By Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
UNITED NATIONS, May 11 2015 (IPS)

U.N. member states are meeting throughout the year to finalize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will set the global development agenda for the next 15 years. The goals are supposed to be universal and aspire to “leave no one behind.”

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz

But Indigenous Peoples, who are among the poorest and most marginalised people on earth, are all but invisible in the latest draft of the SDGs. As an indigenous woman and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I am deeply concerned that almost all references to Indigenous Peoples have been deleted, as we have learned from experience that unless we are explicitly included, we are likely to be excluded.

Indigenous Peoples face systemic discrimination and exclusion in almost every country they live in. Without specific targets and indicators to measure and report on the realisation of their rights, this inequality is likely to continue in the 15-year implementation of the SDGs.

The Millennium Development Goals, which were also supposed to be universal, failed to address Indigenous Peoples’ poverty: Indigenous Peoples still make up just five percent of the global population but account for 15 percent of the world’s poorest people. If the SDGs aim to do any better, and achieve their aspiration to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere,” they must also address the unique development needs and challenges of Indigenous Peoples.Indigenous Peoples have been all but erased from the development agenda. Include us, so that we can protect our traditions and territories for our children and protect the planet’s biodiversity for all the world’s children.

Chief among these is that many Indigenous Peoples do not have legal title to the lands they have lived on for generations. This insecurity has resulted in encroachment by governments and corporations as well as forced evictions of countless communities from their ancestral lands.

Because Indigenous Peoples’ lives, livelihoods, cultures, and identities are intrinsically tied to their territory, this loss often deprives them of their income and self-sufficiency, and threatens their very identity and survival.

Securing legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights has other benefits too: it decreases poverty, supports food security, and encourages long-term economic and environmental benefits.  But despite progress in some regions, there has been a sharp slowdown in the overall global recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ and communities’ land rights since 2008.

The current SDG draft recognises the land rights of individuals (men and women) but does not take into account the estimated 1.5 billion Indigenous Peoples and forest-dwelling and forest-dependent local people who govern 6.8 billion hectares of land through community tenure arrangements.

Currently governments only recognise about 513 million hectares of these lands. The SDGs should therefore include an indicator to measure recognition of collective land rights, and reinstate a deleted provision requiring that governments obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples before handing over their lands.

This is particularly critical given that “development” for many Indigenous Peoples has been more of a threat than a promise. An analysis of around 73,000 mining, agricultural, and lodging concessions in eight countries revealed that more than 93 percent of these developments involved lands inhabited by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Development projects in countries that lack strong safeguards often rob them of their lands and livelihoods—but rarely do they deliver on the promise of shared economic development.

In Indonesia, for example, palm oil corporations have engulfed over 59 percent of community forests in West Kalimantan, yet the industry contributes less than two percent to Indonesia’s GDP and has not increased rural employment. Inequality has risen, and Indigenous Peoples’ land rights have been transferred to corporations on a large scale.

The consequences of insecure land tenure extend beyond indigenous communities: Indonesia is now the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with almost 80 percent of emissions stemming from deforestation, land use change, and the draining and burning of peatland.

On the other hand, deforestation rates are dramatically lower in areas where Indigenous Peoples have legal recognition of their land rights. Despite suffering some of its worst impacts, Indigenous Peoples can actually offer some of the most promising solutions to climate change.

Community forest rights in Nepal, for example, improved the health of the forest to the point where it absorbed 180 million tons of carbon. It is no coincidence that traditional indigenous territories overlap to a large degree with biodiversity hotspots.

Indigenous Peoples’ natural resource management has sustained some of the world’s most intact ecosystems and holds important lessons for a planet that must change if it is to endure. They bring alternative thinking and perspectives to a development paradigm that has repeatedly put sustainability and human rights on the back burner and favored short-term profits.

Because many Indigenous Peoples live in rural areas and are politically and physically distant from the centers of power, it is all too easy for us to become invisible.

We fought for the global recognition of our rights in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We had to fight to be called “Indigenous Peoples,” a term that recognises us as peoples with distinct identities and cultures who have the right to self-determination.

As they stand now, the SDGs are a step backwards from these achievements. Indigenous Peoples have been all but erased from the development agenda. Include us, so that we can protect our traditions and territories for our children and protect the planet’s biodiversity for all the world’s children. Don’t leave us behind.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

When the state respects human rights, it exercises its sovereignty, says James Anaya. Credit: Milagros Salazar/IPS

By Milagros Salazar
DARWIN, Australia, Jun 3 2013 (IPS)

“There is a belief that consent is about saying yes or no, about who wins,” observed James Anaya, the United Nations special rapporteur on indigenous rights. But consultation with indigenous peoples is a matter of “creating open processes where they can voice their opinions and influence decisions, and where there is the necessary will to seek consensus.”

Anaya, an attorney, professor and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, formed part of the diversity of faces, languages, cultures and experiences that came together at the World Indigenous Network (WIN) Conference held May 26-29 in Darwin, Australia.

In his 30-minute presentation, Anaya stressed the importance of the implementation of measures by national governments to ensure respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007.

During his brief stay in Darwin, Anaya made time to speak with Tierramérica about the controversial implementation of prior consultation with indigenous peoples and the challenge of designing models of development that can enable countries to achieve prosperity while respecting the rights of native communities.

In his opinion, Peru is the Latin American country that has made the most regulatory progress in the implementation of prior consultation with indigenous peoples on projects or activities that affect their territory or culture, as established in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

But Peru still needs to demonstrate its capacity for respecting indigenous rights in practice. “Learning comes from experience, and in Peru they are working on building an adequate process,” he commented.

Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia are discussing these mechanisms, although they have yet to establish rules or protocols for conducting consultations. In Anaya’s view, countries do not necessarily have to adopt laws before beginning the consultation process. The main requirement is the “will” to respect indigenous rights, he said.

Q: There is a perception that some governments in Latin America operate with a double standard: they sign international instruments to protect indigenous rights, but don’t implement measures to respect them. Do you agree with this view?

A: I believe the fact that almost all the Latin American countries have voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ratified Convention 169 is an advance. These are important steps.

Now it is time to implement these processes, but this is very complex. States need to make efforts to confront this challenge. There are a number of issues that need to be considered here: first, state officials need to be educated to understand that these rules are not only a question of international relations, but that they need to be applied internally, because they are directed at the indigenous peoples who live in their territories.

The second thing needed is the political will, and sometimes this is the problem, because there are various political and economic forces that need to be dealt with. Third is the establishment of mechanisms for collaboration with indigenous peoples in order to implement the rules.

Q: One of the areas where there is a great deal of resistance on the part of national authorities is the implementation of prior consultation. What is your view of the criteria being used by governments to establish whether an indigenous community has the right to be consulted?

A: That varies a lot between countries, it depends on the state.

Q: In Peru, for example.

A: In Peru they are just beginning to apply their law and its regulations. I know there is a whole debate on the registry (of indigenous communities), but we still have to see how they are going to apply the law. I hope they will do it in accordance with international standards.

On the other hand, it should be recognised that consultation is based on basic rights that in some way apply to everyone. In the case of indigenous peoples, because of their characteristics, there need to be special and differentiated procedures. This is not a matter of abstract considerations, it has to be addressed on the ground.

Q: Speaking of concrete cases, in Peru there is a consensus on consulting indigenous peoples in the Amazon, but this is not the case when it comes to communities of peasant farmers that are located precisely in the areas where extractive activities are carried out.

A: The rights of indigenous peoples must always be protected. It is necessary to move forward with development for the benefit of everyone, but protecting indigenous rights. And achieving both things is possible; they are not incompatible.

Q: Perhaps that is the problem: governments feel that respect for indigenous rights has to be left aside in order to promote private investment in their lands…

A: The problem is that the models that have existed up until now have shown these (indigenous rights and economic development) to be incompatible. Perhaps it is a question of creating new models based on human rights, models that respect the rights of indigenous peoples. It’s not a question of putting a brake on development.

Q: That seems like something so easy to understand, but there is a lot of resistance.

A: There is a great deal of polarisation between the different parties, there needs to be more dialogue.

Q: Do you think the state would lose its sovereignty if an indigenous community has the last word on whether or not an investment project can be undertaken on their territory?

A: The state does not lose its sovereignty if it respects human rights or indigenous rights. It has to comply with these rules to respect those rights; the state cannot do whatever it wants.

I would say that the respect of these rights is a way of ensuring that this sovereignty is exercised. When the state respects human rights, it exercises its sovereignty, because it is acting in favour of its citizens and peoples.

Q: Nevertheless, there has been a loss of trust in governments. What can be done to ensure legitimate consultations and to open up dialogue?

A: The mistrust and prejudice need to be overcome. It is a matter of creating open processes where indigenous peoples can voice their opinions and influence decisions, and where there is the necessary will to seek consensus.

The problem is that sometimes there is a belief that consent is about saying yes or no, about who wins. Consent is linked to consultation; the purpose of consultation is to reach consent, to reach consensus. It is not a question of one side imposing its opinion on the other.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network.

Excerpt: