DE LA LETRA A LA ACCIÓN: el derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas al Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado
15 de enero, 2024 Jorge Basilago* A finales de octubre pasado, una delegación del Pueblo Indígena A’i Cofán de la provincia de Sucumbíos, Ecuador, se manifestó frente a la sede de la Corte Constitucional, en Quito. Casi al mismo tiempo, en Kenia, integrantes del pueblo Ogiek hicieron lo propio durante la visita oficial del rey Carlos III de Inglaterra a esa nación africana. Las protestas, en ambos casos, buscaban llamar la atención acerca de un fenómeno que se repite en todo el mundo: el avasallamiento del derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas a la Consulta y el Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado (CLPI), ante la implementación de cualquier proyecto que pueda afectar sus territorios y formas de vida. No son situaciones aisladas: forman parte de un proceso necesario e imparable, que ayuda a amplificar la voz pública de los Pueblos Indígenas del mundo. “En este tema, tenemos una contradicción profunda entre los avances jurídicos y las deudas políticas en la implementación efectiva de esos avances”, analizó David Suárez, coordinador del Programa de CLPI de la organización Land is Life. “De ahí la explicación de porqué los pueblos indígenas siguen teniendo contraposiciones a veces tan agudas con los Estados”. Impulsos para la autodeterminación El cambio ha sido lento pero inexorable desde que, casi 35 años atrás, en junio de 1989, la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) emitió su Convenio N°169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales. Este instrumento – que corrige y profundiza la recomendación de la OIT de 1957, consolidó el impulso inicial para el reconocimiento de la autodeterminación de las comunidades originarias, aún sin mencionar textualmente ese concepto. “El 169 de la OIT, al referirse a la autonomía, a la toma de decisiones propias y a elegir sus prioridades de desarrollo, conforma la idea de libre determinación, que es el paraguas debajo del cual se ordenan y tienen sentido todos los otros derechos de los pueblos originarios”, puntualizó Suárez, quien advirtió que otro error frecuente es considerar que el ejercicio de esta garantía se limita a las grandes obras extractivas y energéticas. “La consulta debe regir también para definir cómo será la educación propia o las políticas de salud intercultural, a partir de la priorización de las necesidades propias de esas poblaciones.” especificó. Con el tiempo, otros organismos multilaterales diseñaron herramientas legales convergentes con los principios del Convenio 169 de la OIT. Las más relevantes son las declaraciones sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU, 2007) y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA, 2016). Ambas determinan que los Estados “celebrarán consultas y cooperarán de buena fe” con las “instituciones representativas” de las comunidades que lo requieran, “antes de adoptar y aplicar” medidas potencialmente dañinas. A tono con tales precedentes, los gobiernos de varios países –en especial latinoamericanos– buscaron incorporar este derecho a sus diferentes cuerpos legales nacionales. Por ejemplo, a nivel constitucional, los procesos de CLPI fueron reconocidos en las Cartas Magnas de Ecuador (1998 y 2008) y Bolivia (2009); en tanto, las autoridades de Perú (2011) y Panamá (2016) han dictado sendas leyes específicas sobre el tema. Sin embargo, esto no significa que la situación esté resuelta, ni mucho menos. “En Bolivia, por ejemplo, la Consulta Previa no es vinculante. Esa es una gran debilidad, porque a pesar de que una comunidad diga ‘no’, su posición no es válida en primera instancia”, reveló el periodista boliviano Etzhel Llanque. Son numerosos los ejemplos similares en América Latina, que así enfrenta la paradoja de ser una región de “vanguardia” en relación con políticas de CLPI y, en simultáneo, registra los mayores índices de conflictividad al respecto. Litigar y construir para avanzar Poco más del 65% de los Estados que ratificaron el convenio 169 de la OIT – 15 sobre 23 – son latinoamericanos. Esta parte del mundo cuenta asimismo con un significativo número de población Indígena (que representa algo más del 8% del total de habitantes de América Latina), cuyos territorios ancestrales abarcan el 45% de los bosques intactos de la cuenca amazónica y registran una deforestación notoriamente menor. Estos indicadores se evidencian incluso en Brasil, cuyas políticas públicas sobre las áreas de conservación y de vida de los Pueblos Indígenas, pocas veces se caracterizan por su comprensión y valoración del componente cultural. Sin embargo, según la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco), sólo “en la minoría de casos, los pueblos y organizaciones indígenas participan en la gobernanza, toma de decisión y gestión” de esas áreas. Y garantizar a los Pueblos Indígenas el ejercicio de su legítimo derecho a decidir sobre esos espacios, es algo que “ningún país ha hecho (…) según los estándares mínimos establecidos por la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas”, sostiene la Coalición Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (Sirge) en su Guía sobre CPLI. La consecuencia del incumplimiento, es que estos colectivos se ven obligados a recurrir a medidas de fuerza y a litigios judiciales para acceder a las garantías negadas o en disputa. “Hay casos emblemáticos como el de Saramaka vs. Surinam, donde el fallo de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CoIDH) habla por primera vez de consentimiento, en un sentido muy estricto, para aquellos proyectos que puedan afectar irreversiblemente el modo de vida de un pueblo”, reflexionó David Suárez. De igual forma, el entrevistado destacó la sentencia del mismo tribunal en la causa Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, sobre la responsabilidad del Estado en la correcta delimitación de los territorios indígenas. Por otra parte, la construcción comunitaria de protocolos o leyes propias para ordenar los procesos de CLPI, permitió a muchas comunidades originarias latinoamericanas expresar con mayor claridad sus prioridades al respecto. En tiempos recientes, esa alternativa – que cuenta con ejemplos de aplicación concreta desde Argentina hasta Centroamérica, pasando por Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador y Colombia – se ha vuelto una tendencia regional e incluso global: por caso, los mismos Ogiek, de Kenia, se encuentran trabajando en un protocolo
FROM WORD TO ACTION: the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
Jorge Basilago* January 15 2024 At the end of October 2023, a delegation of the A’i Cofán Indigenous People from the province of Sucumbíos, Ecuador, demonstrated in front of the country’s Constitutional Court, in Quito, the country’s capital. At almost the same time, members of the Ogiek People were protesting during the official visit to Kenya of King Charles III of England. In both cases the Indigenous Peoples involved sought to draw attention to a phenomenon being repeated around the world: the suppression of the right of Indigenous Peoples to Consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), regarding the implementation of any project that may affect their territories and ways of life. However, declares David Suárez, coordinator of the FPIC Program of Land is Life, “what we have at the moment is a profound contradiction between legal advances, and a political debt in their effective implementation. This is why indigenous peoples often have such sharp differences of opinion with national governments.” Impulses for self-determination These are not isolated incidents, but part of a necessary and ongoing process that has amplified the voice of Indigenous Peoples everywhere. The change has been advancing slowly but inexorably since June 1989, when the International Labor Organization (ILO) published its Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. This instrument –correcting and deepening the ILO own 1957 recommendations – consolidated the push for the recognition of self-determination for indigenous communities, although without specifically mentioning the concept. “By referring to autonomy, making one’s own decisions, and choosing one’s own development priorities, ILO 169 establishes the idea of self-determination, which is the umbrella under which all the other human rights of Indigenous Peoples are organized and have meaning,” says Suárez, who warns that a common mistake is to consider that the exercise of this guarantee is limited to large extractive and energy projects. “Consultation also has to do with the definition of education or intercultural health policies, based on prioritizing the needs of these populations.” Over time, other multilateral organizations designed legal tools that coincided with the Convention 169 principles. The most relevant were the declarations of the United Nations declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007), and that of the Organization of American States (OEA, 2016). Both determine that states “will hold consultations and cooperate in good faith” with the “representative institutions” of the communities that request it, before any potentially harmful actions are implemented. In line with these examples, the governments of several countries – especially in Latin America – sought to incorporate this right into their legal codes. For example, at the constitutional level, FPIC processes were recognized in the Constitutions of Ecuador (1998 and 2008) and Bolivia (2009), while the authorities in Peru (2011) and Panama (2016) approved specific laws. This does not mean, however, that the situation has been resolved, far from it. “In Bolivia, for example, Prior Consultation is not binding. And as Bolivian journalist Etzhel Llanque has pointed out, “this is a major weakness, because even though a community says ‘no’, its position has no legal validity”. There are numerous similar examples in Latin America, which, while being a “vanguard” region with regard to FPIC policies, also has the highest rates of conflict in relation to them. Litigate and construct in order to move forward Just over 65% of the States that ratified ILO Convention 169 – 15 out of 23 – are Latin American. This part of the world also has a significant proportion of Indigenous populations (just over 8% of total inhabitants): peoples whose ancestral territories cover 45% of the intact forests of the Amazon basin, where deforestation is notably less prevalent. These indicators are evident even in Brazil, whose public policies on conservation and Indigenous Peoples are rarely characterized by their understanding and appreciation of the cultural aspect. Despite their evident importance, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), only “in the minority of cases, do Indigenous Peoples and organizations participate in the governance, decision-making, and management” of these areas. And guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples the exercise of their legitimate right to decide, is something that “no country has done (…) according to the minimum standards established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” SIRGE (the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy Coalition), in its Guide to FPIC. The consequence of non-compliance is that Indigenous groups are obliged to resort to judicial processes and confrontational shows of strength in order to access the denied or disputed guarantees. In the former case we have emblematic litigations such as Saramaka vs. Suriname, where the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) spoke for the first time of consent, albeit in a very limited sense, with regard to projects that may irreversibly affect the way of life of an Indigenous People. Another example is the ruling of the same court in the case of Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, regarding the responsibility of the state in the correct delimitation of Indigenous territories. At the same time, the elaboration of their own FPIC protocols has allowed many Latin American indigenous communities to express their priorities more clearly. Recently, this alternative – which includes examples from Argentina to Central America, passing through Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia – has become a regional and even global trend. For example, the above mentioned Ogiek People of Kenya, are working on this type of protocol with the support of the Sarayaku People of Ecuador. While there may be progress in Latin America, it is essential to understand that the reality in Asia and Africa is much more challenging for Indigenous Peoples, even when judicial rulings and multilateral organizations support their territorial claims. In the case of Asia, although “two thirds” of the world’s Indigenous Peoples live on that continent, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has warned that many “are affected by the lack of recognition of their cultural identity, its exclusion and its marginalization”. Regarding the
THE MOSOPISYEK OF BENET PROPOSE JOINT CONSERVATION OF ANCESTRAL LAND: CALL FOR DIALOGUE WITH UGANDA GOVERNMENT AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY
David Chemutai, coordinator of the Benet Mosopisyek community, declares that the eviction of the community from their ancestral land was illegal. And now, he says, “Whenever our community tries to access the ancestral land for resources and cultural issues, they face human rights abuses like torture,shootings, and illegal arrests.” Chemutai also mentions that three people were reportedly shot in November. The community coordinator is calling for dialogue and an end to the violence and the dispute with the government and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). “We need joint conservation. The community should be given a chance to conserve the forest.” However, after a number of meetings with UWA staff, including the Executive Director, and being asked to put the plan in writing, the proposal was rejected. The plan has now been presented to the Ugandan Prime Minister and the Minister of Tourism. Says Chemutai, “Instead of the government allowing the Mosop Benet Indigenous community to carry out joint conservation to save our forest, and handing over the 6,000 ha. of land meant for resettlement of Mosop Benet… demolishing our houses, destroying our crops and impounding our cattle is the order of the day.” Land is Life wholeheartedly supports the call for dialogue and Joint Conservation made by the Mosop Benet. We urge the Government of President Yoweri Museveni and Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja, to enter into good faith dialogue and come to an agreement with the community; cooperation and Joint Conservation rather than violence, is the best way to ensure the vitality of the land. The violence and displacements, which are clear violations of the human rights of the Mosopisyek Benet people, have been going on too long, and conservation can never be an excuse for displacing Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands. The UWA, conservation, and violence The Mount Elgon National Park area of Uganda was home to the Mosopisyek of Benet (Mosop Benet) Indigenous People well before it was declared a forest reserve in 1920 by the British colonial administration. In 1968, six years after the British left, the newly independent Ugandan government declared the area a central reserve, and in 1993 named it Mt. Elgon National Park, all without the free, prior and informed consent of the Mosop Benet. Since the designation of the Mt. Elgon region as a conservation area in 1920, the Ugandan government has assumed primary responsibility for environmental protection, and it is this obligation that is being utilized by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to justify displacing thousands, and preventing the Mosop Benet from accessing their ancestral lands and the sacred sites that are an essential element of their culture. The forced evictions from disputed areas led to legal action being taken against the Uganda Wildlife Authority, and while the resulting judgment recognized the rights of the community, and allowed them agricultural and grazing rights, the judgment was never implemented. As a consequence, the violence and displacements continue. According to a recent report published by the Mosop Benet community elders: “Since October 2022, the Benet Mosop have suffered escalating and relentless attacks carried out by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) agents, including human rights violations such as shootings, rape, torture, burning and demolition of the houses and impounding of cattle. Since the institution of litigation, these attacks have become more frequent, more violent and accompanied by a heightened level of property destruction. UWA employs lethal force, either shooting or beating up community members found within the boundaries of the (Mount Elgon) Park or on its outskirts. The current attacks, characterized by their brutal and violent nature, have escalated the perilous threat of sustaining gunshot wounds, and even losing one’s life. Fourthly, in a bid to further intimidate the community, UWA agents are incessantly threatening BCMA’s leaders for daring to stand up for the rights of the community. Among the most grievous violations, on 28th December 2022, a 16-years-old Benet Mosop girl was raped by a UWA agent, and on 10th February 2023, a 45-year-old man was shot dead by rangers who had found him collecting firewood in Mt. Elgon forest. In fact, the exacerbated nature of these violent attacks caught the attention of government officials.” The Joint Conservation Proposal A Mosop Benet community proposal for Joint Conservation with the UWA includes, amongst others, the following recommendations: A system through which Mosopisyek observers are permitted to observe activities in each part of the park, to report unlawful users like poachers and those depleting our trees, and to track changes of the local ecosystem to know what is needed, based on historical knowledge. An initiative which specifically engages Mosopisyek of Benet as the protectors of the moorland, in conjunction with rights to access and use the grazing of the moorland in agreed ways, including limitations on stock, and a system of regulation by appointed clan cluster leaders. The launching of discussions to understand the problems of the present composition and settlement of the Benet Resettlement Scheme 6,000 ha. Gazzeted (set aside) for farming. This needs discussion between the Mosopisyek of Benet council of elders and government about how it can be handled, since it’s already occupied by majority Sabinys (People) and displacement will cause conflicts. The 2,250 ha above the 6,000 ha. is also a water catchment area. A discussion can be held on how to replant indigenous trees to combat climate change. Uganda TV Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB5J0OqQZSM&authuser=0
SUPPORTING INDIGENOUS WOMEN IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
Around the world, Indigenous women play an increasingly vital role in the promotion and protection of their peoples’ rights. Whether leading community-based sustainable development projects, responding to the challenges of climate change or protecting territorial rights and ancestral knowledge, Indigenous women are taking strong, effective action that is making a real difference in the lives of their communities. Land is Life’s Women’s Program – which is designed and led by Indigenous women – protects the rights, strengthens the voices, and improves the lives of Indigenous women around the world. As part of this program, we launched a fellowship in 2023 to help nurture the next generation of Indigenous women leaders. We invite you to meet our first cohort of Fellows. About the Fellowship This 12-month-long fellowship supports young Indigenous women who are taking innovative actions that contribute to gender equality, the well-being of their communities, and the recognition of their land and resource rights. The fellowship helps to build their capacity to advance the rights of Indigenous women and girls, strengthen their participation in regional and international decision-making processes, and support their efforts to implement community projects and build local and regional networks. MEET THE FELLOWS: Eunice Chepkemoi Kenya/ East Africa, Ogiek, Ogiek Peoples Development Program. Community project: “Strengthening Ogiek Women Economically to Alleviate Poverty” Eunice Chepkemoi holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in community development, and a certificate in Project Management. She has been working on issues related to Indigenous Peoples for more than ten years. For the past seven years, she has been serving at Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP) as the Gender and Youth Officer. Her role entails strengthening women and young people in all facets of life, and mainstreaming gender in all programs. She is part of the Indigenous Women’s Council in Kenya. Also, she participates in the Defender’s Protection Working Group. Moreover, she represents the OPDP on matters related to housing, land, and natural resources at the Women’s Working Group of the ESCR-Net. Recently, she was appointed to the East Africa Region Council at ICCA consortium. Her fellowship project aims to improve the economic welfare of Ogiek women as a way to achieve sustainable development. The project benefits 2 women’s groups, each with 20 women, who receive economic support for their cooperative, and capacity building on leadership skills. The principal outcomes are an income-generating initiative for Ogiek women in Nakuru and Narok, and more independent and supportive women groups that participate in public life and development activities for collective action. “I was so happy to see that the work we are doing to empower women, to help them understand about their rights, is working. And also we had some women come and speak out for themselves, something which was not happening before. So, it is a milestone.” Fadimata Walet Aboubacrene Mali/ Western Africa, Tuareg, Tin Hinan Association. Community project: “Raising awareness among women and girls about gender-based violence and schooling in the Timbuktu region” Fadimata Walet, is the president of a women’s organization in Tiboraghen and Haribomo and a member of the Tin Hinan Association. She is one of the few girls in the communities she represents who attends school, and the only one who has reached the Baccalaureate level. The only child in her family, she began to take an interest in school in the Djibo refugee camp in Burkina Faso in 2013, during her early childhood. Her activities include participating in forum-theater activities to raise awareness about the education of nomad children, especially girls, and participating in Timbuktu Humanitarian Coordination meetings. During her fellowship project, she is working to empower young girls, contribute to the promotion of girls’ education and raise awareness about the negative impacts of early marriage in the rural communities of Haribomo and the region of Timbuktu. “Me, I hear the voices of indigenous girls here in Mali, in Tombouctou… I am used to raising awareness for the fight against violence against women and girls. (…) We have always used the theater to raise awareness of the schooling of young girls.” Audrey Corce Philippines/ Cordillera Region, Kankanaey-Igorot People, Innabuyog. Community project: “Documenting Rights Violations in Mountain Province through Paralegal Training” Audrey Rose Corce belongs to the Kankanaey-Igorot Indigenous Peoples’ group in the northern Philippines. She was a youth organizer from 2006-2013 and has been a full time organizer of Indigenous communities, particularly Indigenous women, from 2014 to the present. She is currently Secretary General of Innabuyog, the alliance of Indigenous women’s organizations in the Philippines’ Cordillera Region. During her fellowship, Audrey is working to strengthen Indigenous women’s organizations in the Cordillera by enriching the skills of Indigenous women land defenders, especially in the documentation of rights violations in their communities at a time of widespread resource plunder and political repression. Her project benefits a province-wide alliance of Indigenous women’s organizations in the Cordillera Province. The project is expected to produce a systematized documentation of violations of the rights of both Indigenous women and their communities in the province, which will then help inform the plan of action for Indigenous women’s land defenders and their organizations. “I’m doing this because I know if we stop fighting for our rights as Indigenous Peoples, we would cease to exist as distinct peoples, because right now the policies and programs of the Philippines government do not address the concerns and interests or even the welfare of Indigenous Peoples.” Carmen Chalán Ecuador/ Andes Region, Pueblo Chibuleo, La Asociación de Mujeres Nina Kamak. Community project: “Promotion of the collective rights of children, adolescents, women of the Chibuleo San Francisco community and renovation of each of the neighborhood meeting areas” Carmen Chalán was a leader of local organizations, in which she led training processes in leadership and protection of the rights of girls, teenagers, and women. She was a candidate for the Rural Council of the city of Ambato, Province of Tungurahua. Currently, Carmen is the President of the Chibuleo San Francisco community, where she manages the administrative processes of
CARBON TRADING IS NOT WORKING: strict regulation of offset projects is essential for affected Indigenous Peoples
Hopes are not high for the COP 28 conference in Dubai, especially given the presence of a huge number of oil industry delegates, but the meeting has focused attention on a number of serious issues, and could serve as a vehicle for action to right some of the most glaring injustices. The first of these is carbon trading, with its generally poor results and control over large territories in the name of Conservation: in some cases for 90 years or more. Control that is a major problem for the Indigenous People who live in these areas. A prime example is the deals signed by the United Arab Emirates based company Blue Carbon, and a number of African countries. According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the company has signed deals that cover a fifth of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia, 10% of Zambia and 8% of Tanzania, a total of approximately 24.5 million Ha., together with a deal with the government of Kenya that involves an as yet unspecified area, but said to be millions of hectares. Blue Carbon, operated by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, has been in operation for only a year, and has no experience in managing carbon offset deals. As far as can be determined, the company has had no negotiations with the Indigenous Peoples who will be impacted by these deals, nor plans or policies in place to ensure the protection of their rights. The agreement with Kenya highlights the issues and contradictions of carbon trading. On the one hand, William Ruto, the President of the country, has been creating for himself a profile as a energetic African climate defender, championing private sector investment in the continent, even being cited by Time magazine as one of Africa’s climate leaders. At the Africa Climate Conference in June of this year Ruto claimed the continent’s carbon sinks were an “unparalleled economic goldmine”. On the other hand, Ruto’s government has been displacing hundreds of Ogiek people from the Mau Forest Complex in Eastern Kenya, where they have lived for centuries, evictions that according to the Ogiek’s lawyers, are likely a result of the deal with Blue Carbon. The case is symptomatic. Not only were the Ogiek never consulted about the conservation deal with the UAE company, a violation of their fundamental right, but are now considered by Ruto’s government as an ‘inconvenience’, and being displaced with violence. The fact that the Ogiek have found some support in the Judicial arm of the Kenyan State, is positive – a stay order has been issued by the Naroc Law Court – but there is little guarantee the Kenyan government will respect the decision, and if it does, will not later find a way to interpret the ruling according to its own financial interests. Respect for judicial rulings is one of the major problems facing Indigenous Peoples in their dealings with national governments and private sector partners. The problem is hardly restricted to Africa and more needs to be done on an international level to make sure that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are protected, and that legal judgements in their favor are respected. Money is obviously key, and one major motive for the Kenyan government’s interest in private sector funding, is said to be the lack of follow through on past climate financing offered by richer countries. At the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit the figure of 100 billion USD a year by 2020, was pledged to poorer nations to help them cut emissions and adapt to climate change. The figure was reached, but only in 2022. And there is a caveat: in order to meet the goal, many already existing grants and loans have simply been reclassified. As one diplomat pointed out, direct financial aid has not reached 100 billion per year. The problems with carbon offsetting have been more than well documented and the need for regulation is clear. After years of disagreement over possible rules, a UN climate change committee has now been charged with developing standards to be discussed at COP28. However, given the lack of meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in the process, and the speed with which the private sector is signing long term carbon trading agreements, the likelihood of meaningful standards being established, however small, will depend on international pressure. LAND IS LIFE therefore calls for strict rules to be put in place at COP 28 to ensure: 1. That carbon offset projects actually do reduce emissions; 2. That governments ensure adherence to the standard of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of any Indigenous Peoples that would be affected by these projects; 3. That a rigorous evaluation process be put into place for projects such as those of Blue Carbon and similar, together with a robust feedback and grievance mechanism that has the capacity to genuinely influence and shape carbon trading projects, fairly address any complaints arising during the terms of project agreements, and, when necessary, shut down harmful projects. Photo 1: Ogiek house burned to ashes during evictions in November 2023. Land is Life
OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT COP 28
Open letter regarding respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples at the COP 28 meeting, and the need for their full inclusion in all negotiations regarding climate change. November 29th, 2023 To all national representatives attending the meeting of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change in Dubai. Greetings. On the eve of the 28th meeting of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change (COP 28), Land is Life wishes to publically voice its concern about the lack of meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in climate negotiations. We believe their front-line role as protectors of much of the world’s natural areas gives them not only the right to be present in debates about the Climate Crisis, but to participate directly at the negotiation table, where their rights have often been ignored. As you are no doubt aware, Indigenous Peoples contribute significantly to the conservation of biodiversity and to the protection of the world’s vital ecosystems and, as a consequence, to reducing the threat of climate change. In large measure this is due to the struggle to maintain the integrity of their ancestral territories, and protect them against the depredations of illegal loggers, miners and major extractive projects that threaten their lives and cultures. Cultures, it should be added, that are unique and priceless, living, human heritage. However, despíte a contribution that will benefit the entire planet, Indigenous Peoples are amongst those most affected by rising temperatures and changing weather patterns and, tragically, in many places they face violence, death, and eviction from their homelands in the name of Conservation and climate change mitigation. These atrocities are often the result of climate change market mechanisms that are only thinly disguised attempts to appropriate their territories. It is possible to cite a number of examples of this type of violation, but perhaps the most egregious are those of the Ogiek People in Kenya, the Mosop Benet in Uganda, and the Maasai in Tanzania, where thousands have been displaced from the traditional lands they have safeguarded for centuries. Unfortunately, these are only illustrations of a much wider problem that leads us to emphasize, once again, that violence and displacement, or any other violation of Human Rights, are totally unacceptable elements of any conservation or climate change adaptation/mitigation project. The decisions to be taken at COP 28 will be fundamental in meeting the needs of the global population, and Land is Life urges all delegates to make sure that action is real and substantial. More specifically, the meeting is a major opportunity to rectify past injustices, and to ensure respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and their full inclusion in all climate change negotiations. Land is LIfe calls for the following measures to be adopted at COP 28 in Dubai: That mechanisms be established for the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in all aspects and all instances of climate negotiations. That those mechanisms be formulated with the participation of Indigenous Peoples themselves. That these mechanisms be transparent, inclusive, and participatory. That adaptive mechanisms, including funding, must be put into place that allow Indigenous Peoples to: a) not only remain on their lands, but b) to institute measures that will ensure those lands are better protected from the ravages of illegal activities and major extractive projects. That funding mechanisms be implemented that allow conservation projects to be initiated and operated by Indigenous Peoples themselves. Funding mechanisms must also be put into place to make sure that Governments of emerging nations do not need to rely on market based ‘solutions’, and are able to meet their emission targets without violating the rights of Indigenous and other marginalized peoples That the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent be legally enshrined as a precondition for all projects that could affect the traditional territories and cultures of Indigenous Peoples. That the fundamental role of women, and the projects they lead, be recognized and provided with the necessary funding. That the role of market mechanisms, such as carbon trading, be eliminated, and that those agreements already in place be monitored to prove effectiveness in reducing emissions, be transparent and tightly controlled, and contain international grievance mechanisms that allow for human rights violations to be heard, victims compensated, rehabilitation initiated, and non-repetition guaranteed. Where these conditions are not met, projects should be closed down. We are all affected by climate change, and fighting it must be a shared struggle; the most vulnerable peoples, especially the world’s Indigenous Peoples, must therefore be supported and allowed to play the positive role they have always played. Land is Life urges the representatives of States, businesses, and other stakeholders at the COP 28 in Dubai to support the positions put forward by the world’s Indigenous Peoples, and ensure that their vital role in finding effective responses to the challenges of global climate change.. Respectfully, the Board of Directors of Land is Life
DANIEL SANTI, LIDER DEL PUEBLO KICHWA DE SARAYAKU: LAS DEUDAS DEL COP CON LOS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS
Desde 2016, los Pueblos Indígenas tienen una mayor presencia en los debates sobre cambio climático dentro del Convenio Marco sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU. Ahora, en el contexto de la COP 28 en Dubai, los Pueblos Indígenas demandan participar de los espacios de decisión. VER VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EndIhnSX6ns&pp=ygUMTEFORCBJUyBMSUZF
THE 1900 REGULATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS.
The Bangladeshi courts must reject challenges to its validity, and protect Indigenous land rights and systems of governance. The situation in Bangladesh is critical. The upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections have led to demands for free elections, outbreaks of violence and the jailing of thousands. The situation is extremely serious, at least four people have died and hundreds have been injured, but despite pressure to initiate dialogue with the opposition, the military-supported government is not backing down. Prime Minister Sheik Hasina, in power since 2009, is seeking a fourth five-year term amidst accusations of vote rigging in previous elections, and major pay protests by garment workers. Whatever the outcome, the future of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and the 1900 Regulation that lends a certain amount of protection for their lands and traditional forms of government, are in serious danger. Keeping up international pressure is essential if these Indigenous Peoples are to survive and live in peace on their traditional lands, with their traditional forms of government. The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord and the 1900 Regulation. Signed in December 1997, The CHT Accord (CHTA) was a result of a longstanding conflict between the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), and the government of what was then East Pakistan and later Bangladesh. The CHTA was designed to restore peace after a twenty year internal conflict, guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the CHT, and improve their participation in government, but after almost 26 years, it is basically dead letter. As Binota Doy Dhamai* explains, “while the structures required by the Accord (establishment of the CHT as an Indigenous-inhabited special administered area; the creation of a mechanism to resolve land disputes; the rehabilitation of returning refugees and Internally Displaced Persons) have been put into place, they are not functional and play no part in government. What makes the situation more serious is that the 1900 Regulation, which came into being on May 1st, 1900, during the British colonial era, and was designed to protect the Indigenous inhabitants and their culture from outside immigration, is also under attack. Invalidating the 1900 Regulation, presently being challenged in two separate legal cases that many assume to be the work of the army, will have serious consequences for the area’s Indigenous Peoples. One of the most problematic would be the ability of outsiders to buy land, something the 1900 regulation, which recognizes the region’s customary governance system and traditional forms of government, presently prohibits without the permission of the traditional chief. Deprived of the regulation, Indigenous Peoples’ lands would be at the mercy of business, and extractive industries such as natural gas, stone mining, and tourism, much of it sponsored, ironically, by the country’s military. As Dhamai says, “Land grabbing was rife before the 1900 Regulation was passed, and became more difficult because of it, but even with the Regulation, the Military have been occupying scenic areas for the last ten years, and promoting their own tourism projects. What we have here is a type of Military Touristic Complex.” The land management structure of the CHT is presently traditional, and is recognized by the Regulation as such: there are no property titles, and all land is therefore managed collectively. As a consequence, if the challenge to the 1900 Regulation succeeds, the lack of titles could be used to declare that the area has no legal owners and can therefore be occupied. Even now, with the regulation still in force, explains Dhamai, the natural resources of the hill tracts, which contain major sources of biodiversity, have been depleted over the last 25 years by a combination of agricultural monoculture, tourism activities, hill-cutting, and stone extraction by private corporations, the government and the military. “At present there are hundreds of military camps in the region (supposedly to be dismantled according to the Accord), and together with a major police and paramilitary presence, including the ‘Bangladesh Border Guard’, which is supposed to defend the area from intrusions from both India and Myanmar, the area is basically under military rule”. The root causes One of the causes of the dispute that led to the armed conflict was the construction by Pakistan of the Kaptai Dam in 1962, which led to an estimated 100,000 Indigenous People being evicted, a displacement succeeding governments failed to address. About 40 percent of the zone’s arable land was also flooded and 40,000 Indigenous People fled to India. Adding to the problem of displacement, Indigenous Peoples were excluded from debate in the Constituent Assembly that led to Bangladesh’s initial constitution, written after independence from Pakistan in 1971. The country’s principal founder, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, even insisted the Hill Tract People adopt Bengali identity, and according to some reports and studies also threatened to settle Bengalis in the Hill Tracts to reduce the native peoples to a minority. Discontent finally led to armed conflict, which intensified in 1975, when the military assumed power. And during the 1970s and 1980s the Bangladesh military did indeed institute a migratory policy designed to change the demographics of the CHT, bringing in more than 400,000 Bengalis from the plains who are known as ‘settlers’. As a result, thousands of the area’s Indigenous Peoples were evicted, while the Bangladeshi army did its part in the scheme by killing thousands more. The army’s human rights abuses continued into the late eighties and early nineties, and as a result, 70,000 Jummas, about 10% of the total Jumma population, was forced to flee and seek shelter in the Indian state of Tripura in 1986, 1989, and 1993. Indigenous Peoples now constitute only 50% of the Hill Tracts population. The armed conflict also continued into the 1990s. It was only in 1997 that it came to an end with the signing of an Accord that gave Indigenous groups hope for recognition and, equally important, peace. The agreement recognized the CHT region as a tribal inhabitant region; established the CHT monitoring committee; agreed to process review whenever needed; established a
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OPPOSE PANAMA MINE
All projects that affect them must count on their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent The protests in Panama have been wide ranging and involve many issues and actors. But one thing is clear, the ‘Cobre Panama’ mine, in the country’s Colón Province, is having a major environmental impact on areas of the Meso-American Biological Corridor, and threatens the territories of Indigenous Peoples. Originally signed in 1997 without bidding, consultation, or environmental impact studies, the initial contract was ruled unconstitutional by Panama’s Supreme Court in 2017, a decision only made public in 2021. The new contract signed by the Government of Panama with the Canadian Mining Company, First Quantum, was passed through parliament in three days; it extends the life of the concession for at least 20 years (some speculate it may reach 60), and could also expand the area of the mine. As well as issues of corruption, the contract not only includes the same unconstitutional elements as the original, but does not address the environmental or land rights issues, and ignores the desire of the people of Panama, including the Indigenous Peoples, to live in a country free of metal mining. The rights of Panama’s Indigenous Peoples cannot be ignored or sacrificed, nor can Indigenous territories be violated in the name of economic policy. All extractive projects that affect Indigenous Peoples, land, and culture, must be subject to their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. Photo: SUNTRACS Panama
UGANDA MUST RESPECT RIGHTS OF THE BENET MOSOP
GOVERNMENT HAS TO END VIOLENT ACTIONS OF THE UGANDA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY On October 27th, 2005, the Ugandan High Court directed the national government to set aside parts of the Mt. Elgon National Park for the benefit of the Mosop of Benet Mosopisyek, recognizing that community as Indigenous inhabitants of Mount Elgon, and giving them the right to remain in temporary settlements and reclaim their schools and services. However, eighteen years later, the Government of Uganda has still not enforced the judgment, and in July 2019 passed new regulations (without consulting the affected Indigenous Peoples), that increased penalties for livestock found grazing on what is their own ancestral lands. In September 2022 the community took legal action against the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) for past human rights abuses, and organized peaceful assemblies to reclaim their land, and since that date the Benet Mosop have been attacked by UWA agents with greater frequency and brutality. The community relates that the UWA often uses lethal force: shooting or beating community members found within the boundaries of the park or on its outskirts. UWA has also destroyed homes and farms and impounded animals, depriving the people of the community their livelihood. According to the Benet Mosop, since October 2022, 96 houses have been razed, 70 community members arrested, and 1,295 animals impounded. Among the most grievous violations, on December 28th 2022, a 16 yearold girl was raped by a UWA agent, and on February 10th 2023, a 45 yearold man was killed by Park Rangers when they found him collecting firewood in the Mt. Elgon forest. The Mount Elgon National Park area was home to the Mosopisyek of Benet Indigenous People well before it was declared a forest reserve in 1920 by the British colonial administration. The British left in 1962, and in 1968 the newly independent Ugandan government declared the area a central reserve, and in 1993 named it Mt. Elgon National Park, all without prior and informed consent of the Mosopisyek of Benet. Since the designation of the Mt. Elgon region as a conservation area in 1920, the Ugandan government has assumed primary responsibility for environmental protection, and it is this obligation that is being utilized by the UWA to justify displacing thousands, and preventing the Mosopisyek of Benet from accessing their ancestral lands, and the sacred sites that are an essential element of their cultural history. Amongst the problems the Benet Mosop face, is that while Article 10 of the 1995 Ugandan Constitution provides citizenship by birth for Indigenous Peoples living within the Uganda boundaries in 1926, the list of Peoples registered does not include all Uganda’s Indigenous communities. The Mosopisyek, for example, were not included, and as a result do not enjoy their full political and socio-economic rights such as access to public services. Land is Lifecalls on the government of Uganda to end the evictions of the Mosopisyek of Benet Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands at Mt. Elgon National Park, and to investigate the arbitrary arrests, killings, torture and ill-treatment allegedly committed by State agents, including members of the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Land is Life also calls for the Mosopisyek of Benet, together with other excluded peoples, to be included in the category of Indigenous Peoples, and the restitution of their ancestral lands which were declared a national park without their prior and informed consent. Fotos: 1. monitor.co.ug 2. newvision.co.ug Share Tweet Forward LAND IS LIFE Our mailing address is: 228 Park Ave South, PMB 45112 New York, NY 10003 – 1502 US www.landislife.orgWant to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.