UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Livestock development causes eighteen percent of deforestation and degradation, according to the most widely used estimate, that of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). But according to Goodland, this estimate is “totally wrong. They overlook, underestimate, or even omit whole classes of greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock lifecycle,” he said. “If you recalculate using their own figures…the eighteen percent grows to an enormous forty percent, and that is a very big jump.” One solution, according to Goodland, is simply to eat less meat. “According to the IPCCC,” Goodland said, “the fastest, cheapest way to reduce climate change without the need for any government intervention or the CDM is to eat less meat.” Goodland then listed several positive global effects that would come from eating less meat, among which include the prevention of water and food crises, the improvement of human health, the reduction of deforestation, and the prevention of extinctions. In addition, it creates support for indigenous peoples. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz added that when indigenous people were consulted about REDD, one of the things they highlighted was the need to identify the drivers of deforestation. “If we are able to identify them correctly, we are on the right track,” she said. Tauli-Corpuz warned that when the World Bank presented the drivers of deforestation, they claimed the cause was shifting agricultures. “We protested this,” she said, “because, really, the mining, logging, oil and gas exploration, ranching, etc. are all the drivers. Shifting cultivation—my goodness. That really goes to show how distorted a picture they can present.” Tauli-Corpuz stressed that this is the first challenge for all of us—o really identify the causes of deforestation and deal with them correctly, because that is an opportunity that REDD provides. Tauli-Corpuz also added that one of the indigenous peoples’ other proposals in these consultations was the establishment of an international advisory body or panel that would be composed of indigenous peoples, possible including some members of the <strong>Forum</strong> and indigenous representatives from the funding countries as well as from the countries where the projects are being carried out. “We think that this panel could monitor exactly how the REDD projects are being done on the ground,” Tauli- Corpuz said, “and ensure that all the principles of <strong>UNDRIP</strong> are really being respected by the government, the donors, and the other actors.” She finished her comment by saying maybe that is another mechanism that we could propose to be set up. Joseph Ole Simel of the Mainyoito Pastoralist Integrated Development Organization raised the issue of how countries who were really behind the adoption of <strong>UNDRIP</strong>, such as Norway, have not really been bringing the elements of the Declaration into the development of REDD. “To me” he said, “that is really a setback. When you have a Declaration, the countries that have signed on and supported it really need to enforce the principles of the Declaration.” Ole Simel said that these countries tend to not really be aware of the Declaration, and that we need to keep in mind that wherever these REDD projects are going to be developed, respect for the elements of the Declaration must be ensured. “We need a mechanism to ensure that whatever is going to be developed must take into account the existence of the Declaration,” he said. “We must have a mechanism that can say, well, there is something wrong here when there is something wrong.” Ole Simel also raised the necessity of discussing the benefits and threats of REDD with indigenous groups. “I think we need to come out and acknowledge that REDD is not only going to provide solutions—it is going to pose threats,” he urged. The second part of Ole Simel’s comment was directed toward Bard Lahn, of Friends of the Earth-Norway. “Why is the funding from Norway going to the World Bank and the African Development Bank?” he asked, “Is there any particular reason that this money is going to banks and not alternatives like the UN Permanent <strong>Forum</strong> on Indigenous Peoples? Is there a particular reason for this?” In conclusion, Ole Simel supported the idea that indigenous peoples need a fund. “This process is going to be long, and it is going to be very costly,” he acknowledged. Siri Damman of Rainforest Foundation Norway said that she would like to follow up on what Bard Lahn said on the state of Norway in regard to indigenous peoples’ rights. She said that in a conference that took place Oct. 15–17, 2008, in Norway, Erik Solheim, Norway’s Minister of Development and Environment, was invited to speak. Damman said that he gave a good speech, and he spoke about the importance of bringing indigenous peoples rights into the climate negotiations. “But,” she said, “in the 47
end he was challenged on whether Norway was going to be able to follow up and put pressure on indigenous peoples’ rights in the initiatives.” Damman then read a quote from Development Today: At a conference in Oslo last week, Development and Environment Minister Erik Solheim rejected the notion of making recognition of indigenous people’s rights to forests a condition of the Norwegian aid. Unless there are cases of extreme deprivation of rights or suppression, the Minister said, conditionality is out of the question. Referring to Indonesia, which is likely to be the next recipient of a large Norwegian forest carbon grant, he said: “Most of the countries we are talking about are democratic nations with their own systems in place. If we started making conditions without first embarking on dialogue, we would just be kicked out. Damman said that there were no opportunities to clarify what Solheim meant by that, because he left. She then read from the same article: Development Today asked Inger Næss, an official from the Norwegian Climate and Forest Initiative, about the discrepancy between the Minister’s refusal to take a hard line on rights and statements suggesting indigenous and local communities are to have a central role in REDD. “There must be consultation processes with indigenous peoples and forest dependent peoples,” Næss said. “If human rights and indigenous people’s rights are not respected, we will of course try to influence the processes. But if this does not succeed, Norwegian aid funds could well be withdrawn.” Atossa Soltani of Amazon Watch asked of the panel, “Given the time frame of two years, and talking about capacity building and the REDD fund, practically speaking, where are we in terms of getting a mechanism for indigenous representation?” She asked if the indigenous delegates could speak on the practicalities of a process for indigenous peoples to help craft some of their proposals leading to REDD, and also asked if someone could explain how carbon trading would work in REDD. Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network said that he thinks it is a little premature to expect an indigenous proposal about a mechanism for indigenous participation within REDD. He also said that he thinks “it is extremely important that there is a need for more indigenous people from every area of the world who are impacted… to be engaged and have an opportunity for this discussion. How we develop this mechanism, and the participation and role of donor countries and countries that are invested in this, really is a big trust issue,” he added. Goldtooth said that some of the indigenous peoples in the global North see Norway as “invested in the cultural genocide of indigenous peoples by having their companies be invested in the Tar Sands. “Norway has, despite Kyoto, actually increased greenhouse gases by eleven percent from 1990 to 2007,” he argued. “So the way they write this off on their carbon balance sheet to look good, is by investing in forested areas.” This creates a human rights issue and a violation of indigenous rights. “So there are more issues that we have to talk about here, as indigenous peoples, and then we need to have NGOs advocate that violating the human rights of indigenous peoples is in itself an ethical, moral issue,” Goldtooth stressed. He concluded by adding that for a lot of indigenous peoples it is a life-anddeath issue, and something that must be taken into consideration. David Waskow of Oxfam America made a pitch to pay very close attention to and engage in US legislation. He said that although the conversation had mostly been in the international context, most of the major US legislative proposals on climate change that are on the table currently have included substantial provisions on REDD issues, including offsets and a number of other provisions as well. “Given the substantial size of what the US engagement will mean legislatively, both in its own right and in terms of how it could affect the UN negotiations,” Waskow said, “I think it is absolutely 48
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 and 22: concerns and explaining why they we
Page 23 and 24: wondered. She also pointed out that
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: discussion came up in Accra, and th
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

UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

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

Delete template?

Save as template?