The issue of protecting indigenous peoples’ rights has been in the media for quite some time. Stories of resistance to industrial projects, displacement of people out of their traditional homes, protests against state authorities – all these have not only brought forth the frailties of our development agendas but also pointed out the stark differences in the ways ‘development’ is conceptualized. Seemingly, the development of modern society under the so-called growth models has failed to appreciate the realities and to ensure a fair and transparent deal.
On January 13, 2011, several indigenous peoples’ representatives met with Chairs of Commissions of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other conservation organizations, for a high-level dialogue during the Sharing Power Conference, in Whakatane, New Zealand.
ThinktoSustain.com held an interview with Dr. Maurizio Farhan Ferrari on the issues, challenges, mechanisms and the way forward.
Dr. Ferrari is the Environmental Governance Coordinator for a U.K.-based non-profit organization – Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) – which is a key supporter of the rights of peoples living in forests and depending on them for their livelihoods.
Dr. Ferrari has been a socio-environmental scientist with 20 years field experience with forest peoples in Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. He has been involved since 1998 in international environmental policy-making with a focus on the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Question: What challenges do you perceive before States to recognize indigenous peoples’ rights?
In many instances, the rights of indigenous peoples are not sufficiently recognized and respected by States because of lack of political will at the national level. Often, states make commitments at the international level, such as at the Convention on Biological Diversity and the endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but then fail to implement them at the national level and to integrate these commitments in their national policies and laws. In many cases, governments are more keen to respond to the demands of business and industrial groups than to respond to the rights and needs of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Question: In your opinion, what policy-steps need to be taken by States to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights are protected?
The States should integrate their international commitments within national policies and laws, and ensure that adequate resources are available to fund their implementation.
Question: There are number of instances worldwide where industrial activity has destroyed livelihoods and has displaced indigenous people. While governments cite development as the reason, how do you think such actions can be prevented?
First of all, the basic rights to land territories and resources should be secured. Secondly, the right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent should be applied before so-called development projects are imposed on indigenous peoples. Thirdly, development policies, programmes and projects should be developed and implemented with full and effective participation of local citizens, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in accordance with the principles of sustainable development and the ecosystem approach.
Question: What have been the major bottle-necks for implementation of earlier resolutions and recommendations adopted by IUCN since 1975?
The first bottle-neck has been the failure in IUCN to allocate clear responsibility to specific persons or an office to see that these resolutions are implemented. Another bottle-neck has been the failure by IUCN members, including both governments and NGOs, to take the responsibility to push for their implementation and to take action to implement them themselves.
Question: What kind of mechanism were you (as part of the high-level dialogue) looking at, that enables protection of indigenous peoples’ rights?
During the high-level dialogue, representatives of indigenous peoples have asked for the implementation of all of the IUCN resolutions relevant to them. In particular, they have singled out several actions that IUCN should undertake.
First, they requested that the IUCN reviews the implementation of relevant resolutions and reports on progress. The recommendations of the report to address gaps between resolutions and implementation should feed into the next programme of IUCN (2013-2016), to be discussed and adopted at the 5th World Conservation Congress (WCC 5) in September 2012 in Jeju, Republic of Korea.
Second, indigenous representatives asked that pilot assessments of protected areas at the local level be carried out by teams composed of indigenous peoples, IUCN national and international offices, government officials and other relevant actors. The pilot assessments should specify recommendations to address gaps between the observed practices and the ‘new conservation paradigm’. The findings will be reported in national workshops, which will then explore ways to implement the recommendations from the assessments. The assessments would also bring examples of successful projects and best practices to the international community. This is a crucial request because there are often discrepancies between the practice of conservation on the ground and the policies and communications of conservation organizations at the international level.
