UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

More documents

Recommendations

Info

for progress on human rights, if you really have a focused campaign,” he said. Daphne Wysham of the Institute for Policy Studies’ Sustainable Energy and Economy Network commented on Chad Dobson’s point that the carbon investment funds are minor compared to the energy allocation in terms of the World Bank’s budget. “If the World Bank gets its way, and gets ahold of the climate investment funds and adaptation funds, potentially, hundreds of billions of dollars will be going toward the World Bank and its offshoots,” she said. Wysham suggested keeping a careful eye on what the World Bank is doing with carbon investment funds. Wysham said, “In regard to REDD and CDM, there are divisions within the environmental and indigenous communities— some people think this is the right thing to do and some people don’t. I think what we haven’t done well is educate our own friends and allies in the environmental and indigenous communities on all of the problems associated with these projects.” Wysham urged that this happen quickly, because a lot of the projects are moving forward very fast. She added that currently there is a campaign on whistle blower rights within the IFIs, and suggested that we should support it so we can get more people to speak out on all the problematic projects in the World Bank. Victor Menotti of the IFG pointed to private capital as the major force that needs to be held accountable to <strong>UNDRIP</strong>, yet there is no clear policy arena for governing global finance where <strong>UNDRIP</strong> might be introduced. He noted that the three goals of the November 2008 G-20 meeting in Washington would be to: 1) get consensus on the causes of the current crisis; 2) assess the effectiveness of various bailout packages; and 3) agree on principles for reforming the financial system. He suggested the Bank for <strong>International</strong> Settlements (BIS) and the Financial Stability <strong>Forum</strong> — global bodies that coordinate national regulation of finance—as the two main venues to target. One entry point for <strong>UNDRIP</strong> could be to explore how these bodies are rethinking the many considerations that must be calculated when investors are assessing risk, so that they recognize land rights, prior informed consent, and other <strong>UNDRIP</strong> principles. Ignoring indigenous rights is becoming an increasingly significant risk for investors, so that may be a way to codify these considerations. Athena Ballesteros of the World Resources Institute agreed that the climate investment funds are currently “just a drop in the bucket” in terms of the overall investments of the World Bank and its pledge of $6.1 billion. “This gives us a space to expose the hypocrisy of the World Bank, in terms of it positioning itself as a climate bank,” she pointed out. Ballesteros suggested working with the World Wildlife Fund in Beijing, as well as the Chinese Academy for Environmental Planners, to engage civil society and to craft or review the safeguard policies of Chinese overseas investments. “It’s a very sensitive partnership, but I think it is worth trying, and I think mentioning FPIC and <strong>UNDRIP</strong> would be worth it,” she said. She also added that this might be useful as well as a way to influence the Japan Bank for <strong>International</strong> Cooperation (formerly The Export- Import Bank of Japan). “The Japanese portfolio is scary, combined with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank portfolio. They spend so much on nuclear, fossil fuels, hydro, logging, mining and anything and everything that was referred to at the beginning. Japanese NGOs can exert very little influence on these institutions,” Ballesteros argued. Ballesteros highlighted two upcoming opportunities. The first is that the <strong>International</strong> Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards is up for review in 2009, and the second is that the Asian Development Bank’s safeguard policy particularly because its indigenous peoples’ policy and its involuntary recipient policy are up for review. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz reflected on the fact that the many people she has talked to about REDD are unsure about how to go about it. “We should come up with a design that will feed the needs and rights of indigenous peoples, and that is precisely why we are holding these global and Far East meetings where we are bringing the UN REDD people, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity, and indigenous peoples from all the affected countries that are considered REDD countries. We are trying to come up with the elements that we think should be the guideposts for the REDD strategy,” she said. She raised the question of how to go about shaping REDD so that it is meaningful for indigenous peoples. “If it is not meaningful, what kind of campaigns can we mount to reject the idea?” she 19
wondered. She also pointed out that the World Bank is no longer the key player. According to Tauli- Corpuz, the European investment banks and the larger private banks are now the key players, and our efforts must be directed toward them as well. Tom Goldtooth wrapped up the discussion session, saying that while a position is being formulated on the stance of REDD, in the meantime, communities are being impacted and these are the communities that we are trying to convince that REDD is the solution for them. “As indigenous peoples, we are constantly reminded, from the past couple of decades, to rely on an economic paradigm, and even some of our indigenous people have invested in becoming REDD capitalists. In many cases, we must compromise our cosmo-visions, our spiritual values. That is something we have to reconcile,” he said. UNDR IP AN D F REE T RAD E: THE W ORL D T RA DE O RGA N IZ AT IO N, B IL ATE RA L DEALS , AN D T HE GLOBA L B IOF UELS TRA DE Indigenous peoples have been part of the worldwide movement to challenge trade liberalization and change trade rules, from Seattle to Cancun to Hong Kong. Now that the WTO’s Doha Round is in paralysis, we still face US bilateral agreements with Peru and Colombia, and a drive to expand the global biofuels trade. In light of the possible renegotiation of NAFTA and the WTO, and rethinking trade policy in general, how can we better elevate indigenous voices by using <strong>UNDRIP</strong> to transform trade policies? Victor Menotti, <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forum</strong> on Globalization Leila Salazar-Lopez – Rainforest Action Network Trevor Stevenson, Amazon Alliance Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth-US Victor Menotti of the <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forum</strong> on Globalization (IFG) invited people to look at where trade and investment liberalization is happening today. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the global economy’s “invisible government” and it must eventually be replaced, so he urged people to see the chapter in Paradigm Wars for more insights on the WTO’s impacts on native sovereignty. However, the WTO is currently in “paralysis,” so he said we must switch our focus to the ongoing bilateral deals and the expanding global biofuels trade. It is no coincidence that one of the main disagreements preventing a conclusion of the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations was Brazil’s demand that its agriculture exports gain more access to the United States (US) and the Europe Union (EU). The US and EU refused unless, in exchange, Brazil, China, India, and other developing countries first open their markets to more imports of industrial goods and services. But attempts to agree on any decision have ignored the impact that Brazil’s expanding exports — soy, sugar, citrus, cotton, beef, timber, minerals, and other resources—will have on indigenous peoples, Menotti said. Brazil will continue trying to dismantle the U.S. system of quotas, tariffs and subsidies that make corn ethanol production economically viable in the U.S. The difference is that now Brazil will try to litigate what they could not previously negotiate. Already, Brazil has won legal challenges in the WTO against US and EU illegal subsidies for cotton and sugar. The problem is that, while the US and the EU certainly “discriminate” against Brazilian exports, the current WTO rules also discriminate against indigenous peoples and small farmers— and favor big corporations and exporters like Cargill. Indigenous peoples’ rights need to be considered before any exports from these unsustainable industries, especially cane ethanol (biofuels), can be expanded. Defending corn ethanol production in the US is difficult since so many of its costs outweigh its benefits. However, Menotti said, “North Americans also want to stop invading other countries for their limited resources. Almost every domestic energy system requires some state support, especially if we are trying to transition to a new energy system. Menotti believes that there needs to be a WTO ruling stating that nations do have the right to subsidize their own autonomous energy systems, if they are sustainable. Brazilian civil society does not want to see an expansion of its unsustainable cane ethanol system but if its government wins the case, it would 20
Page 1 and 2: [Strategy Session] IMPLEMENTING THE
Page 3 and 4: [ S U M M A R Y R E P O R T ] I M P
Page 5 and 6: INT ROD UCT IO N Victor Menotti of
Page 7 and 8: determine the Alliance’s prioriti
Page 9 and 10: spiritual practices that are not bu
Page 11 and 12: Discussion Trevor Stevenson of the
Page 13 and 14: utilize members of the indigenous S
Page 15 and 16: their rights had been violated when
Page 17 and 18: their climate change impact, and ar
Page 19 and 20: change conference in Bali, Indonesi
Page 21: concerns and explaining why they we
Page 25 and 26: plantations, due to the increase in
Page 27 and 28: indigenous peoples take up to prote
Page 29 and 30: many times that they can shut down
Page 31 and 32: implementation of the different pro
Page 33 and 34: implementation of UNDRIP</s
Page 35 and 36: and indigenous issues.” He told t
Page 37 and 38: Indigenous peoples also took part i
Page 39 and 40: Secondly, Ole Simel made the point
Page 41 and 42: evaluating CDM, then projects would
Page 43 and 44: measure, would never be able to do
Page 45 and 46: Jintiach finished by saying that al
Page 47 and 48: industry, and about twenty percent
Page 49 and 50: discussion came up in Accra, and th
Page 51 and 52: end he was challenged on whether No
Page 53 and 54: to be very attentive to the argumen
Page 55 and 56: about it. “Even if you are a nati
Page 57 and 58: could [potentially] generate $50 bi
Page 59 and 60: Discussion Athena Ballesteros of th
Page 61 and 62: change and by which they are mitiga
Page 63 and 64: In response to Tom Goldtooth’s st
Page 65 and 66: although the IFIP can be a champion
Page 67 and 68: their lands and natural resources.
Page 69 and 70: lawyers who work pro-bono in ”dev
Page 71 and 72: that if it takes a network for this
Page 73 and 74:
indigenous delegation and articulat
Page 75 and 76:
Aaron Goldzimer of the Environmenta
Page 77 and 78:
what they were doing was trying to
Page 79 and 80:
participants to coordinate with oth
Page 81 and 82:
LIST OF PA RTICI PA N TS Brazil Ms.
Page 83 and 84:
United States Mr. David Gordon Paci
Page 85 and 86:
UNI TED NA TI ON S DE CL AR A TI ON
Page 87 and 88:
Recognizing that the situation of i
Page 89 and 90:
histories and aspirations which sha
Page 91 and 92:
2. Unless otherwise freely agreed u
Page 93 and 94:
Article 42! The United Nations, its
show all

UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?