the Articles as they stood). Australia was of the opinion that substantive discussions on the terms of each Article were necessary for agreement to be reached and that significant changes needed to be made (noted by the Russian Federation) . New Zealand recognised the usefulness of informal sessions, although it stated that these should not take place at the expense of the limited time allocated to plenary sessions. Chile said that negotiations were necessary in order to come to a political agreement on sensitive issues. Argentina felt that it was not the process which impeded progress, but substantive issues. The DD is an evolving text which requires negotiation. Switzerland believed that discussions on the definition of indigenous peoples (IPs) should be avoided. The DD should serve as a basis for the work of the Permanent Forum. Like many other governments, Mexico stated that it was important to make progress.
As in previous years, the Indigenous Caucus strongly opposed the use of closed government meetings, which result in governments providing alternative texts during the time allocated to the working group. Such a procedure is in violation of CHR resolution 1995/32, which provides for the full and equal participation of IPs. Indigenous organizations denounced their exclusion from the UN system and the lack of transparency. They reiterated their full support of the current version of the Draft Declaration, without any qualification of their inherent right to self-determination and status as peoples. CISA stated that the denial of this status amounted to the legal disappearance of IPs and that once they had legally disappeared, discussions on self-determination, territory or any other issue would be worthless. Supported by the Indigenous Caucus , ILRC/AFN/GCC/HD/ITFS/NN/IOIRD/NKI/AILA said that it would be illegitimate, immoral and unconstitutional for States to seek to weaken the basic rights and obligations referred to in this aspirational document. Self-determination and the prohibition of racial discrimination were considered to be peremptory norms.
MLS suggested that a right of reply be granted to speakers to allow for continuity of discussion. The notion of consensus as interpreted by governments was also questioned. ECOSOC Resolution 1835 (LVI) of 14 May 1974 defines consensus as general agreement without a vote and not necessarily the agreement of all concerned ( ICC/SC, ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA, MRTKL ). The fact that IPs are not afforded the opportunity to hear the specific objections of individual State delegations to the current text and are denied the possibility to discuss these problems openly goes against consensus building ( IITC/DM/CCAG/MJK/FICI ). IWA deplored the lack of progress under the leadership of the current chair.
In concluding the debate, the Chairman clarified that the mandate of the working group was to elaborate a declaration on the basis of the text adopted by the Sub-Commission. The alternative texts presented will be considered in the future and have been included in the report as a means of advancing the work. He further stated that the so-called "closed sessions" were private government sessions that started before the beginning of a meeting of the working group and that he would make every effort to prevent their continuing during the time allocated to plenary sessions. Nevertheless, he also stressed that he would suspend the meeting whenever necessary to allow consultation among participants. As regards the concept of consensus, he saw no contradiction between the practice followed by the working group and ECOSOC Resolution 1835 (LVI). He specified that consensus meant that a text could be adopted without a vote and that "majority" should not be confused with "consensus".
Statements were made by the following indigenous organizations: AFN, AIPP/IWGIA, AN, ANCAP-T, ANIPA, ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA, CAPAJ, Chirapaq/TPMIP, CIN, CISA, COCEI, CONAIE, CONAMAQ, CPA, DM, FOAG, ICC/SC, IITC, ILRC / AFN / GCC / HD / ITFS / NN / IOIRD / NKIKLH / AILA and the Indigenous Caucus, IMTA, IPNC, ITFS, IWA, JOHAR / IWGIA, MLS, MRTKL, NKIKLH, NN, NTG / IAITP , Chagossian / OIDEL, RAIPON, SLFN, TF.
The positions expressed by the government delegations who take the floor on the principle of SD range from acceptance of Article 3 in its current wording ( Denmark ), the inclusion of the right of SD in the Declaration without any arbitrary limitation or qualification ( Cuba ), the view that SD is a right a right which does not need to be re-defined ( Guatemala ) and wich has sufficient clarity in international law ( Pakistan ), to the impossibility of including this right in the Declaration ( Australia and Japan ). A conditional acceptance of the right to SD as an internal right, provided the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States are respected, is the position held by the majority of States (notably New Zealand, Canada, Venezuela, Norway, Finland, France, Spain, Ecuador, Russian Federation, Denmark ). Some States stressed that this right could be included in the Draft Declaration (DD) only if it is consistent with their domestic jurisdiction ( New Zealand and Mexico ). Bangladesh said that the concept of SD has global acceptance as a right and reported that the Asian Group has decided to put aside the discussion on the definition for the moment.
Denmark and the Greenland Home Rule Government stressed that IPs must have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Cuba said that the right to SD does not imply the disintegration of territorial integrity or political unit of independent States that respect the principle of equality and SD of peoples (the same is true to Guatemala ). It is an indispensable condition for the exercise of IPs' autonomy and the preservation of their identity. Pakistan saw no contradiction between the right to SD and the principle of States' territorial integrity. This right is not a consequence of a limited historical process, but is a principle of international law based on fundamental political postulates. Colonisation did not lead to the emergence of the right to SD. On the contrary, it was the existence of this right which propelled the process of decolonisation. Guatemala considered that the right to SD only makes sense if it was accepted as a collective right of IPs. Within States, this right enables peoples or groups to define their political status, providing for decentralisation and autonomy. To deny or limit this right in a democratic State is contradictory.
On the other hand, for Australia , SD implies the establishment of separate nations and laws and is therefore inappropriate to their situation. In Australia Aboriginal people exercise substantial control over their affairs. Indigenous communities own their land (about 15% of Australia) and manage local government functions. Japan says that the concept of collective rights is unclear, as no international human rights instruments refer to such rights, and that their domestic legislation does not recognize them. If each State fully respects individual rights, it is not necessary to introduce this new concept. Individual rights can also be exercised in community as provided for in Article 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Minorities.
Canada pointed out that the right of SD has evolved and is now seen by many as a right which can continue to be enjoyed in a democracy in which citizens participate in the political system and have a say in the political processes that affect them. It accepts the right to SD, involving negotiations between States and IPs to determine IPs' political status and means of pursuing their economic, social and cultural development, as arrangements for self-government. The goal of this working group is to develop a common understanding of how this right should apply to indigenous collectivities and what this right involves.
Norway points out that the term "self-determination" is not clearly defined in international law. This principle includes the right of IPs to participate at all decision-making levels in legislative and administrative matters and in the maintenance and development of their political and economic systems. Norway supports the DD provisions on how to implement this right and has taken steps to implement these objectives.
Finland supports the use of the term "indigenous peoples" since the collective rights in the DD are essential to preserving and strengthening IPs' identity. It accepts the use of the term "SD" in the DD provided that article 31 is formulated as currently drafted, so that self-government applies to internal and local affairs.
New Zealand said that the references to autonomy, self-government and separate legal, taxation and judicial systems in the DD are inconsistent with NZ government policy. It stressed that Maoris have the right to exist as a community with their own cultural identity.
France stated that concretely that the exercise of this right must be negotiated and discussed with all the populations concerned. The application of this principle has led to the process of SD in New Caledonia. The 1998 Noumea Agreement was reached through tripartite negotiations between the Kanak people, the Caldoches and the government.
Referring to Article 3, Argentina , proposed including paragraph 3 of Article 1 of ILO Convention 169.
Ecuador recognised the diversity of ethnic and cultural groups and collective rights for IPs (as did Venezuela and Mexico ). Mexico referred to an initiative to integrate the concept of SD into the national constitution. The Russian Federation reported the adoption of a federal law which grants IPs the right to preserve their traditional lifestyles and protect their environment.
All indigenous representatives stated that the right to SD was a fundamental underlying principle of the Declaration from which all rights derive. It is the fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural. In order to survive as distinct peoples in their own land, IPs should have full control over their lives. References are made to Ms. Daes' study on IPs and their relationship with the land, Alfonso Martinez' treaty study, Martinez Cobo's study ( CTT ) and the International Covenants to supporting IPs right to SD.
IMTA stated that SD is deeply rooted in indigenous life, had belonged to peoples since time immemorial and had never been the State property. Negation of this right would make the Declaration devoid of legal, political, economic and cultural substance. According to HD , the exclusion of IPs from the UN Declaration on Human Rights has forced them to draft their own declaration in defence of their peoples, nations, and lands. SD is a fundamental principle of natural law, a state of being, involving ethical and moral issues, not only political ones.
AIP pointed out that the lack of representation of African governments in this meeting is a clear manifestation of their lack of concern and commitment to the whole process and of continued marginalisation of IPs in this region.
IPs' right to SD cannot be limited or qualified by virtue of the principles of equality and non-discrimination ( ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA/CETO, ABCP, COCEI, DD, ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ). IPs' right to SD must be recognised since SD applies to "all peoples" by virtue of the UN Charter and Article 1 of both Human Rights Covenants ( IOIRD, IMTA, IITC/DM/CCAG/MJK/FICI, SC ). The international covenants not only require that all peoples be able to freely dispose of their natural resources, but also urge States to fulfil their obligations as far as the effective exercise of SD is concerned ( IMTA, IOIRD , SC ). IOIRD also recalled CERD recommendations to Canada (1997) concerning the effective participation of IPs in public life and the conclusions of the Committee on ESC Rights (1998) about the "gross disparity between Aboriginal people and the majority of Canadians with respect to the enjoyment of Covenant Rights". MLS/NKIKLH cites the International Court of Justice as also having confirmed the right to SD of all peoples as a rule of general customary law. NIYC referred to a 1979 Report of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe relating to American Indians and their nations, addressing equal rights and the SD of all peoples. Going back to the foundation of international law in Spain in 1550, NWGHR referred to the fact that Indians were considered to be human and to have political rights as well as property rights. Spain has recognised all these rights but has not honoured them.
Indigenous representatives drew attention to the fact that the working group had no competence to define the terms "SD" and "peoples" or to engage in any process that would undermine the status of IPs as "peoples" or their right to SD ( ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ). The debate should rather focus on the objections of the respective State Parties ( SUANPA, DD ). The issue is not whether IPs have a right to SD, but whether the respective Nation States recognise them as "peoples" ( SUANPA ). The CANZUS group sought to argue that the rights mentioned in Articles 3 and 31 were not extended to IPs and, if they were, they would be restricted rights ( SUANPA, and MLS/NKIKLH , which include Norway ). Article 3 cannot include a definition of the right to SD since this would be contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. A definition, which takes international evolution since decolonisation into account, may be relevant, but it should be developed in another forum, the conclusions would apply to all peoples ( DD ). Canada must not attempt to set a lower standard for IPs than that of the International Covenants ( IOIRD and ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS mention the USA as well). International law does not impose a specific form of self-governance. The ongoing discussions about SD at UNESCO distinguish internal from external SD, a principle which is understood as a right to choice, participation and control ( NKIKLH ). The qualifications of this right as proposed by Finland , the Russian Federation and Norway , are clearly in contradiction with the observations of the HR Committee. This explains why the Saami Parliament has decided not to join the Norwegian delegation at this session ( SC ). RAIPON/ASP expressed concern about the fact that the Russian delegation was now seeking to limit the scope of Article 3 to the decolonisation period. CISA also comments on "internal SD" in democratic States, pointing out that, in Canada, some can exercise the right to external SD –as in Quebec, while others –IPs– cannot. This is a discriminatory practice (also NN ). SLFN speaks as a nation (nationhood under international law) as they have been recognised in both de facto and de jure terms as nations. NN is striving to maintain its government-to-government relationship with the USA. JOHAR said that the only way out was to maintain the status quo on SD and peoples.
With regard to the concerns expressed by government delegations, many indigenous organizations stated that IPs were not seeking secession ( RAIPON/ASP ) and that, on the contrary, the right of SD would strengthen the existing States ( NIPDISC ). SD is seen as means to avoid conflicts ( ABCP, SC, MRTKL, CONAMAQ ), which contributes effectively to safeguarding States' territorial integrity ( NTG/IAITPTF, ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ). It is vital for democracy, friendly relations and cooperation among peoples. For example, Bangladesh's denial of Jumma people's right to SD led to a lasting conflict ( ABCP, HWHRF ). The racist, exclusionist and corrupt system in Bolivia has led to major social conflicts ( THOA, MRTKL, CONAMAQ, Aymara IPs ). Social unrest in the Solomon Islands is a problem inherited from the colonisers ( ZPEF ). The conflict in Chiapas continues and the militarisation of many indigenous regions increases because Mexico does not recognize the San Andres Agreement ( COCEI ). A States's territorial integrity and sovereignty is protected under international law ( SC ). The creation of an independent State is only one of several options and IPs have generally opted for the establishment of an autonomous region ( NKIKLH ). Territorial integrity always depends upon the collective will of the peoples of the land, which arises from respect for human dignity, different faiths and cultures, non-discrimination and non-domination ( NTG/IAITPTF ). A State's territorial integrity and sovereignty will be undermined if it does not recognise the basic rights of IPs, rather keeping them in situations of oppression, poverty, inequality and discrimination. There is no valid reason for denying IPs their right to SD ( TF ). Governments may not feel quite so democratic, which would account for their unfounded fear of secession ( COCEI ). SD, as mentioned in Article 3, is considered as internal autonomy, self-government and self-control over their own future without constituting a threat to State sovereignty ( IMTA ). The right of SD is a relative, not an absolute right without limitations and does not confer on any people the right to deny other peoples the same right on an equal footing ( ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ).
Most IPs have a preference for recognition and constitutional reform within States in order to develop their own political institutions and determine their development in accordance with their own values. The distinction suggested by some States between internal and external SD is "ahistorical" and "artificial". For instance, IPs' participation in UN fora is one external expression of SD which does not involve secession or independence ( ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA/CETO ). In Hawaii, the majority of IPs want a "nation within a nation", i.e., an autonomous region where a Hawaiian governing entity would exercise jurisdiction over internal affairs and, to a limited extent, over external affairs ( NKIKLH ). SD means that IPs should be consulted for national policy and planning processes in the areas of education, environment, health, cultural and heritage policies and should be able to speak for themselves ( IPACC ).
Indigenous organizations are concerned about the fact that some States limit the Declaration to their domestic legislation, which conflicts with the purpose of international human rights standard-setting ( MLS/NKIKLH , ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA/CETO, CISA ).
Indigenous representatives emphasised that the right of SD is the only way to guarantee the existence of IPs and their survival as distinct peoples. The recognition of their right to SD will prove to be the fair answer to centuries of colonisation and the opportunity to combat poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition which devastate their communities and peoples ( THOA ). SD is seen as a security shield against discrimination and exploitation ( NTG/IAITPTF ). SD, which is the key to genuine political, economic, social and cultural progress, permits emancipation from exploitation, deprivation, domination and assimilation ( ABCP ). The right to SD must be implemented in order for an IP not to be forced to adapt to authoritarian administrative systems ( Batwa IPs ). This principle advocates the promotion and protection of diversity. It also makes possible the survival of language and scripts, culture, traditions, beliefs, knowledge, identity of IPs and tribal peoples ( ABCP, HWHRF ) and ecosystems ( TF ). It protects IPs' identities and languages and ensures participation rights in the cultural and political life. The Declaration has no value without this principle ( ANCAP-T/WAC ). CONAIE demanded the recognition of IPs' political rights, i.e., SD and the free expression of their ancestral traditions. CAPAJ stated that the Aymara People Parliament claimed Aymara's right to integrity as a people.
Although the issue of land and resources is recognised as a core one by all governments, their positions with regard to the provisions of the Draft Declaration (DD) vary considerably. The special relationship between IPs and their traditional lands, as emphasised in Ms. Daes' study (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/25), is broadly acknowledged and many governments have included or are including collective land titles in their domestic legislation (notably Australia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Norway ). As far as Guatemala is concerned, rights to land and resources are meaningless if they are not recognised as collective rights of IPs. Some States will take their domestic law and practice into account with regard to the clarification of the parts of the DD relating to natural resources ( Australia and New Zealand ).
Australia was unwilling to adopt the provisions of the DD on these issues as they are currently drafted. It described the ongoing process of legal recognition of native title rights in Australia relating to the traditional use and enjoyment of natural resources. However, the ownership of resources is vested in the Crown and the exploitation of such resources is governed by legislation.
Canada recognised that IPs had the right to own, control, develop and use their lands and resources. The wording of the DD must be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of historic and current circumstances and local regimes. The current text needs to be amended and clarified. For instance, a clear distinction should be drawn between "lands" and "territories", and the phrase mentioning lands that IPs "have traditionally owned, or otherwise occupied or used" needs clarification. A distinction should be made between "traditional use" and "ownership". The wording of the draft is too prescriptive as far as conflicts of laws are concerned.
France has taken IPs' aspirations into consideration as regards land claims. Replies are adapted to each particular situation: the recognition of rights to collective use of domanial lands for the forest dwellers in Guiana, focused on environmental protection and ecodevelopment, and, in New Caledonia, the 1998 Agreement strengthens customary land tenure and recognises the enjoyment of collective land ownership for tribes.
Ecuador recognises IPs' right to maintain ancestral community land ownership (as does Venezuela ) and the right to participation in the use, usufruct, control and conservation of the renewable natural resources found on their lands. IPs also have the right to be consulted on plans and programmes related to the exploration and exploitation of non-renewable resources on their lands, the right to benefit-sharing and the right to compensation for socio-environmental damages. Venezuela stated that the exploitation of natural resources must not damage cultural, social or economic integrity. Natural resources are owned and controlled by the State.
Norway is currently preparing legislation on the use, management and ownership of land and resources in Finnmark County, where there is a large Saami population.
The Russian Federation reported the adoption of a federal law granting IPs the right to preserve their traditional lifestyles and protecting their environment.
WTO/WB stated that legal measures should consider all dimensions of land ownership including sacred aspects. IPs should be consulted in relation to investment projects concerning raw materials, mining and oil found on their lands and should benefit from such projects. Social impact assessments should be carried out for all projects affecting IPs.
Indigenous representatives reaffirmed the fundamental significance of land and resources to their existence and survival as peoples ( ICC, FOAG, IPACC, IWA, ZPEF, IAITPTF/NTG, COCEI ). IPs' relationship with land forms the foundation and principles of their government, which is based on natural law ( HD ). They are spiritual partners of their land in its development, preservation and sustainability ( SLFN ). Land rights are associated with traditional lifestyle, social organization and culture ( FOAG ). Land and natural resources are inseparable from them, since they determine their future and represent life itself ( ZPEF ). Separation from the land would mean the extinction of their peoples and destruction of their cultures, knowledge and skills ( NTG/IAITPTF ). Some governments, such as France and Australia , were asked to clearly state their position on the issue of land rights ( FOAG, SUANPA ). Indigenous representatives unanimously urged governments to adopt the relevant articles as drafted.
The issue of land and resources was considered to be closely interrelated with self-determination ( FOAG, IPACC, SC, RAIPON/ASP, IPNC, IWA, TF, ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ). Referring to Article 1 of the two Covenants, SC pointed out that land and natural resources are an integral part of the right to self-determination and that any attempt to define IPs right to self-determination in a way which excludes land and resource rights is therefore incompatible with existing international law. As provided for in Article 2 of both Covenants, self-determination also means that IPs cannot be denied their own means of subsistence, spiritually, socially or economically. The HR Committee has fully endorsed the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples' recommendations that an adequate land and resource base is crucial to the exercise of self-government ( ILRC/AFN/GCC/ITFS ). Prior land occupation is an essential element and rights to lands and territories entail the right to autonomous land management and land restitution ( FOAG ).
In many parts of the world, land rights are either not recognised ( FOAG, Batwa people ) or not respected ( ABCP ). Since a title to territory is an underlying principle of self-determination, governments must obtain the full and informed consent of the peoples concerned if they have no title to IPs territory in order to legitimately govern there. Failing to do so is unconstitutional under both the US Constitution and the UN Charter. Without legitimacy, governments cannot recommend changes to the text on behalf of IPs ( IPNC ). IPs' current situation is derived from colonisation processes, especially in America. The role of the doctrine of negation and dispossession of indigenous land rights must be taken into account, as well as Alfonso Martinez' study on treaties. Land dispossession is a violation of IPs' collective rights ( CTT ). NIPDISC asked for the use and ownership of land and natural resources as well as the maintenance of traditional systems.
Globalisation increasingly affects the right to self-determination and rights to lands and resources ( TF, IMTA, IPACC ). More peoples and countries do not have effective control over development in their territories. With the liberalisation of trade, finance and investments, the rights and welfare of corporations are given priority. IPs, who suffer the most negative impacts of globalisation, cannot participate in making national law, even less in global rule at the WTO, WB and IMF. Nation-states and IPs should reinforce the right to self-determination and to land and resources ( TF ). In the light of the perverse effects of globalisation, IMTA states that it is imperative to reaffirm the original right to collective ownership on traditionally occupied lands and territories, as well as the enjoyment of natural resources. HD pointed out that IPs were more endangered now than ever before due to the conflicting philosophies of western societies and their ideas of commerce and development.
Many indigenous representatives from all over the world described situations of eviction ( Chagossian delegation/OIDEL ), denial of land rights leading to exclusion and social discrimination ( Batwa IPs, Aymara IPs ), deprivation of natural resources resulting in extreme poverty ( AIMPO, AIP, Batwa IPs, Aymara IPs ), forced migration ( MCTP ) and environmental degradation ( IPACC ). They underlined the importance of the Declaration, which would defend IPs from these illegal actions. For ZPEF , the underlying causes of social conflicts are related to ownership and benefits from land and resources. Referring to the devastation of their territories by industry and the military, African indigenous representatives also emphasised their knowledge of ecological systems. Nomadic IPs' cultural survival is closely linked to environmental sustainability ( IPACC ). During colonisation and after independence, customary law was ignored ( ANCAP-T/WAC ). Following the decolonisation of Africa, governments and dominant groups have continued to alienate more lands through development initiatives ( AIP ). In addition to land dispossession and its negative impacts, IPs also suffer regional conflicts ( Batwa IPs ). In Australia, Aboriginal peoples do not have the right to control or use the wealth gained from royalties. Australia 's 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act are racially discriminatory, according to the CERD, HR Committee and the Committee on ESC Rights ( SUANPA , also mentioned by ATSIC ). In Russia, where industries are in conflict with IPs, two federal laws were adopted in 1999 to guarantee the rights of the peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East to the protection of traditional lifestyles and the environment, but these have not yet been implemented ( RAIPON/ASP ). In the USA, the government may abolish the rights to Pueblo Indians' land and natural resources ( IWA ). The IPs of the Chagos Archipelago reported that their eviction in the 1970s was illegal, as ruled by the British High Court in November 2000 (Chagossian delegation/OIDEL) . In Bangladesh, 400,000 acres of Jumma IPs' land have been occupied by Bengali settlers and 300,000 acres acquired for forestry and military purposes ( ABCP ).
Given the informal aspect of the debate and the absence of written statements, this report is mainly based on personal notes and the draft report (E/CN.4/2000/WG.15/CRP.2 and CRP.3). It is therefore not exhaustive. Although incomplete, it aims to provide a general overview of both the process and the discussion. Given the consensus among indigenous delegations concerning the acceptance of the original version of the Draft Declaration and their request to know the reasons underlying proposals for changes by States – and also due to a lack of space –, this report focuses on the governments' comments. The alternative texts, as mentioned herein, are included in an annex to the draft report (E/CN.4/2000/WG.15/CRP.4).
For each Article under discussion, the governments have presented joint proposals for "alternative wording", which appear as "discussion papers" drafted during their closed sessions. In addition to a new version of the text, these papers include comments and items for further discussion, as well as an explanatory note concerning the term "peoples". Although they seem to be the product of a consensus among governments, differences still exist. Some States can accept the Articles without any changes, while others are unable to do so. State delegations did not provide individual statements in writing, but made individual comments on their proposals at the session. These proposals appear in the draft report but States are not named individually. While reiterating the need to adopt the Articles as originally drafted, IPs delegations explained why they were unable to accept the new versions of the text as drafted by the governments. The Indigenous Caucus requested the Chairman to call for consensus on Articles 44 and 45 since there were no alternative wording proposals. They supported the wording formally proposed in 1996 (cf. E/CN.4/1997/102, para. 128).
At the end of each discussion on an Article, the Chairman concluded that consensus had not been reached and proposed coming back to the Article at a later stage. None of the Articles referred to hereunder were adopted.
Article 1
"Indigenous peoples have the right to the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law." (Art. 1)
Some governments, notably Guatemala, Norway, Ecuador, Finland, New Zealand, Mexico, Switzerland and Denmark, stated that they were willing to accept the text as originally drafted.
Some States, such as the Russian Federation, New Zealand, Argentina and Spain, pointed out that international human rights generally guaranteed rights to individuals. A specific reference to individuals was suggested to emphasise the rights of individuals as well as the rights of collectivities. Some governments stated that the Article should more closely reflect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
ANCAP-T, ATSIC, ICC, IITC/DM, ILRC, IOIRD, IMTA, IWA, Maya IPs, NKIKLH and SC presented statements.
Article 2
"Indigenous individuals and peoples are free and equal to all other individuals and peoples in dignity and rights and have the right to be free from any kind of adverse discrimination, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity." (Art. 2)
Ecuador, France, Denmark and Switzerland were willing to accept the original text.
The term "adverse" before "discrimination" should be deleted ( Guatemala, Australia, Norway, France, Denmark, Canada, Ecuador ).
Particular reference should be made to "special measures" to promote equality, as in Article 1(4) of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( Australia, Switzerland, France, Canada ). The proposed sentence on special measures needs to be discussed ( Guatemala, Norway ). USA supported the alternative text.
The Article should more closely reflect Article 2 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( UK ).
AN, ANIPA, ANCAP-T, Chirapaq, CISA, ICC, IITC, IMTA, IPNC, IOIRD, IWA, JOHAR, MLS, NKIKLH, SC and SUANPA made statements.
Article 12
"Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature, as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs." (Art. 12)
Some States, such as Guatemala and Finland , were willing to accept the Article in its original form.
Many States believed that the recognition of the right to practice and revitalise cultural traditions and the issue of the return of cultural property taken without consent should be treated in two separate paragraphs. Some States, such as Brazil , were concerned with the issue of restitution of property that was confiscated in the past. Denmark and Switzerland stated that they were willing to accept the first part of the original text, but not the part concerning restitution. New Zealand, Sweden and Japan requested clarification on the issue of restitution.
Concerning IPs' right to practice and revitalise their cultural traditions, the proposed amendment "in conformity with domestic laws" was supported by Australia , but rejected by Denmark and France .
Some States, such as Denmark and France , proposed the inclusion of a new paragraph on third-party rights, stating that "Implementation of the rights in this Declaration shall take into account measures necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." (cf. Article 18(3) of the ICCPR).
Japan supported the second paragraph of the alternate text concerning States' efforts to promote the return to IPs of their cultural and religious property. Canada supported the alternate text.
AAH, AFN/GCC/ITFS, AN, ANCAP-T, ATSIC/NAILSS/NSTSIO/FAIRA/IWAC, CAPAJ, Chirapaq, CISA, CIT, EFN, FOAG, IITC, ILRC, IMTA, IOIRD, IPNC/NKIKLH, IWA, JOHAR, MCTP, NN, SC, SLFN, STP, SUANPA and THOA presented statements.
Article 14
"Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalise, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
States shall take effective measures, whenever any right of indigenous peoples may be threatened, to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that they can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means." (Art. 14)
Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ecuador, Denmark, Spain, the Russian Federation and Switzerland were willing to adopt the text as currently drafted. Canada and New Zealand strongly supported the first paragraph as originally drafted.
The alternate version of the text, which deletes the second paragraph of the original version, was supported by Ukraine, Australia and the Russian Federation .
Denmark, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina were of the opinion that paragraph 2 could be clarified or strengthened. A reference to States' obligations should be discussed. Brazil and Argentina were concerned about the financial aspects of the provision concerning interpretation services.
Australia, Mexico, Norway, Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain believed that the issues mentioned in paragraph 2 should be addressed in the context of Articles 37, 39 and 19 of the Declaration.
Some States were concerned that the text as drafted might conflict with copyright laws and proposed including a general clause on third parties.
Mexico understands the last paragraph in the light of Article 12 of ILO Convention 169.
ANCAP-T, ATSIC, CAPAJ, IITC, ILRC, IMTA, IOIRD, IPNC, IWA, MNC and Philippines IPs presented statements.
Article 44
"Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing existing or future rights indigenous peoples may have or acquire." (Art. 44)
Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Guatemala, New Zealand, Spain, Finland, Ecuador, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and France were willing to accept the text as it stood.
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland and Denmark stated that the term "existing or future" in the English version was redundant. The English version should therefore be reviewed. The wording could also be improved through consideration of other international instruments.
Brazil and USA explicitly supported the bracketing of the term "peoples".
ANCAP-T, ANIPA, ATSIC, CAPAJ, CISA, FICI, HD, ICC/SC, IITC, ILRC, IMTA, IOIRD, IPNC, IWA, JOHAR, NN, SLFN and THOA took the floor.
Article 45
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations." (Art. 45)
This Article may be addressed in the context of the discussion on Article 3 (self-determination). Although no alternate wording was proposed, this Article could not be adopted because it qualified the entire Declaration. Its adoption was therefore postponed to a later stage.
The Chairman concluded that progress had been made as six Articles had been discussed and said that he would continue to hold consultations before the next session of the Commission on Human Rights in order to prepare for the next session of the working group. He announced that he would group the Articles by themes, starting with easier issues and continuing with more difficult ones. He considered E/CN.4/1997/102 to be an important document for the process.
AAH: Ainu Association of Hokkaido
ABCP: Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace
AFN: Assembly of First Nations
AILA: American Indian Law Association
AIMPO: African Indigenous and Minority Peoples Organization
AIP: African Indigenous Peoples
AIPP: Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact
AN: Asociación Napguana
ANCAP-T/WAC: Association nouvelle pour la culture et les arts populaires -
Tamaynut/World Amazigh Congress
ANIPA: Asamblea Nacional Indígena por la Autonomía
AT: Association Tamaynut
ATSIC/NSTSIO/NAILSS/IWAC/FAIRA/CETO: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission/National Secretaritat of Torres Strait Islander Organisations/
National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat/Indigenous
Woman Aboriginal Corporation/Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander
Research Action/Caucus of the Euahlayi Traditional Owners
CAPAJ: Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos
Originarios Andinos
Chirapaq/TPMIP: Chirapaq/Taller Permanente de Mujeres Indígenas del Perú
CIN: Catawba Indian Nation
CISA: Indian Council of South America
CIT: Confederación Indígena Tayrona
COCEI-Mexico
CONAIE: Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador
CONAMAQ: Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas de Qullasuyu
CPA: Cordillera Peoples Alliance
CTT: Consejo de Todas las Tierras
DD: Droits et Démocratie
DM: Defensoría Maya
FOAG: Fédération des organisations amérindiennes de Guyane
HD: Haudenosaunee Delegation
HWHRF: Hill Watch Human Rights Forum
EFN: Ermineskin First Nation
ICC: Inuit Circumpolar Conference
IITC with DM/CCAG/MJK/FICI: International Indian Treaty Council and affiliated
organizations: Defensoría Maya, Comité Campesino del Altiplano de
Guatemala, Movimiento de la Juventud Kuna, Federación Indígena
Campesina de Imbabura
ILRC/AFN/GCC/HD/ITFS: Indian Law Resource Center/Assembly of First Nations/Grand
Council of the Crees/International Treaty Four Secretariat
IMTA: Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru"
IOIRD: International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development
IPACC: Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee
IPNC: Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition
ITFS: International Treaty Four Secretariat
IWA: Indigenous World Association
IWGIA: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
JOHAR: Jharkandis Organisation for Human Rights
MLS: Maori Legal Service
MCTP: Meijlis of Crimean Tatar People
MNC: Metis National Council
MRTKL: Movimiento Revolucionario Tupaj Katari de Liberación
NIYC: National Indian Youth Council
NKIKLH: Na Koa Ikaika o Ka Lahui Hawaii
NWGHR: Navajo Working Group for Human Rights
NIPDISC: Nepal Indigenous Peoples' Development and Information Service Centre
NIYC: National Indian Youth Council
NN: Navajo Nation
NTG/IAITPTF: Nepal Tamang Ghedung/International Alliance of Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests
OIDEL: International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education
RAIPON/ASP: Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North/Association
of the Shor People
SC: Saami Council
SLFN: Saddle Lake First Nation
STP: Society for Threatened Peoples
SUANPA: Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Nations Peoples in Australia
THOA: Taller de Historia Oral Andina
TF: Tebtebba Foundation
TPMIP: Taller Permanente de Mujeres Indígenas del Perú
ZPEF: Zazao Peoples Environment Foundation
We, the Indigenous Peoples of our Mother Earth, as partners with in the United Nations Family, have collectively developed our rights, responsibilities and aspirations in international law and formal declarations, including the U.N. Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights. In the light and spirit of these instruments we welcome this opportunity to participate in the UNFCC –Process, for the recognition, promotion and protection of our rights. As the Delegates of Indigenous Peoples and organisations convened on the occasion of the Sixth Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in the Second International Indigenous Forum on Climate Change at the Hague from November 11th to the 12th, 2000, we affirm the Albuquerque Declaration, the Quito Declaration, Lyon Declaration and Position Paper of the First Forum of the Indigenous Peoples on Climatic Change. Furthermore, we address the Parties and other participants at this Conference to share the conclusions of our Forum:
Considerations
Recommendations
The Hague on the 15th of November, 2000
| Parshuram Tamang, Nepal International Alliance of Indigenous Tribal -Peoples of the Tropical Forests | Antonio Jacanamijoy, Colombia Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) |
| Ronald Aloema, Surinam Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Surinam (OIS) | Sam Ferrer, Philippines Climate Action Network, Southeast Asia (CANSEA) |
| Clark Peteru, Samoa Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network | Hendro Sangkoyo, Indonesia Consortium for Community Forest Systems |
| Jocelyn Therese, French Guyana Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) Federation of Amerindian Organizations of French Guiana (FOAG) | Alejandro Argumedo, Peru Indigenous Knowledge Program |
| Mario Ibarra, Geneva International Indian Treaty Coucil | Hector Huertas, Panama MesoAmerican Indigenous Organizations on Climate Change, CEALP |
| Victor Kaisiepo, Papua (Indonesia) West Papua Peoples Front | Hubertus Samangun, Indonesia ICTI - TANIMBAR |
| Raymond de Chavez, Philippines Tebtebba Foundation | Ivar Vaca, Bolivia CIDOB |
| Edwin Vasquez, Peru Inter-ethnic Development Association of the Peruvian Jungle (AIDESEP) Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) | Johnson Cerda, Ecuador Amazon Alliance |
| Stella Tamang, Nepal Bikalpa Gyan Kendra | Kalimba Zephyrin, Rwanda Community of Rwandan Indigenous Peoples (CAURWA) |
| Penninah Zaninka, Uganda Emanzi Food and Peace Development Centre | Lucy Mulenkei, Kenya Indigenous Information Network African Indigenous Women Organization |
| Sergei Shapkhaev, Russia Butyat Regional Department of Lake Baikal | Diana Christine Webster, New Zealand Representative of Maori Congress |
| Orlando Rodriguez, Colombia Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Columbian Amazon (OPIAC) Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) | Adalberto Vargas, Mexico AMBIO S.C. de R.L. |
| Domingo Peas, Ecuador FINAE | |
| José Adolfo de León, Mexico Unión de Credito Pajal Yacactic (ZONA TZELTAL) | Atencio López Martinez, Panama Centro de Desarrollo Kuna Yala Association Napguana |
| Guno Sabajo, Surinam Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Surinam (OIS) | Bob Gough, USA Secretary Intertribal Council On Utility Policy Co-Chair Native Homelands on Climate Change |
| Marcial Arias, Panama Foundation for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge | Carlos Enrique Batzin Chojoj Center Maya Sagb´e Guatemala |
The UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices was held in Geneva from 30 October to 1 November 2000. UNCTAD worked closely with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity in preparing the meeting.
UNCTAD's work in this area is mandated by the Plan of Action adopted by UNCTAD X, held in Bangkok from 12 to 19 February 2000.
The Plan of Action specifies that this work should focus on "taking into account the objectives and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the TRIPS Agreement, studying ways to protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of local and indigenous communities and enhance cooperation on research and development on technologies associated with the sustainable use of biological resources."
Member states were requested to nominate experts who participated in their personal capacities to put forward their views and policy options for governments for the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. Experts were selected from academia, public and private sectors, and non-governmental organizations, in particular those representing local and indigenous communities.
There were several elements of the views and concerns expressed by Indigenous representatives. The first focused on TK available for commercial exploitation. This included issues such as collective rights and the limited scope of existing intellectual property legislative regimes to take this into consideration, including the need to strengthen existing customary laws and value systems of indigenous peoples in the protection of TK.
The second thread was concerned with TK that is not exploitable. For example, patenting life forms, which attacks the values and livelihoods of indigenous peoples.
A third element raised the lack of participation of indigenous peoples in the process with the exception of agencies such as the secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar, the United Nations Forum on Climate Change (FCC) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
As noted by one Indigenous expert:
"If States and UN agencies are committed to finding durable solutions in relation to recognition and protection of traditional knowledge systems and customary laws, then they need to talk with and not just about indigenous peoples".
Finally, it was noted by indigenous representative that while it seemed the purpose of the meeting was the "protection of traditional knowledge", it was not so much protecting TK from exploitation, as ensuring TK can be exploited equitably.
The Outcome Document summarized the suggestions and recommendations for the protection of traditional knowledge and can be found at http://www.unctad.org
The indigenous peoples' organizations attending UNCTAD's meeting were:
| 8–26 January | Committee on the Rights of the Child, 26th session: Egypt, Ethiopia, Lesotho |
| 5–23 March | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 58th session: Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Fiji, Georgia, Iceland, Lao P.D.R., Senegal, Sudan |
| 19 March–27 April | Commission on Human Rights, 57th session |
| 28–30 March | Board of Trustees of the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous People |
| 2–5 April | Advisory Group of the UN Voluntary Fund for the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People |
| 23 April–11 May | Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 25th session: Bolivia, Honduras, Venezuela |
| 30 April–18 May | Committee Against Torture, 26th session: Bolivia, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, Venezuela |
| 9–27 July | Human Rights Committee, 72nd session: Azerbaijan, Czech Republic |
| 23–27 July | Working Group on Indigenous Populations: Main theme: Indigenous peoples and their right to development |
| 23 July–10 August (to be confirmed) | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 59th session |
| 30 July–17 August | Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 53rd session |
| 13–31 August | Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, extraordinary session, 26th session: Japan, Nepal, Panama, Senegal, Ukraine |
| 17 September–5 October | Committee on the Rights of the Child, 28th session: Bahrain, Chile, Malawi, Mozambique |
| 28 September | Informal day of consultations of the Commission on Human Rights |
| 1st October (to be confirmed) | Advisory Group of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People |
| 15–26 October | Working Group on the Declaration on the Rights of indigenous peoples |
| 15 October–2 November | Human Rights Committee |
| 12–23 November | Committee against Torture, 27th session |
| 12–30 November | Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 27th session: Algeria, Colombia, France, Sweden, UK |
The Council of Indigenous Organizations and nations of the Continent (CONIC) organized the First International Indigenous Summit that was held in Teotihuacan, Mexico from October the 25th to the 28th 2000.
The Treaty of Teotihuacan, a traditional Treaty of Alliance between the Lakota Nakota Dakota Alliance of Turtle Island and the Mexica Calpultin of Aztlanahuac was sealed before the Summit.
During the Summit of CONIC the issues "National and International Legislation", "Autonomy-Lands and Territories-Sovereignty", "Unification and structure of the indigenous Movement of the Continent", "Identity; Spirituality and Indigenous Resistance" and "Regional Conflicts were discussed" by five Working Groups.
The Declaration of Teotihuacan is the result of the Summit of CONIC, signed by Indigenous Delegations representing 36 Indigenous Organizations from throughout the Continent.
This Continental Indigenous Summit Teotihuacan 2000 made a call to all their Relations "to strengthen our continental organizational processes of communication, so that we may together construct a better future for the generations to come".
The next Summit will be held in Ecuador in the year 2001 and the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) will host it.
For further information about the Working Groups' issues, the Treaty, the Declaration of Teotihuacan and the next Summit contact:
www.tonatierra.com
Tupac Enrique Acosta
Council of Indigenous Organizations and nations of the Continent (CONIC)
Center for Communications and Coordination-North
TONATIERRA
P.O. 24009
Phoenix, AZ 85074
Tel: (602) 254 5230
Fax: (602) 252 6094
e-mail: tonal@tonatierra.com
Preparatory Meetings
| 22–24 January | Dakar, Senegal: African regional meeting |
| 19–21 February | Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran: Asian regional meeting |
| 6–9 March | Geneva, Switzerland: Inter-sessional open-ended Working Group |
| 21 May–1 June | Geneva, Switzerland: Second Session of the Preparatory Committee |
The World Organization Against Torture (WOAT) started last year a Program "Racism" with the aim of participating actively in the preparatory process of the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (South Africa 31 August-7 September).
In its report at the UN World Conference in South Africa, the WOAT will deal with the following subjects:
The International Secretariat of the WOAT will be grateful about any information on these issues, in order to compile an important documentation for its report.
For further information please contact:
Elsa Le Pennec
"Racism" Program Responsible
World Organization against Torture (WOAT)
8 Rue du Vieux-Billard
P.O. Box 21
1211 Geneva 8
Switzerland
Tel: +41.22.809.49.39
Fax: +41.22.809.49.29
E-mail: elp@omct.org
90 indigenous persons from Greenland, Siberia, Eastern Europe, the Americas, Southern, Central and Western Africa, Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, Australia, Aotearoa and the Pacific, met to discuss about the need to assert their identities and rights as indigenous peoples, their current situation in their lands, the common roots of the conflicts they are waging, and their participation in the construction of justice and a lasting peace as a basis of the future.
The main points the Conference agreed on were:
For further information contact: tebtebba@skynet.net or www.tebtebba.org
NAPGUANA and The Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV) have the honour to announce The Indigenous Peoples' Millennium Conference, which is scheduled to take place in Panama City, Panama, from 6-13 May 2001. The Indigenous Peoples' Millennium Conference is to be a global conference for Indigenous Peoples.
Objectives:
Main themes:
Workshops:
Further:
Conference languages:
English, Spanish, French and Russian
Steering Committee:
An International Indigenous Peoples' Steering Committee consisting of the following persons is in control of all aspects of the Conference:
Hosting Organization:
NAPGUANA, the Associations of Kunas United for Mother Earth offered and has been mandated by the Steering Committee to host this conference in Panama City, Panama.
Conference Secretariat:
NCIV is a Dutch-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that has supported Indigenous Peoples all over the world since its establishment in 1969. NCIV has been mandated by the Steering Committee to be the Secretariat for this conference.
For further information, please contact us putting "Millennium Conference" on the subject line: nciv@antenna.nl
Item 15 on Indigenous issues will probably be on the agenda on 9-10 April 2001.
The deadline for applying to the UN Voluntary Fund (travel and stay during the UN Working Groups in 2002) is 1 November 2001.
The application form can be found on our site or on: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/9/vfindaf.htm
Please contact us to communicate your e-mail address, inform us about any address change, and ask for back issues. The electronic version of Update is available since number 27 at:
Contributors to this issue:
Pierrette Birraux-Ziegler, Sophie Grobet, Neva Collins, Rosemary Nixon, Sylvie Dugeay, Sabine Kradoelfer, Ariana Salazar.
Special thanks to:
Neva Collins, FAIRA.
Translation:
Inés Hidalgo, Alexandra Lizano, Paola Oviedo, Ariana Salazar, Rosa Seminario, Edgar Rebollar, Céline Barbier, Leena Mauger, Bernardette Tro, André-George Uj, Bernard Walter.
The reproduction and dissemination of information contained in Update is welcomed provided sources are cited.
This issue is available in English, Spanish , and French .
 |  |  |  |  |
| Homepage | Back... | About us | Agenda | Mail-Form |
Created for doCip by Pascal Angst Last update: 04/17/2001