By Emma Banks
Vanderbilt University
Between
April 20-May 1, the United Nations hosted its fourteenth annual Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues in New York.
Representatives from state institutions, NGOs, indigenous advocacy
groups, and other organizations from around the world gathered to discuss the
future of indigenous people, and how the UN can incorporate the diverse
indigenous agenda in its programs and policies. This year was an especially important
meeting as the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire this year, and
will be replaced by a new set of fifteen-year goals, which will be called the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The MDGs made no explicit mention of indigenous peoples, but the UN has
since recognized the importance of indigenous voices in achieving development
goals and protecting natural resources for years to come. The UN must not only guarantee the
participation of indigenous people in name, but also monitor and evaluate
compliance with UN norms worldwide. To
this end, several organizations are experimenting with pilot
programs to allow indigenous people to report on state, regional, and local
compliance with the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). These programs are part of the UN goal to
create more robust development indicators that disaggregate data on indigenous
peoples to better understand their specific development challenges and needs in
the future.
At one session on April 23 entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Post
2015 Development Agenda: Leaving No One Behind?,” Librada Portada, a Wayuu activist from the Continental Network
Indigenous Women spoke of the ways in which indigenous women disproportionally
feel the impacts of violence, health disparities, displacement, and land
conflicts. In particular, she spoke of
the ways that natural resource extraction has impacted women by making them
subject to greater sexual and physical violence at the hands of outsiders,
putting their health at risk when they prepare food with contaminated water,
and making them more vulnerable due to
forced displacement. Thus Portada urged
the UN to provide better protections of collective rights to land and resources
to protect indigenous women. She spoke
of the importance of incorporating indigenous women in the SDGs.
In both the main sessions and
several side events, representatives brought their concerns about Prior
Consultation, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to the table. Both these measures are designed to protect
indigenous communal land and give indigenous groups the power to bargain with
natural resource extraction corporations that wish to start projects on or near
native lands. However, Prior
Consultation is generally a weaker version of FPIC. Most importantly, while it mandates that
corporations consult with indigenous groups before using their lands, it does
not mandate that corporations achieve consent from indigenous peoples before
beginning resource extraction, logging or other projects. Ideally, Prior Consultation should involve a
long negotiation process that would effectively guarantee indigenous people’s
rights to monitor and regulate any corporate activity on their lands, but more
often than not, indigenous peoples have limited say in how these projects
function on their land, and what types of benefits they receive.
One session, sponsored by Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, the
German Cooperation Agency (GIZ)’s
Proindigena programme, the Spanish Cooepoeration Agency Indigena Programs
(AECID), and the Global Compact Regional Support Center for Latin America and
the Caribbean focused on implementation of Prior Consultation in the Andean
Region. In particular, they unveiled a
new platform to track Prior Consultation practices throughout Latin America, designed to
diffuse information on best practices in prior consultation and allow
indigenous groups from across the region to learn form each other. However, many of the indigenous activists in
attendance were skeptical of the project, and of the way Latin American states
enforce Prior Consultation at all.
Several activists stated that it is impossible to negotiate with
corporations in “good faith” as prior consultation dictates, because the
relationship between corporations and indigenous people is already fraught and
tense. These representatives stated that
corporations do not respect them, and have caused massive displacement,
environmental damage, and violence on indigenous lands. One representative from Guatemala said her
community refused to negotiate with the same corporations that have long criminalized
indigenous people for their activism and resistance. A woman from Colombia stated that
corporations have fueled the internal conflict there, and that the government
must not only think of prior consultation in its peace process, but also
incorporate the needs of indigenous peoples to bring lasting peace to the
nation. In general, many activists felt
that Prior Consultation has largely been a top-down process, and that
indigenous peoples should have greater say in how Prior Consultation is
implemented.
Victoria
Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
echoed many of these concerns stating that in the cases Prior Consultation she
have observed, she has seen vast power inequalities between actors that impact
the outcomes and social engineering of the process that limits community
participation. Tauli-Corpuz also stated
that FPIC should be the next step in Prior Consultation because it gives
indigenous communities greater sovereign power over their territories. Under FPIC, corporations who wish to use indigenous
lands must negotiate on the terms of the indigenous peoples who live there. It also allows communities to veto projects
or change the terms of agreement.
However, Prior Consultation may not be a lost cause. Several activists in the crowd agreed that
while implementation has been imperfect, Prior Consultation has given
indigenous peoples a place at the table with corporations and state
institutions, a right previously denied to them during hundreds of years.
One of the other side events during the
Permanent Forum focused on implanting FPIC as outlined under the UNDRIP. Hosted by Cultural Survival, the University
of Colorado American Indian Law Clinic, and First Peoples Worldwide, this event
featured the Spokane Tribe of Indians, from Washington in the United States,
discussing their trials and tribulations of implementing FPIC. The Spokane Tribe has successfully achieved an
FPIC agreement with mining corporations on its territory. Corporations who wish to mine, log, or begin
any other activity must consult with tribal leaders, provide a thorough report
on all anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts, and provide
compensation and benefits to the Spokane people. Furthermore, the Spokane Tribe has set out
specific guidelines and expectations. If
a mining or logging project causes impacts beyond those projected, or does not
provide the benefits it agreed to, the Tribal Business Council has the right to
halt the project’s operations.
Implementation of FPIC remains a complex process, but the Spokane Tribe
proves it can be done. The Tribal
Business Council said it would publish its version of FPIC on their website
soon.
FPIC is still a pipe dream for many indigenous
communities. Yet, if the principles of
FPIC can be made part of the UN’s next fifteen-year strategy, indigenous
peoples may see a dramatic improvement in their level of social and economic
development. This change would not only
benefit indigenous groups, but also the nation states in which they live, to
achieve a more equitable and sustainable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment