UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

More documents

Recommendations

Info

mention newer laws that aren’t hard laws, like <strong>UNDRIP</strong>, but we can deal with just simply saying that we are not pre-empting the indigenous rights that existed within the Convention on Biological Diversity,” Fitzgerald noted. On enforcing those laws, any new agreements or funding should either require that the body show it is enforcing those things already or fund the enforcement of it as we go along, but in such a way that no damage is done by lack of enforcement. Enforcement, Fitzgerald argued, should always be available to the citizens. “It is the only reason why major environmental laws work at all. We sue the government very often, and that is the only reason why we have made those things work,” he said. According to Fitzgerald, the Aarhus Convention created an extremely important precedent whereby citizens can enforce the rights under it not only within their own country, but also in other countries that are party to it. He stressed strongly that we should utilize this precedent. Fitzgerald said that regarding the science, two degrees is no longer what the target needs to be. “That was several years ago,” he stressed. When the Society for Conservation Biology asked Jim Hansen about what the targets need to be, he said that we are losing our ice so fast, our rainfall so fast, we have to work as fast as possible to get down from the current 379 parts per million carbon to 350. Even if we get to 1.5 degrees, we are standing to lose thirty percent of all species on Earth. Marcos Orellana had a question for any and all of the panelists. We have heard that some of the proposals are designed to give the funds to the forests, he said. “But this is a metaphor, of course, because the forests aren’t going to receive any funds.” Instead, the funds go to institutions or to people, and the question that Orellana raised is: “Where are these funds going to go?” Is it to the government? Is it to the indigenous peoples themselves? How, and by whom, would this decision be made? Orellana also pointed put that Tom Kruse had mentioned earlier that corruption is going to take place, that it is inevitable. Orellana wanted to know if any of the proposals have addressed a way to avoid this. Tom Kruse of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund responded to Marcos Orellana by saying that we are living right now in the moment after a massive dismantling and weakening of states and governments has taken place the world over. The whole issue of what constitutes the realm of the market, what defines its relationship to the state, is now on the table. “Markets without states don’t work,” he said, “[However], I think it has also manifest that we cannot renounce the political problem today.” Kruse also stressed that we have to be highly suspect of markets as solutions to problems. In response to the question of where the empowerment comes from, Kruse said that he does not think it is a simple binary opposition of the government versus markets. He concluded that in terms of looking for where to find empowerment, he would not turn to the markets first, but rather look to people and see what mechanisms they are utilizing in order to empower themselves. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz used her comment to reiterate that the situation of indigenous peoples is really very dire. “Even though we have adopted the Declaration, we know very well that violations of our basic rights contained in the Declaration [are committed] every day by governments, by corporations, and even by some conservation organizations.” Tauli-Corpuz said that because of this, indigenous peoples approach the whole issue of REDD in a very practical way. They think there is an opportunity to stress that <strong>UNDRIP</strong> should be the centerpiece. That should be their number one point, she said. Her second point was that “we cannot do away with governments. Whether we like it or not, they are the ones negotiating these agreements, not us," she said. She also urged that we have to differentiate between governments. Not all governments are alike, she said. There are indeed governments that are sensitive to the rights of indigenous peoples. Tauli-Corpuz warned against making sweeping statements declaring that all governments are bad, so governments should not be given the right to protect forests. “That is utterly illogical,” she said, “because there are governments at the national level, at the local level, whom we are working with. “There are indigenous governments and there are traditional authorities of indigenous peoples that are going to be capable of playing a role in these [negotiations].” This, she said, is particularly why Tebtebba would like the indigenous peoples who are affected by these programs to be the ones speaking 51
about it. “Even if you are a national network like COICA, you cannot speak for the local indigenous peoples there,” she said. Tauli-Corpuz stressed that these indigenous peoples should be the primary ones to speak out, because they are the ones who know what the situation should be like and how to shape this thing. “The right to self-determination is invaluable, and that [greatly] applies to indigenous peoples. Our role is to support this right,” she concluded. Trevor Stevenson of Amazon Alliance followed up on his comment earlier on the underlying assumption that it is governments that protect forests and not really indigenous organizations. “What I am getting at here is that we have been very focused in this discussion on the rights of indigenous peoples,” he said, “and there is a whole other level of this, which is practicality.” That is, the practical value of indigenous organizations being able to strengthen their ability to manage their territory. “When I have seen governments involving indigenous peoples [in the process], it seems more for the political correctness, in compliance with rights, than for the idea that this is a practical, useful thing to do,” he added. in the short term,” he said. How we design the system is going to determine this, according to Czebiniak. He added that he looks forward to feedback and hopes that everyone is creative in terms of coming up with good proposals. Juan Carlos Jintiach of the Amazon Alliance extended an invitation to those in the room to a meeting that the Alliance is going to have with COIAB in Brazil. They are going to have an Amazon <strong>Forum</strong>, “because we want to have our own discussions and we want to analyze and summarize what we are going to present about climate change and REDD issues,” Jintiach said. They invited several NGOs to come and sit down with the local leaders, so that the NGOs could recognize who they are. He finished by saying that he has had a good opportunity to bring ideas back, because there are some NGOs that are currently doing workshops with local and regional organizations in his indigenous communities. Bard Lahn’s final comment was that, regarding how the Declaration can be applied to REDD, it is up to the NGOs to make it happen. He urged others to ensure that we give input to those, such as the Norwegian government, who are designing this REDD mechanism. Paula Moreira of IPAM said that her concern is not about how to raise the money, whether through carbon markets or donation, but rather how to channel the funds to really tackle the drivers of deforestation. And also how to raise awareness of indigenous peoples, because in many countries they are not even recognized, and consequently, their rights are not recognized. “How can this new recognition of the importance of the forests and the demand for the forests bring into visibility the rights of indigenous peoples and the recognition of <strong>UNDRIP</strong>?” she wondered. Roman Czebiniak of Greenpeace said that he thinks that we do not need to provide just an economic incentive, but a societal incentive as well. “If we want REDD to work in the long run, we have to get it right 52
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 and 50: discussion came up in Accra, and th
Page 51 and 52: end he was challenged on whether No
Page 53: to be very attentive to the argumen
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?