UNDRSINTERNATIONALWORK GROUP FOR
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSR

As the world approaches the 10th anniversary of the UNDRIP, themain international legal framework for the protection and promotionof indigenous peoples’ rights, particular attention is paid to the statusof its implementation and this year’s edition includes three regional
chapters on the UNDRIP’s significance, implementation, and impact
in Asia, Africa and Latin America over the past ten years.

THE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2017

THE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2017

The Indigenous World 2017 contains 71 articles and country reports all written by indigenous and non-indigenous activists as well
as scholars and experts on indigenous peoples’ rights. The book isan essential source of information and an indispensable tool for
those interested in indigenous issues and who wish to be informed
about the most recent issues and developments which impact indigenous peoples worldwide.

IWGIA

This yearbook gives a comprehensive update on the current situation of indigenous peoples and their human rights situation acrossthe world and offers an overview of the most significant developments in international and regional processes relating to indigenous peoples during 2016.

IP - 10 YE

A

3

THE INDIGENOUS
WORLD 2017

CopenhagenTHE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2017
Compilation and editing: Katrine Broch Hansen, Käthe Jepsen and Pamela Leiva Jacquelin
Regional editors:
Arctic & North America: Kathrin Wessendorf
Mexico, Central and South America: Alejandro Parellada and Pamela Leiva Jacquelin
Australia and the Pacific: Diana Vinding
Asia: Signe Leth
The Middle East: Diana Vinding
Africa: Marianne Wiben Jensen
International Processes: Lola García-Alix and Kathrin Wessendorf
Cover and typesetting: Jorge Monrás
Maps: Jorge Monrás
Ilustration for the logo on the cover: Gerardo Petsaín Sharup
English translation: Elaine Bolton, Rebecca Knight and Diana Vinding
Proof reading: Elaine Bolton
Prepress and Print: Eks-Skolens Trykkeri, Copenhagen, Denmark© The authors and The International WorkGroup for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), 2017
All Rights Reserved
The reproduction and distribution of information containedin The Indigenous World is welcome as long as the sourceis cited. However, the translation of articles into otherlanguages and the reproduction of the whole BOOK is notallowed without the consent of IWGIA.
The articles in The Indigenous World are produced on a
voluntary basis. It is IWGIA’s intention that The Indigenous
World should provide a comprehensive update on the situation of indigenous peoples worldwide but, unfortunately, it
is not always possible to find authors to cover all relevant
countries. The articles reflect the authors’ own views andopinions and not necessarily those of IWGIA itself. IWGIA
can furthermore not be held responsible for the accuracy of
their content. The Indigenous World is published annually inEnglish and Spanish.

Interim Directors:
Lola García-Alix and Kathrin Wessendorf
Head of finance: Søren Juul Aarslev

HURRIDOCS CIP DATA
Title: The Indigenous World 2017
Edited by: Katrine Broch Hansen, Käthe Jepsen andPamela Leiva Jacquelin
Pages: 569
ISSN: 1024-0217
ISBN: 978-87-92786-72-2
Language: English
Index: 1. Indigenous Peoples – 2. Yearbook – 3. International
Processes
BISAC codes: LAW110000 Indigenous Peoples
REF027000 Yearbooks & Annuals
POL035010 Political Freedom & Security / Human Rights
Geografical area: World
Publication date: April 2017

Distribution in North America:
Transaction Publishers
300 McGaw Drive
Raritan Center - Edison, NJ 08857
www.transactionpub.com

This book has been produced with financial support from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DANIDA)

INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSClassensgade 11 E, DK 2100 – Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: (45) 35 27 05 00 – E-mail: iwgia@iwgia.org – Web: www.iwgia.org

CONTENTS

Editorial.............................................................................................................10
UNDRIP impact on Asia: ten years on......................................................... 23
UNDRIP impact on Africa: ten years on....................................................... 33
UNDRIP impact on Latin America: ten years on.......................................... 43

PART I – REGION AND COUNTRY REPORTS
ArcticGreenland.....................................................................................................54
Sápmi...........................................................................................................60
Russian Federation......................................................................................75
Inuit Nunangat (Inuit of Canada)..................................................................85
North America
Canada.........................................................................................................94
United States of America............................................................................103
Mexico and Central America
Mexico........................................................................................................116
Guatemala..................................................................................................127
Nicaragua...................................................................................................136
Costa Rica..................................................................................................148
Panama......................................................................................................157
South America
Colombia....................................................................................................168
Venezuela...................................................................................................179
French Guiana............................................................................................190
Suriname....................................................................................................197
Ecuador......................................................................................................203
Peru............................................................................................................212

Bolivia.........................................................................................................222
Brazil..........................................................................................................233
Paraguay....................................................................................................238
Argentina....................................................................................................246
Chile...........................................................................................................259
The Pacific
Australia.....................................................................................................274
Aotearoa (New Zealand)............................................................................283
French Polynesia........................................................................................290
Kanaky - New Caledonia............................................................................295
East and South East Asia
Japan..........................................................................................................304
China..........................................................................................................311
Taiwan........................................................................................................320
Philippines..................................................................................................327
Indonesia....................................................................................................336
Malaysia.....................................................................................................345
Thailand......................................................................................................352
Vietnam......................................................................................................360
Laos............................................................................................................367
Myanmar....................................................................................................375
South Asia
India............................................................................................................384
Bangladesh................................................................................................396
Nepal..........................................................................................................405
The Middle East
Israel...........................................................................................................414
Palestine.....................................................................................................419
North and West Africa
Morocco......................................................................................................426 .
Algeria........................................................................................................433
Tunisia........................................................................................................438

Mali.............................................................................................................443
Burkina Faso..............................................................................................452
Central Africa
Cameroon...................................................................................................458
The Republic of Congo...............................................................................464
The Democratic Republic of Congo...........................................................470
East Africa
Eritrea.........................................................................................................480
Ethiopia......................................................................................................485
Kenya.........................................................................................................492
Uganda.......................................................................................................502
Tanzania.....................................................................................................508
Southern Africa
Angola........................................................................................................520
Namibia......................................................................................................527
Zimbabwe...................................................................................................534
Botswana....................................................................................................540South Africa................................................................................................547

PART II – INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES
Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in the UN...................................554
UN Special Rapporteur on The Rights
of Indigenous Peoples......................................................................................564
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues .................................................573
UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples...........................580
The work of the Traty Bodies............................................................................587
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.....................................................598
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)........................................................607

The UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) .......................................................................613
World Heritage Convention...............................................................................620
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.......................................628
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)............................................633
Inter-American Human Rights System.............................................................637

PART III – GENERAL INFORMATION
About IWGIA.....................................................................................................648
IWGIA publications 2016..................................................................................649

EDITORIAL

10

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

EDITORIALAs the world gears up for the 10th anniversary of the UNDRIP, indigenous
peoples’ right to fully participate in the decision-making processes that affecttheir lives and futures continues to be at the heart of their struggles worldwide.
The events unfolding over the last few years clearly demonstrate that, without thefull and effective participation of indigenous peoples in decision making at alllevels, implementation of the UNDRIP will not be possible.
At national level, the effective implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples requires states to develop ambitious reform programs, including legal andpolitical reforms, and specific measures to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights
are protected, respected and fulfilled. As stated by the UN Special Rapporteur on
the rights of indigenous peoples, “Implementation of UNDRIP should be measured against these requirements and not based on rhetorical claims of compliance or isolated measures”.
Despite some encouraging national achievements, the reports in this year’s edition continue to illustrate the great pressures facing indigenous communities at the
local level. If national policies are even available they are often not properly implemented, while in some countries national policies are in direct contradiction with international human rights obligations, including the UNDRIP and ILO Convention No. 169.
The country reports reiterate that the main challenges faced by indigenous peoples
continue to be related to the recognition and implementation of their collective rights tolands, territories and resources, their access to justice, lack of consultation and consent, and the gross violations of their fundamental human rights. In addition, the failureof states to consult and cooperate in good faith with indigenous peoples before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect their lives
and futures continues unabated throughout the indigenous world.

Gaining ground at the international level
Implementation of the commitments adopted by UN member states at theWorld Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) continued at a slow but

EDITORIAL

11

steady pace during 2016. Three developments are particularly relevant in thisregard. The first was the consultation process led by the President of the UN
General Assembly (PGA) on the possible measures necessary, including procedural and institutional steps and selection criteria, to enable the participationof indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in meetings of relevant
United Nations bodies on issues affecting them. The PGA’s appointment of fouradvisers in February 2016, including two representatives of indigenous peoples
on an equal footing with the two representatives of member states, to assist in
conducting an inclusive consultation process, is undoubtedly an important step
forward in the recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to participate in UN
decision-making processes. The second was the official launch of the Systemwide Action Plan on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (SWAP) at the 15th session of the Permanent Forum in May 2016. The aim of the SWAP is to address
the persistent lack of coherence within the UN system with regard to the rights
of indigenous peoples, including in its action at the country level, where the UN
system has to play a much more proactive role in the promotion of UNDRIP.
The third was the amendment of the mandate of the EMRIP by the Human
Rights Council in September 2016. The new mandate, reinforcing the EMRIP’s
operational capacities and extending its mandate to country-level work, has thepotential to fill some of the gaps that continue to hinder implementation of the
UNDRIP. However, and as expressed by EMRIP’s Chairperson in the article
included in this book “…. having a new and strong mandate is not enough byitself. The new mandate will now have to be implemented, interpreted and operationalized, taking into account emerging opportunities, diverse national andregional contexts and resilient challenges… ”
2016 also marked the first year of implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and, here, indigenous peoples continued their engagement. They participated actively at national, regional and global levels toensure that the voice and rights of indigenous peoples are respected and promoted as the 2030 Agenda is being operationalized and implemented acrossthe world. Through their consistent advocacy work, indigenous peoples havehighlighted three main priorities in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda: a)data disaggregation according to indigenous or ethnic identifiers; b) full participation of indigenous peoples in developing national action plans; and c) participation of indigenous peoples in follow-up and review at all levels.

12

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Within the area of climate change, the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015,
entered into force in November 2016, which was much earlier than anticipatedby most and is seen as a great success with regard to states’ commitments tocombating climate change. The Paris Agreement includes in its preamble aparagraph recognizing the role of human rights, including indigenous peoples’
rights. It is important that these principles become part of the modalities andrules of implementation of the Paris Agreement. Another key outcome from
Paris for indigenous peoples was a COP-decision to establish a knowledgesharing platform for indigenous peoples and local communities. Indigenous
peoples and states embarked on an informal dialogue on the scope of such aplatform under the leadership of the Moroccan presidency of COP22.
With regard to issues related to recognition and respect of indigenous peoples rights in the context of the implementation of UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention, it is important to note the explicit reference made this year by theWorld Heritage Committee (WHC) to the principle of free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC) when considering the nomination of the Kaeng Krachan National Park (Thailand) and the involvement of Karen communities living in thepark. This is the first time ever that the WHC has called for the FPIC of indigenous peoples in a decision on a specific World Heritage nomination.

Some encouraging developments at national level
Whether in terms of formal legislation or more politically symbolic gestures,
there have indeed been some noteworthy national developments in all regions.
In Peru, encouraging news came in the form of the consolidation of theAutonomous Territorial Government of the Wampis Nation (GTANW), resulting
in the Wampis nation achieving jurisdictional sovereignty over their territory of
1,300,000 hectares of land in the Loreto and Amazonas regions. This caseformed a milestone for indigenous sovereignty as the constitution of this autonomous government forces the Peruvian state to recognize their right to govern themselves, within their own territorial boundaries. Similarly, in Bolivia, thefirst autonomous local government took office in the province of Charagua, inJanuary 2017. The autonomous government is the first of its kind in the country’s nearly 200 years of existence.

EDITORIAL

13In Myanmar, a National Land Use Policy (NLUP) was adopted by parliament in 2016, which includes a chapter on “Land Use Rights of Ethnic Nationalities”, referring to customary land tenure and land-use mapping. The document also mentions Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a means ofaddressing “land monopolization and speculation”. The NLUP is a landmark in
Myanmar’s reforms as it has undergone extensive public consultation. Aftermany years of debate and consultations, a Community Land Act was finallyadopted in Kenya. The Community Land Act came into effect on 21 September
2016, thereby legally recognizing community tenure and officially marking thetransition from Trust Land and Group Ranch tenures. The Community Land Act
is potentially a very important piece of legislation for indigenous peoples in
Kenya due to the fact that most communities under the community land regime
are pastoralists and hunter-gatherers. In Bangladesh, the World Bank decided
not to move forward with the construction of a 123-kilometre road in Rangamati, Chittagong Hill Tracts. A broad range of stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, had raised serious concerns about the lack of meaningful engagement of indigenous peoples in the project, including insufficient feasibility
studies. After years of the High Court Division challenging the Chittagong Hill
Tracts Regulation 1900 as “a dead law”, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh finally, in November 2016, reaffirmed the significance of the CHT Regulation,
which provides safeguards for indigenous peoples through the special legal
and administrative status of the CHT region.
Formal apologies were also issued to indigenous peoples during 2016. In
Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen issued a formal apology on behalf of the government to all Taiwanese indigenous groups for the discrimination and mistreatment they had suffered over the past four centuries. A formal apology was also
given in Namibia in mid-2016, as the German government resolved to recognize and formally apologize for the genocide of Herero, Nama and other groups
between 1904 and 1908. Negotiations for reparations from Germany, led byHerero and Nama chiefs, are still in the process of being resolved. In Canada,
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has signalled a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. In December 2015, Trudeau announced that his government would partner with indigenous communities, provinces and territories to implement theTruth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action as a key step in advancing reconciliation. In May 2016, the federal government announced that as

14

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

part of this commitment it was now a full supporter of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples “without qualification” and intended to adopt andimplement it in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.
In Uganda, the Ik people managed to secure election of their own Memberof Parliament (MoP) for the first time, enhancing their voices in decision-making
fora. Much hope is therefore placed on this new MoP in terms of lobbying forthe development of the Ik people.
The establishment of the cross-border Nordic Sámi Convention is also
noteworthy, as it includes 46 articles on safeguarding and strengthening Sámi
rights. The convention has, nonetheless, been met with criticism from Sámi legal experts and Sámi organizations and is, as of writing, being considered by
the three Sámi parliaments and the governments of Finland, Norway and Sweden. All three countries’ Sámi parliaments and national parliaments will have togive their consent to the convention before it can enter into force.

Shrinking space for indigenous activists
The year 2016 witnessed an alarming rate of violence and discrimination of indigenous peoples and human rights defenders around the world. These disturbing trends are also reflected in the more than 20 press releases issued by
the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. Her concerns
cover issues ranging from violence and discrimination against indigenous
women in Canada to the human rights impacts of lead contamination in thewater supply in Flint, USA and the murder of Berta Cáceres and a call to end
impunity in Honduras (see article in this book). The different reports in thisyear’s edition of The Indigenous World accordingly illustrate the fact thatgross human rights violations persist around the world and, in every region,
we are witnessing forcible evictions and displacements of indigenous communities. Several indigenous leaders and activists involved in the defence of
territorial rights were arrested, harassed, threatened and even murdered during 2016. Repression by military and paramilitary forces, in conjunction withthese forcible evictions of people from their lands, has also taken a deadly
toll.
The human rights situation of pastoralists in the Morogoro Region of Tanzania, for example, turned from bad to worse towards the end of 2016 when

EDITORIAL

15

indigenous peoples were evicted in several districts, as the government
pushes for the area to become a Game Controlled Area. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Working Group on Indigenous Populations sent an urgent appeal to the President of Tanzania regarding the alleged arbitrary arrest and detention without trial of pastoralist rights defenders and lawyers who had been actively lobbying against the land grab in the
Loliondo region.
Eritrea is suffering from gross human rights violations. A UN Commissionof Inquiry published a landmark report in June 2016 which stated that thehuman rights situation in Eritrea amounted to crimes against humanity. The
UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteuron the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea have made several observations
on the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize the abuses committed
against two minority ethnic groups, the Afar and Kunama. Eritrea does nothave any form of independent civil society organizations let alone organizations advocating for the rights of indigenous peoples. Claims of indigeneity orother claims to group identity have never been officially acknowledged by the
Eritrean government. In Ethiopia, a further deterioration in the human rights
situation took place in 2016, exacerbated by the imposition of a six-monthlong state of emergency as of October of that year. In 2016, under its Urgent
Action Early Warning procedure, the CERD considered the case of Ethiopia
with regard to arrests, mass killings and enforced disappearances in Oromia
and Amhara.
The situation of the indigenous Palestinian Bedouin, refugees since 1948,
deteriorated in 2016 and can be considered a humanitarian issue as some
27,000 pastoral herders live under full Israeli military control. For the Bedouin,
and an environment in which they are increasingly impoverished and vulnerable, with a culture that is deliberately being eroded, the future is bleak andtheir situation tragic.
In Russia, organizations working for indigenous peoples’ rights are experiencing increased criminalization and stigmatization. Most independent indigenous organizations, together with 150 other civil society organizations, are now
listed as “foreign agents”, and this particular law has led to harassment, persecution and interrogation of activists as well as the disappearance of many independent NGOs.

16

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Threats posed by business enterprises
Mega infrastructure projects, investments in extractive industries and largescale agriculture are increasingly posing a threat to the everyday life of indigenous peoples and their ability to maintain their land, livelihood and culture. The
issue of extractive industries is once again a recurrent and overarching theme ofthis year’s articles in The Indigenous World.
During the Fifth Annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights in November 2016, Pavel Sulyandziga, the Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Business and HR, stated in his opening remarks that since the UN had unanimously
endorsed the Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights in 2011 they had
become “the authoritative blueprint for State and business action to prevent, mitigate and redress business-related harm [..] Rather than being ‘voluntary’ in nature, they provide authoritative guidance as to the application of existing international human rights standards to business-related harm”.1 However, while progress has been made, and some businesses and governments are making real
efforts to respect those at risk, cases of adverse impacts on human rights arewidespread and there is still a long road ahead in ensuring a human-rights based
approach to business and development. As an indigenous representative himself,
Pavel Sulyandziga stressed that indigenous peoples are not against development
and not against economic progress as such but believe that this development
should and must include indigenous peoples’ “direct participation and informed
consent”.2
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights both published reports during 2016
on the impact of extractive industries on indigenous peoples in Latin America andAfrica respectively. Besides these two reports, the articles throughout this bookshow the importance of the issue as well as its magnitude across the regions,
ranging from hydroelectric projects (Muskrat Falls in Inuit Nunangat, Lom Pangar
Hydroelectricity Dam in Cameroon), mining projects (zinc mining and uranium
extraction in Greenland, the Orinoco Mining Arc in Venezuela, the Pankri-Barwadih coal mine in India, as well as the San Carlos Panantza mining project in Ecuador), wind power projects (Björkhöjden and Ögonfägnade in Sweden) and oil
and gas projects (Yamal Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) project in Russia, Africa Oil
and Tullow Oil exploration in the East African Rift Basin, the Dakota Pipeline

EDITORIAL

17

Project in the US) through to mega infrastructure projects such as the Grand Interoceanic Canal across communal lands in Nicaragua not to mention plans toenlarge Kilimanjaro Airport on Maasai lands in Tanzania.
In Latin America, Africa, Asia, but also in Europe, North America and Russia,
resource extraction is having a disastrous impact on indigenous peoples’ rights tolands and resources, a healthy environment and culture. Across the regions,these various forms of resource extraction and exploration have led to conflict,protests and serious allegations of gross violations of human rights.
In India, tribals who have lost their lands due to mining, industrialization andnon-agricultural projects have been denied proper compensation, rehabilitationand other facilities, and those who oppose land acquisition or demand proper
rehabilitation have been met with force. In August, two tribal farmers were killed
and over 40 others injured when police opened fire on a crowd protesting against
a thermal plant in Gola in Jharkhand. The protestors claimed that their crops werebeing damaged because of excessive use of river water by the power plant run byInland Power Limited and because of the pollution it was causing. In October, four
tribals were killed when police opened fire during a protest in Hazaribagh district,Jharkhand, against land acquisition by the National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC). The protestors were demanding higher compensation, employment andrehabilitation.
In Ethiopia, the ongoing situation of “land grabbing”, where companies leaselarge tracts of land from the Ethiopian government in return for significant levelsof foreign investment, has ignited conflict in the fragile region of Gambela. The
deteriorating political situation in South Sudan has resulted in an influx of Nuer
refugees, further marginalizing the Anuak and fundamentally altering the region’s
demography, as well as causing increased pressure on land and other resources.
Violence in the region increased significantly in 2016.
Indigenous peoples use different strategies to protect their land rights. Many
are trying to map their territories. In Panama, indigenous peoples now have asatellite system for monitoring land use in their territories. This technology has
been used to produce a base map of forest cover, including the indigenous territories that are recognized or in the process of recognition, for use a reference insupport of territorial defence initiatives. In Burkina Faso, pastoralists who havesuffered badly from theft of their livestock, with no recourse to justice, haveformed local self-defence groups known as Koglweogo, aimed at helping to ensure the security of the nomadic pastoralists. As a result, the pastoralists have

18

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

enjoyed greater security in the province of Mossi Plateau. In the Philippines, community members and plantation workers from Palawan reported how their rights
were being violated by several companies that were continuing to expand theirpalm oil plantations on community lands without their Free, Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC). As the result of an audit that is currently being carried out by
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 10
mining operations have already been suspended for violating environmental
laws, and another 20 mines have been recommended for suspension. In Eritrea, the Canadian Nevsun Resources Ltd., which is exploiting natural resources on land belonging to potential indigenous groups of the Afar and Kunama,
are involved in a pending court case on corporate social responsibility at theSupreme Court of British Colombia in Canada, aimed at challenging the alleged
complicity of this company in the perpetration of human rights violations committed at the company’s mining site in Eritrea.

Indigenous women
The Special Rapporteur is mandated to pay particular attention to the rights ofindigenous women in her work. In this sense, in January 2016 she was invited
to the symposium Planning for Change: Towards a National Inquiry and an Effective National Action Plan, organized by the Canadian Feminist Alliance forInternational Action and the Native Women’s Association of Canada on missing
and murdered indigenous women in order to discuss the National Inquiry into
the issue. A commission is to recommend actions aimed at removing the systemic causes of violence and increasing the safety of indigenous women andgirls. Indigenous communities and political organizations have welcomed theinquiry but have also indicated their concern at the slow start and as well as
issues with regard to transparency. Under its Urgent Action Early Warning procedure, the CERD considered a number of serious indigenous rights-relatedcases which specifically address indigenous women, including cases of rape
and attempted forcible eviction of indigenous women in Lote Ocho by staff froma Canadian mining company, the land claims of the Lubikon Lake Nation, thethreat of extinguishment of the land rights of the Secwepemc and the St’at’imc
nations, and the Sepur Zarco case from Guatemala.

EDITORIAL

19

The complainants in the Sepur Zarco case, a group of 15 women of the
Maya Q’eqchi people who were victims of rape and sexual slavery committed
by members of the army in the Sepur Zarco military base during the internal
armed conflict, have denounced those acts and called for justice. After a longprocess, two of the principal culprits were arrested. Finally, 34 years after theacts were committed, in February 2016, the army officers were sentenced to
120 and 240 years of imprisonment respectively. This case clearly sets a precedent worldwide since it is the first time a crime of sexual abuse during anarmed conflict has been tried in the same country in which it was committed.
Under the framework of the Fifth National Indigenous Congress (CNI) heldin Mexico from 9 to 14 October, the EZLN and the CNI commemorated the 20th
anniversary of the National Indigenous Congress and the living resistance ofthe native peoples, nations and tribes of Mexico. At the close of the Congress,
they released a press release headed: And May the Earth Tremble at its Corein which they report that they will run an indigenous woman as an independent
candidate for the 2018 elections. This is remarkable as this will be the first indigenous woman ever to run for the Presidency in Mexico.

10 years of paving the way with the UNDRIPThe most significant cornerstone of indigenous peoples’ rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2017. Looking back over the last decade, it is clear that indigenous
communities across the world have been able to use this important declaration
as a beacon to advance their rights and improve their situation.
With the adoption of the Declaration on 13 September 2007, a milestone
was reached in the history of indigenous peoples’ struggles for their rights andrecognition at international level. Prior to its adoption, the Declaration had been
discussed for more than 20 years within the former Commission on Human
Rights and then in the General Assembly, where it was passed with 144 votes
in favour, 11 abstentions and 4 votes against. The text recognizes a wide rangeof basic human rights and fundamental freedoms to indigenous peoples.
Among these are the right to self-determination, an inalienable collective rightto the ownership, use and control of lands, territories and other natural resources, rights in terms of maintaining and developing their own political, religious,

20

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

cultural and educational institutions, and protection of their cultural and intellectual property. The Declaration highlights the requirement for prior and informed consultation, participation and consent in activities of any kind that impact on indigenous peoples, their property or territories. It also establishes therequirement for fair and adequate compensation for violation of the rights recognized in the Declaration and establishes measures to prevent ethnocide andgenocide.
Ten years down the line, the Declaration is still the central benchmark forindigenous peoples’ rights across the world. One of the important principles of
the Declaration that was further reaffirmed in the WCIP Outcome Document,
and one that is repeatedly mentioned in many of the articles in prior editions
and in this edition particularly, is the obligation of states to obtain the free, priorand informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. The various country reports demonstrate that full respect and implementation of thisprinciple is more central than ever to indigenous peoples’ rights and well-being.
Throughout the world, numerous examples show that both states and industries are repeatedly ignoring the principle of FPIC and, indeed, proceed with
development projects on indigenous lands through dubious processes of consultation or without consulting the people living on and from the land that the
projects will affect. Exploration and exploitation of natural resources is intensively expanding and indigenous peoples across the world, who live on lands
rich in minerals and natural resources, are thus being affected by mining, hydroelectric dams, fossil fuel development, logging and agro-plantations, as well– increasingly - as renewable energy projects and tourism. The impact of natural resource development on indigenous peoples’ lands, lives and well-being is
illustrated in every article of this book.
While the articles in this volume address events, specific cases and highlight the general situation of indigenous peoples in 2016, this year’s volume
also extraordinarily includes an introductory section that focuses on and celebrates the 10th anniversary of the UNDRIP, which coincides with the publicationof this year’s Indigenous World. In the following section, the impact of the UNDRIP over the last 10 years will thus unfold, with brief regional chapters explaining and illustrating the different achievements and challenges that the
UNDRIP has engendered for the respective regions since its adoption in 2007.

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

21

About this book
IWGIA would like to thank all those who have contributed to this 2017 edition of
The Indigenous World and shared their valuable information and insights on thesituation of indigenous peoples in their respective countries and in relation toprocesses at the international and regional levels.
The purpose of The Indigenous World 2017 is to give as comprehensive an
overview as possible of the developments indigenous peoples have experienced
during 2016. It is our hope that indigenous peoples themselves and their organizations will find it useful in their advocacy work of improving indigenous peoples’
human rights situation. They may also, in this regard, find it inspiring for their work
to read about the experiences of indigenous peoples in other countries and partsof the world. It is also IWGIA’s wish and hope that the Yearbook will be useful toa wider audience interested in indigenous issues and that it can be used as areference book and a basis for obtaining further information on the situation ofindigenous peoples worldwide.
This year’s edition includes 59 country reports and 12 reports on international
processes. As usual, the authors of this volume are indigenous and non-indigenous activists and scholars who have worked with the indigenous movement for
many years and are part of IWGIA’s network. They are identified by IWIGA’s regional coordinators on the basis of their knowledge and network in the regions. All
the contributions to this volume are offered on a voluntary basis—this we consider a strength but it also means that we cannot guarantee to include all countries or all aspects of importance to indigenous peoples every year.
We would like to stress that any omissions of specific country reports should
not be interpreted as “no news is good news”. In fact, sometimes, it is the precarious human rights situation that makes it difficult to obtain articles from specific countries. In other cases, we have simply not been able to get an author tocover a specific country. If you would like to contribute to this book, please contact
the IWGIA team. The articles in this book express the views and visions of theauthors, and IWGIA cannot be held responsible for the opinions stated herein. We
therefore encourage those who are interested in obtaining more information
about a specific country to contact the authors directly. It is, nonetheless, ourpolicy to allow those authors who wish to remain anonymous to do so due to thepolitical sensitivity of some of the issues raised in their articles.

22

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The respective country maps are, however, compiled by IWGIA and the content therein is the responsibility of IWGIA and not the author. We wish to stressthat some of the articles presented take their point of departure in ethnographic
regions rather than following strict state boundaries. This is in accordance withindigenous peoples’ worldview and cultural identification which, in many cases,
cuts across state borders. 					Katrine Broch Hansen
Co-editor
Lola García-Alix and Kathrin Wessendorf
Interim Directors
Copenhagen, April 2017

Notes
1

2

Pavel Sulyandziga, Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2016
UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, “Opening remarks” 14 November 2016, Geneva.
Available here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/ForumSession5/Statements/
PavelSulyandziga14Nov2016.pdf
Ibid, p. 3.

23

UNDRIP IMPACT ON ASIA: 10 YEARS ON

T

his paper gives a brief overview of the implementation of the UNDRIP, focusing on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in Asia. Examples are included that highlight positive practices and also give a picture of the challenges
and ways forward in promoting Article 42 of the UNDRIP. The paper is divided
into three parts; substantive, procedural and recommendations. The substantive
part is related to de jure and de facto recognition of the identity and rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments, including the UNDRIP and ILO Convention No. 169. The procedural part focuses on theimplementation of substantive rights, and the third part on challenges and recommendations.
Importantly, all Asian governments supported the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) during the UN General Assembly(GA) vote in 2007. Even though some of the Asian countries expressed their different understanding during the GA, indigenous peoples are recognized or atleast identified as distinct peoples in Asia through constitutions (India, Nepal,
Philippines, and China), laws (Cambodia and Taiwan), policies (Thailand etc.)
and, finally, under an Agreement/Treaty (Bangladesh).1
Indigenous peoples in Asia were recognized or identified prior to the adoptionof the UNDRIP but this does not necessarily result in respect for the equal dignity
and rights of indigenous peoples as prescribed by the international human rights
instruments, including ILO Convention No 169 and the UNDRIP. The adoption of
the UNDRIP certainly provided an instrumental basis on which to treat, at least to
some extent, indigenous peoples as a distinct legal entity.

I. Substantive part
Recognition of indigenous peoples
Institutional recognition is an essential factor for exercising the rights of indigenous peoples, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). There is no
uniform practice in terms of recognizing the customary and representative institu-

24

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

tions of indigenous peoples in Asia. In the Philippines, section 2(c) of the IPRA of1997 states that the customary institution is recognized, protected and respectedby the state. In Indonesia, the Constitution, and more recent legislation, implicitly
recognizes some rights of the peoples referred to as Masyarkat adat or Masyaraka Hokum Adat, including in the Agrarian Reform Act No. 27/2007 and Act No.
32/2010 on the environment, both of which also use the working definition of
AMAN.2 In Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia, the Native Court is recognized withthe jurisdiction to handle cases in breach of customary law and customs, if allparties are natives. Principally, the Native Court deals with marriage, divorce andjudicial separation, adoption, guardianship or custody of infants, maintenance ofdependents and legitimacy, gifts of succession, testate or interstate and othercases conferred by written law.
In some countries, indigenous organizations are recognized indirectly undera specific legal provision. In the context of Nepal, the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) is part of the Council of the National Foundation for
the Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN). This Council recommends
the Vice-chair and members of the Executive Council.3 The NFDIN is a semigovernmental organization with a mandate of the overall development of indigenous nationalities. The Indigenous Tribal Council is constitutionally recognized inIndia. In many countries, such as the Philippines, Nepal and India, specific state
institutions have been established to deal with issues related to the rights anddevelopment of indigenous peoples.
Freedom of association, organization and expression are guaranteed under
the respective constitutions, such as article 19 of the Indian Constitution; articles
16 and 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan; article 14 of the Constitution of the
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; article 9 of the Malaysian Constitution, etc. In order to exercise these rights, indigenous peoples have formed organizations to protect, promote and, to some extent, defend their rights, including
culture, identity, land territories and natural resources.

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)
Besides recognizing the customary institutions, the NHRIs are using the UNDRIP
as the primary legal framework with which to monitor the human rights situationof indigenous peoples. In 2013, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SU-THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

25

HAKAM) commissioned a national inquiry into the land rights of the Orang Asliand published a comprehensive report.4 The Commission made significant recommendations based on the UNDRIP, including FPIC. However, sufficient implementation of these recommendations is still lacking. In 2014, the National Human
Rights Commission of Indonesia conducted its first national inquiry into violationof indigenous peoples’ land rights. The Commission made various recommendations, including improving the licensing system for natural resource exploitation
based on principles of transparency, participation and accountability, including theprinciple of FPIC.5 Similarly, the NHRI in Nepal has established the Collective
Rights Division and the Gender and Social Inclusion Division. The Commission
has made recommendations to implement the UNDRIP and ILO Convention No.
169 and is working to adopt a National Action Plan on the implementation of ILO
Convention No 169 vis-à-vis the UNDRIP.

Recognition of culture and customary law
Recognition of customary law and culture is an indispensable element in exercising the right to FPIC. Customary land tenure is safeguarded under various provisions of ILO Convention No. 169 and the UNDRIP. In Malaysia, we can see recognition of customary rights in the constitution and law but this is rarely seen inpractice. As much as 20% of state land in Sarawak is classified as Native Customary Rights Land but only 2% of this land is surveyed and titled.6 In the context
of Nepal, no national law recognizes the collective land title of indigenous peoples
but this does not prevent private entities from recognizing ancestral domain in relation to carrying out hydroprojects, e.g. the Tanahu Hydro Power, which is located in
the ancestral land of Margar, or recognizing the land rights of indigenous peoples
even if they do not have title to their lands, which are owned by individuals.

Recognition of lands, territories and natural resources
Recognition of lands, territories and natural resources (LTR) determines the exercise of other rights, including the rights to life, security and liberty. There are few
countries that have laws (constitutional or statutory) recognizing indigenous peoples’ rights to LTR. The Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution deals with the

26

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. It restricts
the entry and ownership of land and resources in Adivasi areas on the part ofnon-adivasis and outsiders.7 In the Philippines the Republic Act 8371 (The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act) of 1997 supports IPs cultural integrity, their right tolands and to the self-directed development of these lands.

II. Procedural part
Right to information
Prior and full disclosure of information is another key element of FPIC. The rightto information is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right in many countries, including India,8 Nepal,9 and Pakistan.10 Many counties have specific lawson the right to information, including Pakistan11 and the Philippines.12 Despite this,indigenous peoples have very limited access to information due to language barriers, administrative complexities and provisions of confidentiality of information.
Environmental laws in some Asian countries such India require a public hearing
but their implementation mechanisms are not particularly friendly or culturally appropriate to indigenous peoples. In Nepal, very few World Bank-funded hydropower projects provide information in indigenous languages, and there is a lackof good faith consultations, which often results in conflicts between the project
holder and the affected indigenous peoples.

Consultation
Consultation with affected indigenous peoples in relation to project activities is alegal requirement. In some countries, it is a policy requirement. In Nepal, section
8.2.8 (d) of the 2014 National Policy on Land Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation states: “Disadvantaged Indigenous Peoples and Poor Dalit shall be relocated in the area where their people are living in cluster. Particular attention shallbe given to avoid impact to their language, religion, culture, way of life and livelihoods”, and furthermore underscores in section 8.3.1 “Meaningful consultation
will be carried out with affected, people, family and stakeholder in the whole project cycle”.

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

27

Free, Prior and Informed Consent
In the Philippines, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) recognizes FPIC asa part and process of exercising the right to self-determination. Section 59 of
the 1997 IPRA states “[A]ll department and other governmental agencies shallhenceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples(NCIP) that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Suchcertificate shall only be issued after a field-based investigation conducted by
the Ancestral Domain Office of the area concerned: Provided, that no certificate
shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and writtenconsent of the IPs concerned: Provided, further, that no department, government agency or government owned or controlled corporation may issue newconcession, license, lease, or production-sharing agreement while there ispending Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) application: Provided, finally, That the IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance withthis Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation
process”.
The IPRA law created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples(NCIP) under the office of President, and this is an agency with frontline services for indigenous peoples. The NCIP issues guidelines for the implementation of IPRA, some of which are the NCIP Administrative Orders laying down
the FPIC Guidelines of 2002 and 2006.13 New guidelines have been introducedby NCIP with some updates. Although there have been a number of complaints
relating to violations of FPIC, including weak implementation of the guidelines,
there are significant improvements in respect of FPIC. The FPIC Guidelines are
not mere instructions to respect the FPIC but also a cornerstone in assessing
exercise of the right to self-determination. They also form a road map to engage indigenous peoples in decision-making processes.
In the Nepal case of Dr Bhaikaji Tiwari vs. Chaturbhuj Bhatta, the Supreme
Court interpreted that the state could not exercise the Principle of Eminent Domain without limitation and in an arbitrary manner. Free, Prior and Informed
Consent is mandatory prior to appropriating a house in which a person is residing.14 Article 51(e) and (f) of the Constitution of Nepal set out the policy of FPIC28

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

in relation to protection of the environment. There are a number of interesting
examples on how the right to consent was respected in India. The different facetsof the UNDRIP are expressed in Indian legislation through the Forest Rights
Act (“FRA”), which requires consent for the use of forests for development projects.
There are a few interesting examples of courts/tribunals upholding local communities’ rights to reject the implementation of a project. Notable among these is
the Supreme Court of India’s precedent-setting 2013 decision which cited the
FRA in upholding the rights of the Dongria Kondh indigenous community to rejectmining plans in their traditional territory. To give some context, it had been morethan a decade since Adivasi groups began their struggle to save the Niyamgiri
Hills from Vedanta’s mining project. In April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that
Vedanta Resources could only mine bauxite from Orissa’s Niyamgiri Hills with theconsent of all adult members of the project-affected villages. All 12 villages voted
against bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills, effectively vetoing the multi-billiondollar project.15

Other FPIC-type examples from India
On 16 March 2016, five Adivasi villages in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, unanimously
vetoed the plans of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), a subsidiary of India’s public sector coal mining giant, Coal India Limited (CIL), to mine their forests. These villages were Pelma, Jarridih, Sakta, Urba and Maduadumar. On 23
March 2016, the Kamanda gram sabha of Kalta G.P in Koida Tehsil of Sundargarh district in Odisha unanimously decided not to give its land over to Rungta
Mines, as proposed by the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of
Odisha Limited (IDCO).
On 4 May 2016, the National Green Tribunal ruled that before clearance
could be given to the Kashang hydroelectric project (to be built by the stateowned company, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. or HPPCL), the proposal should be placed for approval before the Lippa village gram sabha in Kinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh. The 1,200 residents of Lippa have been waging a seven-year struggle against the project.

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

29

III. The role of UN Regional and Country Offices
UN regional and country offices can play a significant role in promoting implementation of the UNDRIP; however, they have very limited programs and activities
and these are therefore almost invisible to indigenous peoples and their organizations. Importantly, article 32 of the UNDRIP, the recommendations of the UNPFII,EMRIP, and the Special Rapporteur, as well as the Outcome Document of theWCIP provide a consistent and coherent roadmap for the UN regional and country entities to work on promoting implementation of the UNDRIP. Nevertheless,indigenous peoples continue to be marginalized and excluded from their respective plans and programs. For example, the Governance and Peace-building teamat the UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub is working to strengthen the political democratic processes and governance systems, taking into account the voices andrights of all people for equitable and sustainable development. It is also spearheading regional initiatives to address the complex governance challenges in theregion, including on sensitive issues such as political participation and access toservices for indigenous peoples and marginalized groups, including sexual andgender minorities.16 However, the program does not specifically focus on implementation of the UNDRIP and FPIC. There is no doubt that the role of the regional UN Hub and Country Offices can have a significant impact on implementation of the UNDRIP, including FPIC. Importantly, the inclusion of and partnershipwith indigenous peoples can promote sustainable development, justice andpeace.

Challenges and opportunities
Having constitutional and legal provisions is not enough. They require due implementation. It is important to create an environment in which the right to FPIC will
be implemented or respected without invoking remedial mechanisms or protesting in Asia. Prior consultation, premeditated representation during public hearingsand consultations, limited participation or even non-representation at all of indigenous women, youth and person with disabilities are key challenges in Asia in termsof exercising the right to FPIC. The UN Country Offices and Special Agencies, suchas the Country Office of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and its pro-

30

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

grams, need to increase their efforts to promote implementation of the UNDRIP andILO Convention. In the context of Nepal, a joint UN Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF) Steering Committee, including the UN Country Team and theGovernment of Nepal, was formed in June 2011 to lead the overall UNDAF design.17
However, there is no representation of indigenous peoples in the steering committee and nor were they consulted. As such, there was no linkage between indigenous
peoples and the UN Country Offices in the preparation of UNDAF.
There are opportunities for a more effective implementation of the UNDRP.
First and foremost would be for all Asian governments to endorse the UNDRP as
well as recognize indigenous peoples’ identity and rights in their countries’ constitutions, laws and policies. The indigenous peoples’ movement and their organizations have been consistently demanding implementation of the UNDRIP, anddemanding constructive dialogue, collaboration and partnership around developments that affect them. Most Asian governments have mechanisms relating toindigenous peoples’ affairs and development. NHRIs are also working on therights of indigenous peoples and are involved in litigation processes related toviolations of indigenous peoples’ human rights and fundamental freedoms as
stipulated in the UNDRIP, ILO Convention No 169 and CERD. The existence of
UN Country Offices, their development policy, i.e. UNDAF, and the support ofdonor agencies can play a constructive role in this implementation.

Conclusion and recommendation
Due to the longstanding struggle of the indigenous movement in Asia, there is
growing space for recognition of the equal rights and dignity of indigenous peoples in line with the UNDRIP. Gradually, the issues and concerns of indigenous
peoples are being recognized on the national political agenda and are now being
understood as matter of “just and unjust”. However, coherent and systematic efforts at community, national and international level are essential in order to fightinjustice. The UNDRIP is frequently referred to by government agencies and nonstate actors, including business entities who are working with issues that concern
and affect indigenous peoples. The UNDRIP provides a framework for constructive lobbying and advocacy work, and provides a consensus within which to resolve issues relating to aggressive development amicably. IPs do, however, needTHE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

31

to strengthen their strategic efforts to advance in the implementation of the rights
enshrined in the UNDRIP at all levels, from local to international level.
The UN mechanisms dealing with IP rights (UNPFII, EMRIP and SRIP) can playa significant role in promoting the UNDRIP, including FPIC, while implementing theirmandates. UNPFII and EMRIP could, in this regard, establish a mechanism or atleast assign some of their experts to monitor regional developments and UN Country Offices’ activities relating to the implementation, monitoring and facilitation of the
UNDRIP and FPIC. This mechanism or Expert Member could create a synergy
between the regional, national and community levels among rights-holders, dutybearers and stakeholders for the effective implementation of the UNDRIP.
All UN Country Offices in the region should recognize indigenous peoples (inline with the UNDRIP/ILO Convention No 169) and ensure their inclusion andparticipation in the review of UNDAF. Participation of the specific national mechanism and/or institution (i.e. NCIP, NFDIN, Tribal Commission etc.) should create
some space for IPs to reflect their voice in the formulation plan, implementationand evaluation.
While carrying out their mandates, UNPFII, EMRIP, SRIP and other relevantinternational mechanisms should have periodic meetings to jointly review the implementation of recommendations related to UNDRIP with national mechanisms
dealing with IP issues and NHRIs. In such meetings, it is important to have thepresence of representatives of the UN Country Team or staff members from relevant sectors. The mandate of the aforementioned three UN mechanisms should
be extended to conducting an international inquiry into gross violations of therights enshrined in the Declaration. Awareness/Orientation Programs for policy
makers, implementers, judges/court staff, stakeholders and indigenous peoples
are important at national and community levels. Policy and tripartite (IPs, governments and stakeholders) dialogues focusing on specific issues and problems will
promote a better understanding and help conflict resolution.
Notes and references
1
2
3
4

The Indigenous World 2016, IWGIA.
Ibid. p. 262.
Sec. 7 (1) C and 7(1)L of NFDIN Act, 2007.
Published in Malaysia by the National Human Rights Commission in 2013.

32

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Summary of the Inquiry, http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/04/komnas-ham-nationalinquiry-summary-apr2016. p.7, pdf
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/native-customary-rightssarawak visited 18 January 2017.
Background paper, Ticy Thomas, http://www .jnu.ac.in/huriter/righttribals.htm
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
Article 27 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015.
Article 19 A of the Constitution of Pakistan (18th Amendment).
Right to Information Ordinance 2002.
Executive Order No. 2 on Freedom of Information.
Policy Brief, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Climate Change Office Philippines, 2013, p.1.
Decision No. 9508, Volume 57, Chaitra, Series 12, 2072
For more information, please see: Amnesty International, India: Landmark Supreme Court rulinga great victory for indigenous rights (April 2013).
http://www.asiapacific.undp.org/content/rbap/en/home/library/democratic_governance/governance-n-peace-building-annual-report-2015.html
www.np.undp.org/content/dam/Nepal/docs/legalframework/UNDP_NP_UNDAF%2013-2017 p.5

This article is based on the paper presented by Shankar Limbu at the International Expert Group Meeting on the theme Implementation of the UNDRIP organised by the Secretariat of the UNPFII in January 2017.
Shankar Limbu is an indigenous human rights attorney from Nepal. He is associated with the Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous
Peoples (LAHURNIP). In his role with LAHURNIP, he provides free legal aid services and works to promote, protect and defend the human rights of indigenous
peoples in Nepal.

33

UNDRIP IMPACT ON AFRICA:
10 YEARS ONT

he situation of indigenous peoples in Africa has changed following the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, hereafter the Declaration) ten years ago in 2007. On the contrary,
the Declaration has almost forced African States to move, even though not withthe same pace and sometime not in the same direction.
Africa became a critical player in the final phase of Declaration adoption process, following last-minute strong comments, which almost ruined and derailed
over twenty years of negotiations between indigenous peoples and States.1 But
the initially feared strong comments of the African Group to the Draft Declaration
had one major beneficial effect: it enabled Africa as a continent to have its imprints into the Declaration and thus becoming an irrefutably part of the process
and the final document.2 African states could no longer argue not being part of the
Declaration.
This paper shows that like on other continents, the Declaration as landmark
and unprecedented international legal framework, has shaped and continue toinfluence laws, policies, programmes, courts decisions and recommendations ofregional bodies in Africa. At both regional and national level, Africa has achieved
a number of milestones on protection, respect and promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights. But this paper shows also that there are still major challenges toovercome in order for African indigenous peoples to enjoy all rights enshrined
into the Declaration.

Africa at regional level
Conceptualisation of indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa
Before the adoption of the Declaration important steps regarding indigenous peoples’ rights had already taken place in Africa. In 2000, the regional human rights
mechanism, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African
Commission), established a Working Group on indigenous peoples. In 2005, the34

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Working Group issued a first-ever African Union report domesticating or “Africanising” the term “indigenous peoples”, clearly unfolding the concept and criteria ofindigenous peoples in the African context. The report clearly states that unlike
many other continents, who refer to aboriginality, the principle of self-identification
is a key criterion for identifying indigenous peoples in Africa.3The African Commission conceptualizing report has been of critical importance in the developmentof indigenous peoples’ rights on the continent. It played a key role in involving
New York-based African delegates and diplomats in the negotiation process of
the Declaration and to understand and support the Draft.4 The African Commission also issued an Advisory Opinion on the Draft Declaration,5 which is thought
to have also played a key role in getting the African Group onboard.
The adoption of Declaration provided political space for indigenous peoples’issues and thereby galvanized, strengthened and provided impetus to the work of
the African Commission on indigenous peoples. The majority of African policy
makers became familiar with the indigenous peoples discourse as a result of theintensive negotiations by African diplomat in New York. Over the past ten years
following the adoption of the Declaration, the African Commission has established its authoritative status on the issue and has consequently guided or inspired almost all efforts on indigenous peoples in Africa, including at country level.

Endorois decision and Ogiek case before the African Court on Human andPeoples’ Rights
One of the major milestones of indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa, following the
adoption of the Declaration, is the African Commission’s decision in the Endorois
case. The Endorois indigenous peoples are pastoralist communities of Kenyaliving around the Lake Bogoria, a globally known tourist attraction mostly becauseof its flamingo birds and natural resources. The Endorois peoples were dispossessed of the concerned ancestral lands which became a protected area. Following an exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Endorois indigenous peoples
brought their complaint to the African Commission, who in 2010 ruled against the
Kenyan Government emphasizing that the evictions were in violation of several
rights of the concerned indigenous community, including their rights to lands,
natural resources and cultural identify. The Decision was the first if its kind in Af-

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

35

rica, making explicit reference to the Declaration and confirming the applicabilityof the concept indigenous peoples in the African regional human rights system.6
Over the years, the African Commission has continued to lead by example on
litigation of indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa. In 2012 it referred a case brought
forward by the Ogiek peoples against the Kenyan government to the newly established African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Ogiek peoples, recognized as having lived in the Mau Forest since time immemorial, allege consistentviolations and denial of their land rights by the government of Kenya in relation to
the transformation of their ancestral lands into a forest reserve, known as the Mau
Forest Complex. Since then, the Court has held several hearings on the case. In
2013, the Court issued a provisional measures order requiring the Kenyan Government to stop land transactions in the Mau Forest and refrain from taking any
action which would harm the case, until it had reached a decision. A decision is
expected any time soon.7

African Commission engaging on numerous fronts, including UNESCOWorld Heritage, UN WCIP and World Bank Safeguard review process.
The African Commission, through its Working Group, has thus become the central interlocutor, relentlessly engaging various stakeholders, interested parties
and processes on indigenous peoples’ issues. In 2009 for instance, the African
Commission adopted a Resolution on climate change and indigenous peoples,
calling upon African States to pay attention to the particular vulnerability of indigenous communities to climate change.8 It has also engaged UNESCO on a number of cases relating to cultural heritage sites that are either located on indigenous
peoples-claimed lands or have a negative impact of the rights of indigenous peoples. At its 50th ordinary session for instance, the African Commission adopted
Resolution “No197 on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Context
of the World Heritage Convention and the Designation of Lake Bogoria as a World
Heritage site” calling upon “the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO to review and revise current procedures and Operational Guidelines, in consultationand cooperation with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and indigenous peoples, in order to ensure that the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

36

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Peoples and that indigenous peoples’ rights, and human rights generally, are respected, protected and fulfilled in World Heritage areas;” 9The African Commission also contributed to the effective participation of African member States in the 2014 World Conference on indigenous peoples. The
African Commission held numerous closed technical briefing sessions with African diplomats based in New York, providing them with background information onefforts being made on indigenous peoples’ rights throughout Africa. The African
Commission also actively participated in the negotiations of the Outcome Document as well as its appropriation in Africa. In 2014 for instance, the African Commission held a regional sensitization seminar on the Outcome Document in Yaoundé/Cameroon, with the participation of the UN Special Rapporteur on therights of indigenous peoples, numerous National Human Rights Commission(NHRIs), African indigenous peoples’ representatives and other stakeholders.
This regional sensitization seminar on the Outcome Document led to the adoptionof a “Yaoundé Declaration on the Implementation of the Outcome Document of
the World Conference on indigenous peoples”, which among others “call for thedevelopment of integrated National Action Plans to implement the Outcome Document which will ensure that all national legislations, policies and administrative
measures and development programs recognize, promote, fulfill and protect therights and freedoms of indigenous peoples;” 10
The African Commission led the continent during the review process of theWorld Bank’s safeguards standards, including the one on indigenous peoples
O.P.4.10 (now known as Environmental and Social Safeguard 7 (ESS7) on indigenous peoples/Sub-Saharan African historically underserved traditional communities). Following the initial draft of a revised World Bank policy on indigenous
peoples that provided for an alternative approach and an opt-out option, the African Commission engaged in dialogue with the World Bank, though various means
including formal correspondences, resolutions, meetings in Washington andEthiopia. In its Resolution ACHPR/Res.301 (EXT.OS/XVII) 2015: “on the WorldBank’s draft Environmental and Social Policy (ESP) and associated Environmental and Social Standard (ESS)”, the African Commission called upon the WorldBank to:“to align its Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy and associated Environmental and Social Standards (ESS) with international and regional legal
frameworks for the protection of indigenous peoples;… to undertake theTHE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

37

revision of the safeguards policy by removing the ‘opt-out’ clause included in
Environmental and Social Standard 7 (ESS7) and consult all stakeholders,
including the indigenous communities and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the entire revision process;”
The African Commission has indeed been leading most of the work and initiatives
on indigenous peoples in Africa over the last ten years. And it seems committed
to continue the work hereon. In 2016 while celebrating its 50th years of existence,
the African Commission organized a set of Panel discussions on major humanrights trends and issues featuring the continent, including one on “the rights ofindigenous women in Africa”, with the participation of a UNPFII representative.11
The African Commission has also just published an important study report on theimpact of extractive industries on indigenous peoples on the continent.

At national level
The continental leadership role of the African Commission on indigenous peoples’issue is trickling down to country-level and renders national initiatives. For instance, the African Commission provided a sustained support, including a country
visit to the Republic of Congo during the process of adopting the first-ever African
domestic law (Act No. 5-2011 of 25 February 2011) dealing specifically with indigenous peoples. This was after the Central African Republic became the first African country to ratify ILO Convention 169 in 2010.
Over the last years, Africa has indeed seen a number of Sates taking boldsteps regarding indigenous peoples’ rights. In 2010, Kenya adopted a new Constitution that identifies communities that have “retained and maintained a traditional lifestyle and livelihood based on a hunter or gatherer economy; or(d) pastoral persons and communities” as groups whose cultural existence and preservation depend on the protection of their ancestral rights over lands and resources.12 In DRC, several laws’ bylaws on forest make explicit references to indigenous peoples and a specific draft Law on indigenous peoples is currently being
debated in Parliament. There is also an International Forum on Indigenous Peoples in Central Africa sub-region, “Forum International sur les Peuples Autochtones en Afrique Centrale (FIPAC)”, established in 2011 by member States of the
Economic Community of Central African States (CEAC).13 In 2015, following the

38

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

San Development Programme of 2005, the Namibian Government established a
Deputy-Ministry in charge of a special Division on Marginalised Communities14
with a mandate to promote indigenous peoples in Namibia and assist in the adoption of the White Paper on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Namibia, draftedby the Office of the Namibian Ombudsman in 2014.15
In several international processes, including on climate change negotiations
and biodiversity conservation, African States continue to show willingness to dialogue and reach consensus on indigenous peoples’ issues. Under the Human
Rights Council-led UPR process for instance, a constantly growing number ofAfrican States are recognising the existence of specific ethnic groups that selfidentify as indigenous peoples and are in fact taking concrete commitment toaddress their situations:•••

Gabon 2012 State Report to UPR: “Drawing on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Gabon, together with civilsociety and a number of development partners, is taking steps to protect
the rights of indigenous peoples through public debates and the provisionof medical, educational and economic assistance.”
Namibia 2011 State Report to UPR: “Regarding the rights of indigenous
communities, the Government identified certain communities that wereparticularly deprived (the San, the Ovatue and the Ovatjimba) and had
implemented support programmes to raise their standard of living.”
Uganda 2011 State Report to UPR: “Uganda has indigenous communities
who include the Batwa in the West; Benet in the Mt. Elgon region; theTepeth in Karamoja; and others in other remote locations. While it is acknowledged that their situation is still unsatisfactory, Government is actively
seized of the matter and continues to pursue the delicate path of accommodative dialogue with them; with a view to minimizing any disruptive approaches to the lifestyle and traditions of the concerned communities.”

A steady number of African States are also taking active part in the annual sessions of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)
and the Experts Mechanisms on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRP). Additionally, since the adoption of the Declaration, three African States have formally invited the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples tovisit their countries, namely Botswana, Republic of Congo and Namibia.

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

39

The involvement of National Human Rights Commissions (NHRIs) has been
critically important for the steady progress on indigenous peoples’ rights in Africa.
In recent years, several African National Human Rights Commissions have indeed included indigenous peoples’ issue in their agendas. In Kenya, the national
human rights commission has a specific programme of action on indigenous peoples and has been actively following up on several cases regarding indigenous
peoples. In 2016, the Kenyan NHRI, in collaboration with the UNPFII, held a policy dialogue on indigenous peoples. The Tanzanian national human rights commission, known as the Commission on Human Rights and Good Governance(CHRAGG), also works on indigenous peoples rights. In addition to sensitization
seminars, including with government officials and members of parliament, it recently assisted in a policy dialogue on indigenous peoples, in collaboration with
International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) and IWGIA, involving
numerous government institutions most notably the minister in charge of foreign
affairs who made constructive statements on the issue of indigenous peoples in
Tanzania.16 National human rights commissions from Cameroon and DRC havealso started working on indigenous peoples’ issues.

Persisting challenges to overcome on indigenous peoples’ rights
Despite the above illustrative positive examples, there are still major challenges
facing indigenous peoples in Africa. In several African states, indigenous peoples
are yet to be recognised as such. Arguments of all Africans being indigenous orthat the concept “indigenous peoples” is divisive and unconstitutional are persistently expressed in political statements and continue to shape policies of several
African States.
Large-scale dispossessions of indigenous peoples’ lands remain a significant
challenge in several African States. The global drive for raw materials, agro-business and building of major infrastructures are pushing indigenous peoples in theirlast boundaries. A recent African Commission report on extractive industries andindigenous peoples reveal the negative impact several mining, agro business andlogging projects are having on indigenous peoples’ land rights and access tonatural resources. In several cases, tensions with indigenous peoples have led toopen conflicts, including leading to loss of lives. In this regard, the African Com-

40

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

mission has sent several urgent appeals to a number of African Governments onserious human rights violations affecting indigenous peoples.
Conflicts constitute another major challenge affecting indigenous peoples inAfrica. At the seminar by the Columbia University’s Institute for study of humanrights on “indigenous peoples rights and unreported struggles: Conflicts andpeace” held in May 2016, the author of this article presented a paper “Unaccounted for: Indigenous peoples victims of conflicts in Africa”, which revealed thehigh unreported number of indigenous victims of several armed conflicts thathave been affecting Africa. The paper calls for concerted efforts to address theparticular vulnerability of indigenous peoples to conflicts in Africa.
Violence against indigenous women and girls continues to feature several
indigenous communities in Africa, including harmful cultural practices such as
FGM, early or forced marriage and inaccessibility of good standards on reproductive rights.
Overall, one could put African states into three categories as far as the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights is concerned. First, there are African Statesthat have fully endorsed the concept “indigenous peoples in Africa” and have
moved on to adopt legal or policy frameworks aimed at addressing the concerned
communities’ particular human rights situation. These states are still small in
number but their potential impact is immense. Second, there are African states
whichrecognize and are willing to redress the historical injustices and marginalization suffered by certain sections of their national populations that self-identify
as indigenous peoples, but remain uncomfortable with the term “indigenous peoples” and therefore prefer using alternative concepts in their laws or policies.
Third, there are African states that continue to contest the existence of indigenous
peoples in Africa or the relevance of the concept in Africa. There are numerous
reasons for this denial, including a misunderstanding of what the concept “indigenous peoples in Africa” cover.

Conclusion
The Declaration has had a positive impact on the situation of indigenous peoples’
rights in Africa. It has created political space for indigenous peoples’ issues by
exposing African states, political elites and decision-makers to the issue. The efforts by the African Group to differ the adoption of the Declaration and success-THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

41

fully negotiated amendments in fact enabled many African diplomats and politicaldecision-makers to properly understand the contours and rationale of the concept“indigenous peoples” and the rights attached hereto. This exposure has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to the recent positive developments on indigenous
peoples’ rights in Africa, including legislation, specific programmes, and interestsof several national human rights commissions. The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has played a leading and guiding role for most of theinitiatives on indigenous peoples that are underway on the continent.
Despite persisting challenges, it is believed that the Declaration will continue
to shape laws, policies and development programmes in Africa. The protection
and promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights will continue to be enhanced on thecontinent, as many African states seek to achieve development that are peoplescentered and leave no one behind. 				Notes and references1

Albert K Barume, 2009, “Responding to the concerns of the African States”, in eds. C, Charters
and R. Stavenhagen, Making the Declaration work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, IWGIA document No.127, Copenhagen, pp. 170-183.
2 Most of African Group comments were focussed on ensuring the Declaration does not endanger
States’ territorial integrity and political stability, as indicated in Article 46 of the Declaration.
3 See full report on: http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/African_Commission_
book.pdf
4 Short explanation of the process of convincing the African member states and the importance of
the advisory opinion as well as a link to where it can found in internet.
http://www.achpr.org/files/special-mechanisms/indigenous-populations/un_advisory_opinion_
idp_eng.pdf
5 See full text of the Advisory Opinion on: http://www.achpr.org/files/special-mechanisms/indigenous-populations/un_advisory_opinion_idp_eng.pdf
6 276/03 Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf ofEndorois Welfare Council) / Kenya, see on http://www.achpr.org/communications/decision/276.03/
7 More information on this case can be found on either the website of the Court or that of Minority
Rights Group (MRG): http://en.african-court.org or http://minorityrights.org/law-and-legal-cases/
the-ogiek-case/
8 See full text of the Resolution on: http://www.achpr.org/sessions/46th/resolutions/153/
9 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 50th Ordinary Session held in Gambia, in
2011, see on: http://www.achpr.org/sessions/50th/resolutions/197/
10 The full text of the Yaoundé Declaration can be found on: http://www.achpr.org/news/2015/12/
d205

42

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 201711 See more about this Panel Discussion through the following link: http://www.achpr.org/
news/2016/07/d248/
12 Section 260 of the 2010 Kenyan Constitution
13 More information on this initiative are available on : http://www.fipac.net
14 Ute Dieckmann, 2015, Namibia, in IWGIA, Indigenous Peoples Year Book, 2015, pp.432-437
15 See more regarding the Namibian national human rights commission on: https://www.ombudsman.org.na/publications/
16 See more about this Policy dialogue in Tanzania on: http://ifad-un.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roundtable-dialogue-on-consultation.html

Albert K. Barume is an African-trained lawyer with a Ph.D. in international human rights law from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. He also holds
a Master’s degree in Environmental Management from Yale University in theUSA. Dr. Barume has worked on issues of indigenous peoples’ rights and theenvironment in Africa for over 20 years, including as a Geneva-based Senior
Specialist on indigenous peoples at the International Labour Organization (ILO)
for five years. He has been an Expert Member of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Working Group on Indigenous Peoples since 2007. He
is also the current Chair of the United Nations Experts Mechanism on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP). Dr. Barume has written and published books andarticles on indigenous peoples’ rights.

43

UNDRIP IMPACT ON LATIN AMERICA:
10 YEARS ON

W

ith a total of 826 peoples and a population estimated at 45 million indigenous
individuals, that is, less than 10% of the region’s total population, Latin America is nonetheless the continent with the highest indigenous demography on theplanet.1 As a consequence of the indigenous peoples’ growing organizational workand political engagement, statutory and constitutional reform processes have takenplace in almost all States of the region, recognizing their existence and rights. All ofregion’s States —with the exception of Colombia, which initially abstained but later
acceded to it— voted in favor of adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or Declaration) in 2007. The UNDRIP has
had a significant impact for recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights in the region.
This is particularly true within the Inter-American Human Rights System, where it
has influenced case law, which is often based on indigenous peoples’ rights recognized in that Declaration. The UNDRIP also contributed to the Organization ofAmerican States’ approval in 2016 of the American Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (IADRIP). Furthermore, the UNDRIP has had an influence intransformations of constitutions, statutes, and case law applicable to indigenous
peoples at the level of States. There are still major shortfalls, however, in the implementation of the rights that the UNDRIP recognizes for indigenous peoples in mostof the States. Those shortfalls have often been related to policies fomenting theextraction of resources, which, in the context of insertion by the region’s States into
global markets, have led to a proliferation of investments by large corporations inindigenous lands and territories, and to criminalization of indigenous protest.

The impact of the UNDRIP in the Inter-American Human Rights System
Up until 2016 the Inter-American Human Rights System did not have a specificnorm applicable to indigenous peoples. Nonetheless, its bodies —the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR Court) and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (IACHR Commission)— have developed case law regarding the

44

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

rights of indigenous peoples based on an evolving interpretation of the fundamental
instruments of the Inter-American Human Rights System.2 That interpretation considers what the IACHR Court has called the corpus juris of human rights applicable
to indigenous peoples. Said corpus includes, among other instruments, ILO Convention 169, and, since its approval, the UNDRIP. In fact, based on the provisionsof the UNDRIP, the IACHR Court has further developed its prior case law regarding
indigenous peoples’ communal ownership of their lands, territories, and natural resources on the grounds of traditional occupation. Accordingly, in numerous decisions, the Court has recognized indigenous peoples’ right to ownership of their traditional territories, as well as the duty of protection under Article 21 of the American
Convention.3 This is both in light of the provisions of ILO Convention 169 and thoseof the UNDRIP, as well as the rights recognized by the States in their internal laws,
which have often been influenced, in turn, by the UNDRIP.
Likewise, the UNDRIP has had a determinant influence in the case law of the
IACHR Court over the indigenous peoples’ right to consultation and to free, prior, andinformed consent when faced with development plans that affect their lands, territories, and resources. Thus, in the case of the community of Saramaka v. Suriname(2007), the IACHR Court ordered that for large-scale projects that would have a major
impact on that people, the State has an obligation not only to consult, but to obtain theirfree, prior, and informed consent in accordance with their customs and traditions. Together with that, the Court established that States must ensure that the benefits of said
projects are reasonably shared with the Saramaka people. Later, in the case of theKichwa People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador (2012) the IACHR Court established, as partof the indigenous peoples’ right to consultation, that such consultation must take placein advance, in good faith, and with the aim of reaching an agreement, which must be
adequate, accessible, and informed. The same case law principle in reference to theduty of consultation, also based on the UNDRIP, was repeated later in the cases of the
Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, 2015, and Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz Community and its Members v. Honduras, 2015.4

The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
In June 2016 the General Assembly of the Organization of American States(OAS) approved the IADRIP. Although talks on the IADRIP started 17 years ago,
long before approval of the UNDRIP, the debate around its content took placeTHE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

45

parallel to that of the UNDRIP and was clearly influenced by it. The approval of
the UNDRIP in 2007 led to questioning the need for an IADRIP, in particular considering the risks that the IADRIP would lower the bar set in the UNDRIP. In many
aspects the IADRIP, as finally approved, adopts the standards established by the
UNDRIP. For instance, it recognizes that indigenous peoples have a set of rightsthat are collective in nature, including the right to self-determination and autonomy or self-governance in political matters, and rights over the lands, territories,
and natural resources they possess by reason of traditional occupation. Despite
its valuable aspects, however, as IWGIA and Observatorio Ciudadano noted onan earlier occasion, the IADRIP not only lowers the bar established in the UNDRIP, but also constitutes a setback for the advances achieved through the caselaw of the above-referenced Inter-American Human Rights System.
Among its most troubling aspects is that after the IADRIP’s Article III recognizes indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in the same terms as thoseof the UNDRIP, its Article IV affirms the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the State. Furthermore, its Article VI on indigenous peoples’ collective
rights establishes that “States shall promote with the full and effective participation of the indigenous peoples the harmonious coexistence of rights and systemsof the different population, groups, and cultures,” thus weakening the notion of‘people’ and its legal implications for ensuring their autonomous functions. The
IADRIP’s Article XVIII on the protection of the environment states that indigenous
peoples have a right to be protected against the disposal of toxic waste or hazardous substances in their territories, but omits the right of indigenous peoples contained in the UNDRIP (Article 29.2) that such disposal may not occur without theindigenous peoples’ free, informed consent. Another omission of the IADRIP refers to the States’ obligation to hold consultations “…in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order toobtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection withthe development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources,”
contained in Article 32.2 of the UNDRIP. Likewise, Article XXIV of the IADRIP,
which regulates indigenous rights over the territories, lands, and natural resources they have traditionally occupied, possessed, or acquired in ownership, remits
to the legal system of each State for defining modes of recognition and forms ofownership, possession, or dominion. As a counterweight that article remits to therelevant international instruments. This contrasts with the UNDRIP, which does

46

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

not remit to the legal system of the States for defining rights over indigenous territory, lands, and resources.5

Statutory and case law developments in the States of the region
The UNDRIP has also had significant influence in the internal legal systems of theregion’s States. On a constitutional level the UNDRIP is reflected in the politicalconstitutions of Ecuador and of Bolivia, which were drafted, in 2008 and 2009,
respectively, after the UNDRIP’s approval. Both these constitutions recognize
their States as plurinational. Especially in the case of Bolivia, they establish publicbodies —both legislative and judicial— that consider the representation of indigenous peoples. Also momentous is the explicit recognition in Bolivia’s politicalconstitution of the right of indigenous nations and peoples to self-determination,
which consists of their right to autonomy, to self-governance, to their culture, tothe recognition of their institutions, and to the consolidation of their territorial entities (Article 2). The constitution of Ecuador recognizes the right of indigenous
peoples to develop their own forms of organization and social coexistence, and ofgenerating and exercising authority in their territories, as well as the right to delimit indigenous territorial limits (Article 60). Both constitutions also recognize theindigenous peoples’ territorial rights, including rights of possession and ancestralownership of their lands and territories (Article 57 of the Political Constitution of
Ecuador and Articles 2 and 30 of the Political Constitution of Bolivia), and the rightto share in the benefits from exploitation of natural resources in their territories(Article 30 of the Political Constitution of Bolivia). Together with that, the constitution of Ecuador recognizes the indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consultation over the exploration and exploitation of such resources andto sharing in the benefits of their exploitation (Article 57), while Bolivia’s constitution recognizes the right to mandatory, concerted prior consultation conducted by
the State in good faith with respect to the exploitation of non-renewable natural
resources in the territory they inhabit (Article 30). Finally, the constitution of Ecuador recognizes that the human rights established in international instruments, including not only treaties, but also declarations such as the UNDRIP, are directly
applicable and fully enforceable (Article 11.3).

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

47

With respect to statutes, worth mention is the case of Bolivia, where in 2007a Law (3760) was enacted that incorporates the UNDRIP into the country’s national legislation. Years later, Bolivia passed several laws to move forward inbuilding the structure of the Plurinational State, among them the Plurinational
Constitutional Court Act, the Judiciary Act, the Electoral Regime Act, the Plurinational Electoral Body Act, and the Framework Act for Autonomy and Decentralization. All of these laws were enacted in 2010 and include provisions on the rights
of indigenous peoples recognized in the UNDRIP. Along the same lines, Peru
enacted a prior consultation act that establishes consultation’s aim as that ofreaching an agreement or consent between the State and the native peoples on
administrative and legislative measures that directly affect those peoples. The final decision on the measures consulted is placed in the hands of the State, whichmust decide with bases on and considering the consequences its decision would
have for the collective rights of indigenous peoples constitutionally recognized intreaties ratified by the Peruvian State. In 2012, however, the regulation was issued on the Consultation Act, and it was questioned by indigenous peoples bothon procedural grounds (the regulation was not drawn up with representative indigenous participation) and on substantive grounds (the regulation does not consider consent in the case of megaprojects, deposits of toxic tailings, displacementof the population, or when the survival of indigenous peoples is affected).
With respect to territorial rights, in 2016 Ecuador enacted the Rural Lands
and Ancestral Territories Act of Ecuador of 2016, which, among other matters,
regulates rights to communal land and to territories of indigenous peoples andnationalities. The act recognizes and ensures ancestral possession by indigenous peoples in keeping with the UNDRIP. It is troublesome, however, that the act
does not contain any instrument enabling the recognition and return of indigenous
peoples’ ancestral territories. Nor does it include provisions allowing communal
lands to be returned to indigenous peoples when irregularities are confirmed intheir transfer of ownership. With respect to the right to participation, also recognized in the UNDRIP, in Chile during 2016 the government sent the Congress twolegislative bills. The first was for the creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
and the other was for creation of a National Indigenous Council, comprised by
fifteen council members to be elected by the indigenous peoples, which would
take charge of approving national indigenous policy. The second bill furthermore
proposes the creation of nine Councils of Indigenous Peoples, one for each people, with a total of 69 representatives elected by the indigenous peoples, which

48

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

might constitute bodies representative of their interests vis-à-vis the State. Although these bills are relevant, they have yet to be enacted.6
Another area where the UNDRIP has had important influence is that of thecase law of the courts of justice and constitutional courts of the States. With respect to territorial rights, in 2007 the Supreme Court of Belize invoked the UNDRIP when interpreting the country’s Constitution in order to protect the right of
the Mayan indigenous peoples to their traditional lands.7 In 2009 the Supreme
Court of Chile invoked the indigenous peoples’ rights to protection of the environment contained in the UNDRIP in order to grant a petition for protection on the
grounds that the wetlands of a Mapuche community were adversely affected by aforestry company.8 In addition to these cases, there are numerous judgmentsfrom these courts that invoke provisions of ILO Convention 169 or the case law of
the IACHR Court —which, as has been indicated, has been nourished by the
UNDRIP— to recognize indigenous peoples’ rights to ownership of land, territory,
and natural resources. This is seen in matters such as the delimitation and titlingof territory, the return of lands, indigenous peoples’ rights over natural resources,
and the right to share in the benefits derived from the exploitation of natural resources in their territories.9
Likewise, there is numerous case law from the same courts of justice andconstitutional courts of the region regarding the indigenous peoples’ right to priorconsultation, in particular, with respect to the exploitation of natural resources.
This case law, invoking the UNDRIP, or Convention 169 in provisions consistent
with the UNDRIP’s fundamental content, or the case law of the IACHR Court(which, in turn, refers to the UNDRIP) has protected the rights recognized for indigenous peoples on this fundamental issue.10 Of special importance is the constitutional case law of Colombia regarding consultation on investment projects inindigenous lands and territories. For example, the Constitutional Court of thatcountry ruled that, for development plans or large-scale investments that have amajor impact in indigenous territories, the State must not only consult, but mustalso obtain the indigenous peoples’ free, prior, and informed consent.11 More recently, a judgment of the same Constitutional Court has reaffirmed this case law,ordering that consultation must be carried out in due form to obtain free, prior, andinformed consent on three projects that affected the Emberá Katío indigenous
people: the construction of a highway, the binational Colombia-Panama electricity
interconnection, and a mining concession. The judgment also ordered the halting

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

49

of execution of those projects until the corresponding consultations with the affected indigenous peoples are made.12

The UNDRIP and public policy: Advances, gaps, and tension
The UNDRIP has also had a significant impact on regional public policies concerning indigenous peoples. One of the areas in which the influence of the UNDRIP has been most relevant is that of the granting of title to indigenous lands
and territories. The Declaration has contributed to processes —not exempt ofdifficulties— that were being promoted in States such as Bolivia, Brazil, and Colombia for the identification, demarcation, disencumbrance, and, in some cases,
communal titling in favor of indigenous peoples for their lands of traditional occupation. Despite such progress, the gap in implementation of constitutional provisions regarding indigenous peoples, identified by the former Special Rapporteuron Indigenous Rights, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, (2006), is equally applicable tomany of the UNDRIP’s provisions. It is clear that many States have not implemented the UNDRIP’s Article 42, which provides that the States “shall promoterespect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up
the effectiveness of this Declaration.” That means that indigenous peoples, as
collectives or as individuals in the region, in most cases are still unable to fully
enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 1) recognized in the
Declaration for persons and peoples pursuant to international law. As the ECLAC
report submitted to the 2014 United Nations World Conference on Indigenous
Peoples indicates,13 despite advances in the recognition of their rights at a regional level, indigenous peoples continue to be subjected to situations of vulnerability and are affected by the persistence of a high degree of inequality in almost
all aspects of their lives.
One of the most critical realms for full application of the rights recognized toindigenous peoples in the Declaration is with respect to their lands, territories,
and natural resources (Articles 26 et seq.) , and related to these, “…the right todetermine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development” (Article 23) That is not a coincidence, but is closely related to the States’
imposition upon indigenous peoples of the States’ own vision and development
plans. Those plans are generally based on the exploitation of natural resources
located in the lands and territories of traditional indigenous occupation and run

50

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

counter to the plans of life of the indigenous peoples. As ECLAC indicates in said
regard in its recent report:“Expansion of the primary and export sectors in the region has had serious
environmental impacts, involved reclassification of spaces and been detrimental to the rights, interests, territories and resources of indigenous peoples. Disputes associated with control over territories and natural resources
easily lend themselves to violent conflict but can be exacerbated in contexts
of political exclusion, social discrimination, and economic marginalization.” 14
Related to this, another cause for concern is the growing violence against the indigenous peoples’ human rights defenders in the region and the criminalization ofindigenous social protest generated by conflicts over investment projects in indigenous territories. Above all, a 2016 Global Witness report notes that of the 185
environmental rights defenders murdered in the world in 2015, two-thirds correspond to Latin America, many of whom were indigenous defenders.15 Such is thecase of Berta Cáceres, a leader of the Lenca people of Honduras, murdered in2016 after being incarcerated and threatened over her actions against the Agua
Zarca hydroelectric project. The criminal persecution of indigenous rights defenders is reflected in cases such as the prosecution under antiterrorist laws of defenders of rights of the Mapuche people in Chile, for which the State of Chile washeld liable by the IACHR Court in 2014 (Norin Catriman et al v. Chile), or the caseof the recent prosecution by the State of Ecuador of several members of the Shuar people who are defending their ancestral territory against the imposition, without consultation, of the San Carlos-Panantza mining project.

Conclusion
There have been legal and political advances in the rights of indigenous peoples
in Latin America since the UNDRIP’s approval, to which, as has been indicated,that Declaration has significantly contributed. Nonetheless, serious challenges
persist for the application and full enjoyment of those rights. On the one hand, thisincludes the rights of indigenous people as individuals, since indigenous individuals are still subject to multiple forms of discrimination, including in their economic,
social, and cultural life. On the other, it includes the indigenous peoples’ collective

THE IMPACT OF THE UNDRIP

51

rights, such as self-determination, autonomy, and political participation, recognized in the Declaration itself. Possibly the realm in which the deficit for the effective enjoyment of these rights is most severe is that of effective protection oflands, territory, and natural resources of the indigenous peoples, which are affected by the imposition of projects for extractive investment or for infrastructure
promoted by the States, often without consultation and without benefit sharing.
This reality can be seen throughout the region, revealing that the States havefailed to fulfill their obligation to promote full application of the Declaration as established in the UNDRIP’s Article 42. Under that same article, States have theprincipal responsibility for adopting legislative measures and public policies toimplement the rights recognized in the UNDRIP. And, as Article 42 also establishes, this effort should be contributed to by United Nations bodies such as theSpecial Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issue, treaty bodies, and the Human Rights Council. Theirwork in monitoring and promoting the rights that the UNDRIP recognizes since its
approval, though valuable, must be strengthened. These are the challenges thatthe Declaration poses in the region for the next decade of its application.
Notes and references
1

2
3

4
5
6

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Guaranteeing indigenous
people’s rights in Latin America. Progress in the past decade and remaining challenges. Santiago, ECLAC, 2014.
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948 and the American Convention
on Human Rights of 1969.
Saramaka v. Suriname, 2007; Xáxmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, 2010; Caseof the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, 2012; Kuna Indigenous People ofMadungandí and Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama, 2014;
Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, 2015; Garífuna Triunfo de la
Cruz Community and its Members v. Honduras, 2015; Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v.
Suriname, 2015.
The case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights referred to here can be consulted at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/index.php/jurisprudencia
IWGIA and Observatorio Ciudadano, OAS: Declaración vulnera derechos de los pueblos indígenas, 6/22/2016, http://www.iwgia.org/noticias/buscar-noticias?news_id=1376
In relation to legislative progress in the implementation of the UNDRIP, see Human Rights Council. Report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Final summary of responses to the questionnaire seeking the views of States and indigenous peoples on best practices regarding possible appropriate measures and implementation strategies to attain the goals

52

7
8

9

10

11

12
13
14
15

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/27/67&referer=/english/&Lang=E
Manuel Coy et al. v. The Attorney General of Belize et al., Supreme Court of Belize, Claim No.
171 and No. 172 (2007). See also A/HRC/9/9, ¶ 54.
Court of Appeals of Temuco. Judgment on Appeal for Protection, Case 1773-2008, dated September 16, 2009, Francisca Linconao v. Forestal Palermo, upheld that same year by the Supreme Court of Chile.
BOLIVIA, Constitutional Judgment 2003/2010-R, October 25, 2010; COLOMBIA, Judgment
T-769 of 2009, October 29, 2009 (Reporting Judge: Nilson Pinilla Pinilla): Judgment T-129 of2011, March 3, 2011 (Reporting Judge: Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio): Judgment T-282 of 2011,
April 12, 2011 (Reporting Judge: Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva); Judgment C-366 of 2011, May 11,
2011 (Reporting Judge: Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva); PERU, Judgment of the Constitutional Court
No. 03343-2007-AA, February 19, 2009; Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 0022-2009-PI/
TC, June 9, 2010; and Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 00024-2009-PI, July 26, 2011:
See Galvis, María Clara and Ángela María Ramírez, Digest of Latin American Jurisprudence on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Participation, Prior Consultation and Community Property.
DPLF, Washington DC 2013, http://dplf.org/sites/default/files/digesto_indigenas_web_final.pdf
COLOMBIA, Judgment C-366 of 2011, May 11, 2011 (Reporting Judge: Luis Ernesto Vargas
Silva); ECUADOR, Judgment No. 001-10-SIN-CC, Cases No. 0008-09-IN and 0011-09-IN(joined), March 19, 2010; GUATEMALA, Judgment, Cases 1643-2005 and 1654-2005, February
28, 2008; PERU, Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 03343-2007-AA, February 19, 2009;
and Judgment of the Constitutional Court 0022-2009-PI/TC, June 9, 2010. In Galvis, María Claraand Ángela María Ramírez, 2013, op cit.
Constitutional, Judgment T-769/09 handed down in the case of Álvaro Bailarín et al. over exploration and extractive activities of mineral resources by Muriel Mining in Emberá territory without
appropriate consultation.
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment Number T-129 of March 3, 2011.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2014, op cit.
Ibid, p. 56 y 57.
Global Witness, 2016, January 2017,https://business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%A9nfasis-sobre-defensores-y-defensoras-de-derechos-humanos-bajo-amenazas-y-ataques

José Aylwin is the Director of Observatorio Ciudadano of Chile and an IWGIA
collaborator.

PART IREGION AND
COUNTRY REPORTS
THE ARCTIC54

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

GREENLAND
Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has, since 1979, been a self-governing
country within the Danish Realm. In 2009, Greenland entered a new era
with the inauguration of the new Act on Self-Government, which gave thecountry further self-determination within the State of Denmark. Greenland
has a public government, and aims to establish a sustainable economy inorder to achieve greater independence. The population numbers 56,000,
of whom 50,000 are Inuit. Greenland’s diverse culture includes subsistence hunting, commercial fisheries, tourism and emerging efforts to develop the oil and mining industries. Approximately 50 per cent of the national budget is financed by Denmark through a block grant. The Inuit
Circumpolar Council (ICC), an indigenous peoples’ organisation and
ECOSOC-accredited NGO, represents Inuit from Greenland, Canada,
Alaska and Chukotka (Russia) and is also a permanent participant in the
Arctic Council. The majority of the people of Greenland speak the Inuit
language, Kalaallisut, which is the official language, while the second language of the country is Danish. In 1996, at the request of Greenland,
Denmark ratified ILO Convention No. 169.

The Government of GreenlandDuring most of 2016, the government was led by Mr. Kim Kielsen, leader of thelargest political party, Siumut (the social democratic party), in coalition withthe liberal parties, Atassut and Demokraatit. In late October 2016, however, thecoalition split and Siumut formed a new coalition1 with the left socialist party, Inuit
Ataqatigiit (IA), and the newly-founded Partii Naleraq (a centrist party formed by
the former chairman of Siumut).The new coalition has several major interests incommon, such as achieving autonomy from the Danish Realm and a development that treats all communities equally in terms of the provision of electricity,water and heating, as well as ensuring stable and affordable food prices no matter what the size of the community and regardless of its remoteness.

55

THE ARCTIC

1

1 KVANNERSVIT (KVANEFJELD)

There are also a number of issues over which they are divided, however, notleast the question of uranium mining, which is supported by Siumut but strongly
opposed by the other two parties. The new coalition has a solid majority of 24 of

56

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

the 31 seats in the Greenlandic Parliament, the Inatsisartut (with Siumut and IA
having 11 seats each and Partii Naleraq two).

Resource extraction
There are 44 small-scale mining and oil drilling concessions in Greenland. A newconcession has just been awarded to Ironbark for a zinc mining project in the
Citronen Fjord.2 The project is expected to be of great importance for Greenland.
In addition, the approval of this exploitation license could make Greenland potentially more attractive to other projects.
There will be significant Greenlandic involvement in the project. An agreement with Ironbark requires a portion of the necessary goods and services during
the construction phase to be provided by Greenlandic companies, as well as anincreasing proportion of the labor force over the years to be Greenlandic, reaching 90% after seven years of operation. There have been several hearings in thelocal community but very few locals showed up to these. This is mainly due to thehearings not being announced properly, the meetings being led by outsiders andthe interpretation often being very poor.
Uranium extraction has not yet been cleared and it is hence still in the investigation phase. The exploration of uranium in the south of Greenland started in the
1970s and 1980s. By 2016, the uranium question had split the population in two.
The uranium project led by Greenland Minerals and Energy (GME)3 is still underdevelopment.
There have been more demonstrations than ever before on uranium mining.
The part of the population that is pro-uranium extraction argues that it will createmuch-needed jobs in Greenland, as well as financial benefits. The other half who
are against uranium mining argue that the environmental and health risks for animals and humans are too high and that the community near the uranium mine,
Kuannersuit (Greenlandic) / Kvanefjeld (Danish) will have to be relocated because of the danger of contamination. There is also a fear that the tailings fromthe uranium mining will contaminate the environment for thousands of years. Halfof the population want a referendum while the other half do not. A smaller groupof the population is arguing that far more hearings are needed throughout Greenland in order to make a decision.

THE ARCTIC

57

Fishing industry
Fishing is the primary industry of the country and Greenland has legislative powerover the fisheries sector. The fishing industry is the largest source of income forGreenland and is hence very important to the national economy and to the local
food supply. It is the source of many people’s livelihoods right across the country,
employing some 6,500 people out of a national population of 56,000.
Volumes and prices of fish have not changed significantly in recent years.
Shrimp fishing is the primary industry, representing over 50% of total fishing.
Other important species of fish are halibut, cod, lumpfish and crab and these also
play an important role in exports. There is costal and ocean fishing: the coastal
fishing supplies land facilities while ocean fishing consists primarily of factory
ships with on-board production. Seal hunting still also plays an important role,with an average of 200,000 seals a year being hunted. Ringed and harp seals are
the primary seal species caught. Seal skin is the primary income from seals, while
the meat is mainly used for subsistence. Greenland has a quota for hunting different species of whales. This is of less financial incentive to the country but still
plays an important role in its meat supplies.
Fishing exports from Greenland in the past 20 years have accounted forsome 90% of the country’s total exports, with international firms finding it a profitable business. Exports go mostly to USA, Japan, Norway, Thailand, Germany,
Great Britain, Germany and Denmark. The contribution of the fishing industry to
the economy of Greenland as a whole is estimated at more than 50% of thecountry’s gross national income.
In 2016, the Naalakkersuisut (Government of Greenland) approved an additional quota of 5,000 tons of cod for an exploratory offshore Greenlandic fishingcompany in West Greenland.

Arctic Winter Games2016 was an eventful year for Greenlandic sports and culture, as the country
hosted the biggest Arctic Sport event, the Arctic Winter Games (AWG. The Arctic
Winter Games is a high-profile circumpolar sports competition for northern and
Arctic athletes. The Games provide an opportunity to strengthen sports develop-

58

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ment in the participants’ jurisdictions, to promote the benefits of sport, to build
partnerships and to promote culture and values. The Games celebrate sport, social exchange and culture. They provide an opportunity for the athletes to compete in a friendly competition while sharing cultural values from around the Arctic. The following Arctic regions participated: Alaska (USA), Alberta North, Nunavik-Quebec, Nunavut, NWT and Yukon (Canada) and Greenland. The AWG havealways been highly valued by the Greenlandic people since they offer an excellent opportunity to meet Inuit from other regions of the Arctic.

Greenland’s NGOs
There are an increasing number of suicides occurring in Greenland. There were
47 recorded in 2016, which is ten more than in 2015. It is mainly young people thatcommit suicide and the victims have become younger over the last decade. Indigenous suicide is a global problem and one that more and more states are addressing. In this regard, Greenland suffers, along with many other indigenous communities, the effects of self-harm and suicide. There are many movements trying to address the issue. Unions and activists that organise life-promoting events are theones that are really preventing suicide in everyday life. Despite the awareness raising campaigns and different suicide prevention action plans from the organisations
and government, however, the number of suicides is still increasing.
One of the main organisations working on children’s and youth issues is MIO(Meeqqat Pisinnaatitaaffiinik Sullissivik / National Advocacy for Children’s
Rights),4 an institution set up by an Act of Parliament (Act No. 11 of 22 November2011) on Children and the Children’s Council Spokesman. Led by the appointed
Children’s Spokesman, MIO also consists of the Children’s Council and a Secretariat. The Children Spokesman’s overall task is to ensure and assess whether
Greenlandic laws and practices comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child. MIO also works in cooperation with NAKUUSA.
The background to NAKUUSA is that the Government of Greenland and
UNICEF Denmark entered into a partnership agreement in 2010 aimed at working to implement child rights in Greenland. This cooperation has been nicknamed
NAKUUSA (Let us be Strong). This cooperation will be a great asset in terms ofstrengthening the implementation of children’s rights in the coming years. Over a
five-year period, NAKUUSA has implemented various projects to promote chil-THE ARCTIC

59

dren’s rights. The aim is also to raise awareness of children’s rights in Greenland,
both among children and adults.
Greenland chose to join the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child without reservations on 26 March 1992, and has thus has committed to working diligently to comply
with its provisions. In recent years, both from the public and the NGO side, there has
been an increased focus on children’s rights and this is considered very positive.
It is explicitly stated that children have the right to participation. This means,in practice, that we in Greenland must better involve young people in decisionmaking processes that affect them. The NAKUUSA campaign and agreements
have been taken on board by the government, as they were received so positively by the whole of Greenland, and the interest in children’s rights is still growing and creating awareness and debate among the population, both children,
youth and adults. The agreement was developed in 2016 such that the project isnow being integrated into Greenlandic society through the incipient signing ofcooperation agreements between NAKUUSA and the municipalities.


Notes and reference
1234

http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Naalakkersuisut/DK/Koalitionsaftaler/Siumut_IA_Naleraq_Koalitionsaftale_da-1.pdf
http://ironbark.gl/projects/greenland/citronen/
http://gme.gl/en
http://mio.gl/index.php/english/

Aili Liimakka Laue was born and raised in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. She
is a student at the Institute of Teaching at Ilinniarfissuaq, University of Greenland.
Ms Laue is a former president of the Inuit Youth Council of Greenland, Sorlak.
She has also been the Chair of the Children’s Rights Committee and was chair of
the Arctic Youth Committee within Sorlak from 2009-2014. At an international
level, Ms Laue was the Arctic Youth Focal Point at the Global Indigenous Youth
Caucus at the United Nations Indigenous Youth Caucus from 2013-2015. Ms
Laue has been a delegate to ICC Greenland since 2009 and currently sits on the
ICC Greenland Board of Directors. She has also been a board member and international coordinator at the National Greenlandic Student Organisation ILI ILI. She
has four children aged 6-16, which she is raising alone.

60

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

SÁPMISápmi is the Sámi people’s own name for their traditional territory. The Sámi
people are the indigenous people of the northern part of the Scandinavian
Peninsula and large parts of the Kola Peninsula and live in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia. There is no reliable information as to how many
Sámi people there are; it is, however estimated that they number between
50,000-100,000. Around 20,000 live in Sweden, which is approximately
0.22% of Sweden’s total population of around 9 million. The north-westernpart of the Swedish territory is the Sámi people’s traditional territory. The
Sámi reindeer herders, small farmers, hunters, fishers and gatherers traditionally use these lands. Around 50-65,000 live in Norway, i.e., between
1.06 and 1.38% of the total Norwegian population of approx. 4.7 million.
Around 8,000 live in Finland, which is approx. 0.16% of the total Finnish
population of around 5 million. Around 2,000 live in Russia, and this is avery small proportion of the total population of Russia. Politically, the Sámi
people are represented by three Sámi parliaments, one in Sweden, one in
Norway and one in Finland, whereas on the Russian side they are organized into NGOs. In 2000, the three Sámi parliaments established a joint
council of representatives called the Sámi Parliamentary Council. The Sámi
Parliamentary Council is not to be confused with the Sámi Council, which isa central Sámi NGO representing large national Sámi associations (NGOs)in all four countries. There are also other important Sámi institutions, bothregional and local, inter alia, the Sámi University College, which is a research and higher education institution for the Sámi society’s needs, andwhere the language of work and tuition is mainly the Sámi language. Sweden, Norway and Finland voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007, while Russia abstained.

IntroductionT

his article offers a short overview of some cases that describe the challenges
which the indigenous Sámi people are facing under growing pressure from61

THE ARCTIC

1

1 Björkhöjden and Ögonfägnaden (windpower station)

both the extractive industry and various forms of development projects on the
Sámi people’s lands and territories. The Sámi people’s lack of influence in decision-making processes concerning natural resource exploitation is a common
legal challenge for the Nordic states.

Nordic Sámi Convention
One important cross-border initiative of the Sámi people has been the effort todevelop a Nordic Sámi Convention with the aim of safeguarding and developing

62

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

the Sámi people’s self-governing bodies, their livelihoods, culture, languages and wayof life with the least possible interference from the imposition of national borders.
The negotiations on the Nordic Sámi Convention were concluded in January
2017.1 The Convention comes in four official versions: a Finnish, a Swedish, aNorwegian and a northern-Sámi language version. It includes a total of 46 articles, all of which include joint Nordic approaches to safeguarding and strengthening Sámi rights. The convention includes provisions relating to self-determination,
non-discrimination, Sámi governance (including the Sámi parliaments and theirrelationship to the state), rights to lands, water and livelihoods, languages, education and culture. The Sámi Convention also contains several provisions related to
its implementation, including the establishment of a complaints mechanism. The
convention has been met with criticism from Sámi legal experts and Sámi organizations and is currently being considered by the three Sámi parliaments andthe governments of Finland, Norway and Sweden. All three countries’ Sámi parliaments and national parliaments will have to give their consent to the convention
before it can enter into force.

UN Special Rapporteur’s report on the human rights situation of the
Sámi people in the Sápmi region of Norway, Sweden and Finland2
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms Victoria
Tauli-Corpuz, examined the human rights situation of the Sámi people in Norway,
Sweden and Finland in 2016 on the basis of information received during her visit
to the Sápmi region, including during a conference organized by the Sámi Parliamentary Council in Bierke/Hemavan, Sweden, in August 2015. Her report is also
based on independent research. The visit was carried out as a follow-up to the2010 visit of the previous UN Special Rapporteur, Prof. James Anaya. During her
visit, the Special Rapporteur met with government officials, the Swedish Minister
for Culture and Democracy, government officials from Norway, Sweden and Finland and representatives of the three Sámi parliaments. In addition, the Special
Rapporteur spoke with representatives of local Sámi communities and Sámi nongovernmental organizations. The Special Rapporteur did not visit the Sámi in
Russia and so the report focuses on the situation of the Sámi in Finland, Norway
and Sweden.

THE ARCTIC

63

The report emphasizes that all three states fall short of their stated objectivesof ensuring the human rights of the Sámi people. In particular, the report highlights the negative impacts that extractive industry operations are having on Sámi
livelihoods and culture. For instance, the Mining Act in Norway and the Minerals
Act in Sweden raise serious doubts as to the states’ ability to respect, protect andfulfil the human rights of the Sámi in the context of the extractive industry. In herreport, Ms Tauli-Corpuz raises doubts as to whether the states are clearly settingout the expectation that all business enterprises must respect human rights
throughout their operations. In Finland, the Mining Act shows that the governmentis responding to concerns raised by the Sámi people. However, in practice, theAct appears to have fallen short of its stated objective of ensuring that mining is
adapted so that the rights of the Sámi as an indigenous people are secured. The
Special Rapporteur also notes that the 2016 Finnish Forest and Park Enterprise
Act will have a significant impact on the Sámi people, and that removing safeguards for the Sámi people is not in line with international human rights obligations with respect to the Sámi people.

Sápmi Sweden
Sweden has still not ratified ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous
peoples, even though this has been a wish of the Sámi people since the 1980s
and was proposed by a public inquiry in 1999.3 There was no real progress
during 2016. The new bilateral convention on reindeer herding between Sweden and Norway, which was signed in 2009 and presented in The Indigenous
World 2008 and 2009, has not yet come into force.4 It came as a suggestion
from the Government of Sweden in 2016 but there are still issues regarding theallocation of reindeer pasture lands, as mentioned in 2010. The legal and political developments for the Sámi people in Sweden during 2016 were hence
mainly about the same questions as earlier reported on in The Indigenous
World; we will, however, report on four highlights: the ongoing issues of extractive industries and consultations; the Human Rights Committee’s seventh periodic report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR); the Girjas court case on Sámi hunting and fishing rights; and the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI).

64

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Development projects and extractive industries
While there has been little progress in Sámi legislation in the last decade, there
have been increased efforts to establish new development projects and extractive
industries, such as mines and wind power plants, in the traditional Sámi land areas. See, for example, the Kallak and the Rönnbäcken cases, mentioned in The
Indigenous World 2016, regarding the establishment of new mines in key Sámi
traditional land, important both for reindeer herding and other Sámi cultural landuse. Both projects have been highly criticized by the Sámi Parliament and Sámi
organizations. During 2016, the government returned the question of assessmentof the Kallak mining project to the Inspector of Mines authority for a decision as towhether or not the mining company should be granted a concession. The decision has yet to be made. If the Kallak mining project receives this concession,5 thenext step will be for it to apply for environmental approval to build and extract theminerals. This is the stage the Rönnbäcken case is at today.
The largest wind power station in Scandinavia, the Björkhöjden and Ögonfägnade, was opened in June 2016 even though the project had been opposed andcriticized by the Sámi since it would destroy important reindeer grazing lands andmigration routes. In some media, the opening was being critizised as contemptuous and mocking of Sámi culture because Sámi tents were used, at the sametime as the mourning Sámi people stood on a nearby hill.6

The seventh periodic report of Sweden on CCPRIn March 2016, the Human Rights Committee considered the seventh periodic
report of Sweden on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(CCPR).7 The report considered many themes, and we will consider those whichwere most meaningful for the Sámi or which directly addressed them. These are:the status of the CCPR in the domestic legal order, the lack of a specific National
Human Rights Institution and the situation of the Sámi people. Other committees’
recommendations also have significant meaning for the Sámi. For example, therecommendations on the need for action against racism and hate speech, theneed to expand the scope of protection against discrimination under domestic
law, gender equality and violence against women and children.

THE ARCTIC

65

The Committee noted that the Covenant had not been incorporated into Sweden’s domestic legal order. Some areas of domestic law are thus not fully alignedwith the Covenant, and domestic courts rarely apply the Covenant. Furthermore,
municipalities and other local governance bodies seem to lack knowledge of theCovenant.8 These are important elementary questions for the protection and promotion of Sámi rights. The protection of minorities, given in article 27, has a significant meaning for the protection and development of Sámi language, culture
and society, including land rights. Furthermore, articles 1, 2 and 26 form the backbone of the discussions on indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination.
In Sweden, the meaning and impact of the Covenant, especially of article 27,
on domestic Sámi politics in general, and Sámi land rights specifically, has notbeen raised in public inquiries since 1986. The meaning of article 27 was, however, discussed in the Swedish public inquiry on the rights of Sámi villages to hunt
and fish, although this inquiry was limited to only discussing the rights of thesegroups and not the various land rights of the Sámi as a whole. Even though theunderstanding of the Covenant internationally, and in Norway which has a comparable Sámi history, has developed significantly since the 1980s, the meaning of
this development for Sámi livelihoods and society has not been evaluated or discussed by the Swedish government or Parliament, the Riksdagen.
Regarding the rights of the Sámi, the Committee welcomed the State Party’s
support for realising the Sámi people’s right to self-determination. However, theCommittee remained concerned about four themes: the slow progress in the negotiations for the adoption of the Nordic Sámi Convention; the limited resources
allocated to the Sámi Parliament; the scope of the duty to consult with representatives of the Sámi people in connection with extractive and development
projects; and the difficulties faced by Sámi claimants in demonstrate land ownership and the inability of Sámi villages to obtain legal aid under the legal aid act,
even though they are the only legal entities empowered to act as litigants in land
disputes in respect of Sámi land and grazing rights.9
The Committee recommended the state take measures to contribute to theadoption of the Nordic Sámi Convention10 and ensure that the Sámi Parliament isprovided with adequate resources to enable it to fulfil its mandate effectively.11
The Committee also recommended that Sweden review existing legislation, policies and practices that regulate activities with a potential impact on the rights andinterests of the Sámi people with a view to guaranteeing meaningful consultation
with the indigenous communities affected, aimed at attempting to obtain their

66

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

free, prior and informed consent. Development projects and extractive industry
operations were mentioned as examples of activities with a potential impact on
Sámi interests.12 Given the wording, this recommendation concerns affected indigenous communities, i.e. not only the Sámi Parliament and Sámi villages, butalso other Sámi stakeholders that may be affected.
The Committee also reiterated its previous recommendation to grant legal aid
to Sámi villages in court disputes over land and grazing rights, and to provide for asuitable burden of proof in these cases.13 Finally, the Committee encouraged thestate to initiate preparatory works towards ratification of ILO Convention No. 169.14

The Girjas case and their hunting and fishing rights
As presented in The Indigenous World 2016, the Girjas case is a decisive courtcase between the Girjas Sámi village and the Swedish state on the right to hunt
and fish on state-owned land in parts of the traditional living area of the reindeer
herders of the Sámi village. The district court trial was held in May 2015 and thejudgement handed down in February 2016. The Sámi village won the case.
In 2009, after the Swedish public inquiry into the rights of the Sámi villages
and the Swedish state to hunt and fish in the mountain areas, the Girjas Sámi
village sued the state and claimed that the Sámi village had an exclusive right, in
relation to the state, to hunt and fish on the land in question. As an alternative, theSámi village claimed that the right to hunt and fish in the area was owned by boththe state and the Sámi village. The state opposed the Sámi village’s claim, indicating that the state owned the right to hunt and fish, and to deed these rights toothers.
The Sámi village pleaded that the Sámi had long used the land area, since
before the state was even established in the Sámi area, and that this land use
gave them an exclusive – or at least a shared - right to hunt and fish there. Furthermore, the Sámi village claimed that their right came directly from the Reindeer
Husbandry Act (Rennæringslagen) and that this law acknowledges the Sámi’s
original right to hunt and fish. The Sámi village’s right is based on the fact that
Sámi, as indigenous peoples, have used these areas for reindeer herding regardless of whether this land use can be seen as based upon ancient prescriptive
rights or on customary law. The Sámi village also claimed that the present regulation of hunting and fishing whereby the state deeds the rights, and the revenue ofTHE ARCTIC

67

those rights goes to the Sámi village and a Sámi foundation, was not in accordance with the protection of property rights, and against the prohibition of discrimination as set out in the Swedish Constitution. The right to deed rights over hunting
and fishing should belong to the Sámi village. It was also seen as in conflict with
the European Convention on Human Rights.
The State Party pleaded that the state was the owner of the land and, as
landowner, it owned the hunting and fishing rights, and the right to deed thoserights. The Sámi people have a customary law-based right to reindeer herding,and this right includes a right to hunt and fish, which is exhaustively regulated by
the Reindeer Herding Act.
In its judgement, the district court said that the Sámi had been in the area forat least the last thousand years, and that they had used the land for, among otherthings, hunting and fishing. The state could not be seen as the owner until as lateas 1887, when land allocation processes were conducted in the area. The legal
rules on ancient and prescriptive right, given in 1734, were still applicable and had
to be applied with regard to the climate and land-use traditions of the area. The
Sámi living in the area as at 1734 had this right, and it had not changed since.
Hence, the Sámi village owned the rights and not the state.15
The case has been seen as a potential game changer. Welcomed by many
Sámi, but also welcomed with scepticism by some that are not members of a
Sámi village and hence lack access to ancient prescriptive rights to use land. The
state has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The National Human Rights Institution in Sweden
Within the UN system and domestic legal orders, the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) have a certain independence to protect and promote humanrights.16 The establishment of a NHRI is important not only in the work on humanrights for the population in general but also in the work on Sámi human rights. The
Committee recommended that Sweden establish an independent National Human Rights Institution. This institution should, according to the Committee, havea broad mandate, adequate financial and human resources, and be in accordance with the Paris Principles.17 This is interesting also for Sámi affairs since thecomparable new NHRI in Norway also has a broad mandate, specifically including indigenous peoples’ rights and Sámi human rights.

68

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Sápmi Norway
The right to consultation and free prior and informed consent (FPIC)In 2005, the Sámediggi-Sámi Parliament and the Norwegian government enteredinto an agreement on consultation procedures for matters that might affect Sámiinterests directly, agreeing that consultations should continue as long as the Sámi
Parliament and state authorities considered it possible to achieve agreement.18 The
objective of the procedure for consultations is to, inter alia, contribute to the implementation of the state’s obligations to consult indigenous peoples under international law. Norway has ratified ILO Convention No. 169 on indigenous peoples’
rights (ILO 169), and this agreement is aimed at implementing the right to consultation according to article 6 of this convention. The agreement has undoubtedly
strengthened cooperation between the Sámediggi and state authorities; however,there are examples that illustrate that implementation of this agreement remains
particularly challenging in relation to energy development projects and legislation
regarding cross-boundary issues such as salmon fishing and reindeer husbandry.
The negotiation process on the new agreement regulating salmon fishing in
the Deatnu/Tana River in the Northern Sámi area in Finnmark county (TanaAgreement) between Finland and Norway is one example where the Sámi parliaments in Finland and Norway claim that the right to consultation has beenbreached. The conflict between local fishers and tourists fishing mainly on the
Finnish side of the river has been ongoing for decades. The Tana Agreement includes measures for safeguarding the wild salmon through numerous limitationsof the rights to fish on the part of both locals and tourists. In September 2016, theSámediggi in Norway made a unanimous decision that the negotiations on the
Tana Agreement did not comply with the right to consultation under ILO 169, did
not take into account the traditional knowledge of the Sámi and did not adequately protect Sámi interests and customary fishing rights.19 Further, the right to free,prior and informed consent of the Sámi rights-holders in the Tana valley, who live
on both sides of the river and whose rights are recognized by the Tana Act, had
not been obtained before concluding the negotiations. This, in turn, is not in compliance with article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Furthermore, the agreement does not include any provisions on how traditional
knowledge should be implemented in the future regulation of fishing in the river.

THE ARCTIC

69

The Sámediggi thus demanded that the agreement be re-negotiated or terminated. Salmon fishing is an important part of the culture and a vital part of thelivelihood of the Sámi living in Deatnu/Tana, and the agreement is problematic as
it codifies extensive rights to salmon fishing for a new category of persons who
own cabins on the Finnish side of the valley and, at the same time, limits the rights
to fish for traditional Sámi salmon fishers using traditional fishing methods. The
governments of Finland and Norway have recommended ratifying the agreementin the national parliaments of Finland and Norway in 2017.
The procedure for consultations between the Norwegian and Sámi parliaments applies to the whole central government administration. There appears to
be a lack of common understanding between the government and the Sámediggi
as to how the consultation agreement is to be complied with in practice. One wayof finding this kind of common understanding would be through strengthening therights to consultation by means of a Consultation Act, as proposed by the Second
Sámi Rights Committee in 2007. Another concern is the lack of mechanisms inplace outside of the ordinary court system with which to recognize and identify
Sámi land and resource rights outside Finnmark. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recommended that Norway follow up on the
proposals of the Second Sámi Rights Committee, including by establishing anappropriate mechanism and legal framework, and identify and recognize Sámi
land and resource rights outside Finnmark. In Finnmark, the Finnmark Commission and the Finnmark Land Rights Tribunal are currently working to identify individual and collective use and ownership rights in relation to land that was transferred from the state to the Finnmark Estate in 2006. The Second Sámi Rights
Committee has also proposed a Consultation Act, which would give stronger
legislative protection of the Sámi people’s right to consultation under internationallaw. These proposals are still under consideration in the Ministry of Justice andthe Ministry of Local Government and Modernization.

Sámi reindeer husbandry and the right to culture
The 2007 Reindeer Husbandry Act imposed a requirement on reindeer herding
districts to adapt to so-called ecologically sustainable resource management by
developing usage rules, including determination of a maximum number of reindeer for each district. The work on the usage rules started in 2008 and, by the end

70

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017of 2011, the National Board for Reindeer Herding (Reindriftsstyret) had come up
with its decision. Some Sámi reindeer owners are now going through a difficult
process of reducing their number of reindeer in line with this decision. In theiropinion, their own perception of the sustainable management of reindeer herds
based on Sámi traditional knowledge has not been taken into account. Herders
consider the process as a violation of their human rights, including a violation of
the right to culture according to the article 27 of the ICCPR and of their property
rights in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, Additional
Protocol 1 Article 1, as well as a violation of their right to internal self-governance,
which the 2007 Reindeer Herding Act was intended to safeguard.
The Norwegian state’s current enforcement of the decisions made by the
National Board for Reindeer Herding has been met with strong resistance fromthe reindeer-herding Sámi. Furthermore, this enforcement process has led to a
court case initiated by a young reindeer-herder, Jovsset Ánte Sara (b. 1992).
Sara has refused to accept the enforced decimation of his herd from 116 reindeer
to 75 as it would deny him his right to culture according to article 27 of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, it would not comply with the right toownership under the European Convention on Human Rights and the rights that the
Sámi people have to autonomy in internal matters according to international law.
Sara won the case in Indre Finnmark Tingrett in March 2016. The local court agreed
with Sara when he argued that if he had to reduce his herd to 75 reindeers this decision would in fact deny him the right to his culture and way of life. The court also
stated that it would not be possible to make a living for himself with only 75 reindeer,
and that this would imply that he would be forced to find another livelihood. The
Norwegian state has appealed this judgement, and the second hearing will takeplace in Hålogaland Lagmannsrett in Tromsø in January 2017.

Mining and development projects in Sámi areas
In its list of issues prior to submission of Norway’s seventh periodic report, the
Human Rights Committee (HRC) has asked the Norwegian government for more
information on the measures taken to protect Sámi rights to land and resources
under article 27 of the ICCPR.20 The Committee also wants to know how the state
ensures special protection of Sámi reindeer husbandry and fishing. The HRC has
also called for more information about the measures taken to consult Sámi com-

THE ARCTIC

71

munities with a view to seeking free, prior and informed consent and effective
participation in decision-making whenever their rights may be affected by projects, including the extraction of natural resources, carried out in their traditional
territories and affecting their means of subsistence. The HRC has, in this regard,
shown particular interest in how the Sámi land rights are protected under the
Norwegian Mining Act.
In 2011, the national mining company NUSSIR applied for permission to deposit the tailings from a planned copper mining site in Kvalsund municipality(Finnmark) in the Repparfjord. In December 2015, the Ministry of Environment
gave its permission to start underground copper mining in the area of Nussir andUlveryggen and to deposit the tailings in the Repparfjord. This case is controversial because of the impacts that this mining project will have on traditional Sámi
reindeer herding in several reindeer herding districts. Secondly, the case is also
highly controversial seen from a Sea-Sámi and an environmental perspective, as
submarine tailing deposits are considered an environmental hazard. Repparfjord
is vital for the local Sámi fisheries, and is also a “National Salmon Fjord” leading
to the Repparfjord River, which is one of the few remaining rivers where wild
salmon are still found.
During Norway’s UPR examination in 2014, the country was questioned on
intensified mining activities in the north and their impact on indigenous peoples.
The Ministry stated that mining permissions were issued with strict conditions thatmade the operations environmentally acceptable. Reindeer herders in the areaclaim the permission is violating their human rights, and are preparing legal steps
to stop the NUSSIR mining operations. Among those who have responded negatively to the permission are the national environmental organizations, the Sámediggi and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association.
In December 2016, the Ministry of Climate and Environment decided to uphold the decision of the Norwegian Environment Agency to grant a permit under
the Pollution Control Act for mining activities at Nussir and Ulveryggen in Kvalsund municipality and disposal of tailings in the Repparfjorden.21 The Ministry of
Climate and Environment concluded that the permit granted under the Pollution
Control Act was not in conflict with the rights that the indigenous Sámi people
have under international law. The Ministry conducted consultations with the Sámi
Parliament but agreement was not reached on the matter.
The Sámi Parliament, the Norwegian Society for Conservation of Nature, Nature and Youth and the Association of Norwegian Salmon Rivers raised a case

72

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

against the Norwegian Environment Agency’s decision to grant a permit under
the Pollution Control Act. They argued that there was a lack of knowledge of theenvironmental impacts and that a permit could thus not be granted. The Sámi
Parliament argued that it was irresponsible to grant a permit for mining activities
because of the environmental disadvantages, taken together with the disadvantages the permit will have for Sámi culture, reindeer husbandry, and for the Sámi
fishing and its community. The Ministry of Climate and Environment overruled thecomplaints as, in their opinion, they gave no basis for changing the assessments
previously made. The decision of the Ministry is final and cannot be further appealed.
Sámi reindeer herders in Norway have also faced challenges in relation to theestablishment of wind farms. In 2014, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) allocated a concession to a wind farm in Kalvvatnan, inthe middle of summer pastures belonging to Voengelh-Njaarke (Vestre Namdal)and Åarjel-Njaarke (Cape Mountain / Bindal) reindeer herding districts. Environmental organizations, together with the affected reindeer herding districts, submitted a joint complaint claiming that this was in violation of the national Nature
Diversity Act, ILO Convention No 169 and several UN human rights conventions
as it would have major negative impacts for reindeer herding. The Sámediggi alsostrongly opposed this establishment. In November 2016, the Ministry of Oil andEnergy decided not to give a permit for the planned wind farm in Kalvvatnan in
Bindal municipality, as these plans would negatively affect Sámi reindeer herding
in the area. In its legal assessment of the rights of the Sámi under internationallaw, the Ministry concluded that the state was obligated under article 27 of the
ICCPR to consider not merely the negative impacts of the plans to establish thiswind farm but also the cumulative negative effects of other projects in the same
area.22
The same Ministry also rejected the expansion of a wind farm on Fálesrášša,in Kvalsund municipality in Finnmark in 2015. This was the result of strong protests from the local Sámi reindeer herders of district 21 Gearretnjárga and the
Sámediggi. 						THE ARCTIC

73

Notes and references
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

21
22

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/i-mal-med-forhandlingene-om-nordisk-samekonvensjon/
id2526750/ and also https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2017/01/historic-Sámi-agreement-startslong-way-towards-ratification
United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 33rd session, Agenda item 3, /HRC/33/42/Add.3, 9 August 2016.
SOU 1999:25 Samerna – ett ursprungsfolk i Sverige
http://www.regeringen.se/informationsmaterial/2009/02/konvention-mellan-sverige-och-norgeom-gransoverskridande-renskotsel/
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Rattsinformation/Rattsfall/Gruvor/Kallak--foljarendet---/http://www.vk.se/1738356/invigningen-blev-ett-han-mot-samer
Human Rights Committee. Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Sweden,
see https://www.civilrightsdefenders.org/files/CCPR_C_SWE_CO_7_23452_E1.pdf
Ibid. section 4.
The Human Rights Committee, seventh periodic report, see section 38.
Ibid. Section 39 a.
Ibid. Section 39 b.
Ibid. Section 39 c.
Ibid. Section 39 d.
Ibid. Section 39, last sentence.
Gällivare Tingsrätt, mål nr T 323-09, dom 2 March 2016, see online: http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/files/2327/0e53e1be-716c-4084-9524-f15208a74c1f.pdf
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/NHRIMain.aspx
The Human Rights Committee, seventh periodic report, see sections 8 and 9https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/indigenous-peoples-and-minorities/Sami-people/midtspalte/PROCEDURES-FOR-CONSULTATIONS-BETWEEN-STA/id450743/
Prop. 54 S (2016–2017) Samtykke til inngåelse av avtale mellom Norge og Finland om fisket i
Tanavassdraget av 30 September 2016. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.54-s-20162017/id2537548/sec1?q=tanaavtalen
Adopted by the Committee at its 117th session (20 June -15 July 2016). See also the Committee’s
most recent concluding observations (CCPR/C/NOR/CO/6, para. 5) and the information provided
by the State Party in its follow-up reports (CCPR/C/NOR/CO/6/Add.1 and CCPR/C/NOR/CO/6/
Add.2).
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/opprettholder-tillatelse-til-gruvedrift-i-nussir-og-ulveryggen/id2524800/
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/2cb371d9a0204b19a8a914ae830a62ee/vedtak-kalvvatnan.pdf

74

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Johan Strömgren is a Sámi lawyer who grew up in Ammarnäs, on the Swedishside of Sápmi. He works at the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution in
Guovdageaidnu in Norway, and is also a LL.D. candidate at the Faculty of Law at
Uppsala University in Sweden.
Laila Susanne Vars is a Sámi lawyer from Guovdageaidnu, Norway. She holds
a PhD in international law from the University of Tromsø, Norway. She is currently Head of Department at the National Human Rights Institution of Norway,
Guovdageaidnu.

75

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONOf the more than 180 peoples inhabiting the territory of contemporary
Russia, 40 are officially recognised as “indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East”. These are groups of less than
50,000 members, perpetuating some aspects of their traditional ways oflife and inhabiting the Northern and Asian parts of the country. One moregroup is actively pursuing recognition, which it continues to be denied.
Together, they number about 260,000 individuals, less than 0.2 per centof Russia’s population. Ethnic Russians account for 78 per cent. Other
peoples, such as the five million Tatars, are not officially considered indigenous peoples, and their self-identification varies.
The latest official population figures from the 2010 national census do
not provide disaggregated data on the socio-economic status of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are predominantly rural dwellers while
Russia is, on the whole, a highly urbanised country.
Indigenous peoples are not recognised by Russian legislation assuch; however, the constitution and national legislation set out the rightsof “indigenous minority peoples of the North”, including rights to consultation and participation in specific cases. There is, however, no such concept as “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” enshrined in legislation. Russia has not ratified ILO Convention 169 and has not endorsed the UNDRIP. The country has inherited its membership of the major UN Covenants and Conventions from the Soviet Union: the ICCPR, ICESCR,ICERD, ICEDAW and ICRC. It also has ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) of the Council ofEurope.
There is a multitude of regional, local and interregional indigenousorganisations. RAIPON, the national umbrella organisation, operates under tight state control.

76

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Land and natural resource rights
2016 saw a series of cases triggered by a legal change in the federal Land Codex
that entered into force on 1 March 20151 (see The Indigenous World 2015). Thiscancelled an article that had stipulated that, in places of traditional residence andtraditional activities of indigenous peoples, local authorities should decide on the“prior determination of locations for the placing of objects” (i.e.: industrial facilities,
oil rigs, pipelines etc.) on the basis of the results of meetings or referenda of theindigenous and local communities.2 This means that local authorities have now lost
most of their legal leverage in terms of being able to protect indigenous lands fromincursions by business enterprises and other resource users. In 2015 and 2016, thisled to a number of cases of violations of indigenous peoples’ land tenure.

Reduction of indigenous peoples’ territories in the Far East
The law on Territories of Traditional Nature Use (TTNU) was passed in 2001. It is
the only federal law affording some form of recognition of indigenous peoples’
land tenure. However, the federal government has never confirmed any of theseveral hundred Territories of Traditional Nature Use (TTNU) created by regional
and local administrations, in cooperation with indigenous communities, despite
repeated calls from UN treaty bodies, indigenous organisations and human rights
experts to do so. The regionally- and locally-established TTNU therefore have no
guaranteed legal status and can be dismantled at any time. This is precisely what
happened in the Far Eastern region of Khabarovsk in 2016.
On 30 September 2016, without prior notification to the authorised representatives and organisations of indigenous peoples, the acting Governor of
Khabarovsk territory issued an order changing the boundaries of the 13 TTNU
that had previously been created by the regional or local authorities. This has
shrunk the TTNU area to less than half its prior size. The Khabarovsk Krai government said the decision was necessary because it had to allocate land for distribution under the so-called “Far Eastern Hectare” programme, a programme of
the Russian government aimed at providing the free distribution of one hectare ofland to each Russian citizen wishing to move to the Far East (see The Indigenous

1 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

1

2 Yamal LNG project2

3 Bikin National Park

3

THE ARCTIC

77

78

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

World 2016, page 44). In response, the indigenous peoples of Khabarovsk Kraithreatened a mass hunger strike.3

Controversy regarding Numto National Park
Lake Numto (“Heavenly Lake”) in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area is one of themost sacred places for the indigenous Khanty people.4 On 28 October 2016, thegovernment of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area approved changes to the boundaries of Numto National Park in order to accommodate the wishes of the regionaloil company “Surgutneftegaz” to drill for oil in the area. The areas taken out of thenational park are particularly precious in terms of biodiversity, indigenous cultural
heritage and livelihood. The area surrounding Lake Numto is an ancient place ofworship for three indigenous peoples, the Khanty, Nenets and Mansi, as the placeof the earthly incarnation of Num, the god of the heavens and creator of the earthand people.5 Back in February 2016, members of the Aborigen Forum, a networkof indigenous organisations and activists, wrote in an appeal to the governor:“Nothing can compensate for the loss of the pristine nature and the sacred atmosphere of the entire landscape around Lake Numto.”6 Unfortunately, this appeal did
not stop the decision to expand oil exploration in the pristine environment.

Oil and gas / Yamal and Taimyr
The Yamal Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) project (see The Indigenous World 2016)
neared its completion in 2016, amidst serious doubts as to whether and underwhat conditions Nenets reindeer herders had actually consented to the project.
The project will take away much of the dry elevated pastureland on Yamal’sNorthwest coast and threatens to severely reduce fish stocks. Yamal LNG is a
joint project of Russia’s second-largest gas producer, Novatek, France’s Total anda number of Chinese companies. The German export credit agency Hermes initially received an application for financial investment from a company involved in
the project but this was withdrawn in 2016.
Like other Arctic regions with subsoil resources extraction, Yamal is a no-go
area for civil society observers because it is classified as a border zone. Thismeans that foreigners are barred from entering without a special permit from theTHE ARCTIC

79

intelligence service, and even Russian civil society representatives have been
turned away when trying to access the region. Those observers who do make itto the peninsula find themselves under tight scrutiny when trying to interview locals and have great difficulty in reaching the affected reindeer herders because
the latter are usually at a great distance from the settlements. Locals are also
typically too intimidated to speak out.
In the summer, Yamal was shattered by an unprecedented outbreak of theanthrax virus, which claimed the lives of 1,200 deer and one boy. The outbreak
was blamed on the unusual and lasting heat in the Arctic that year, which allowed
the virus to escape from burial grounds and spread.7 As climate change-induced
warming is stronger in the Arctic than in any other region, the heatwave was
widely seen as an impact of this. The Government of Yamal, however, responded
to events by blaming the outbreak on reindeer overpopulation and announced its
intention to kill over a third of Yamal’s reindeer, without having consulted the affected reindeer herders. The slaughter was to take place within just one month.
At the same time, the environment ministry began handing out explorationand extraction licenses for gas deposits in the region. Minister Sergey Donskoy
said at a meeting of the President with the government: “The Resource potentialof the Arctic regarding natural gas (up to 20 billion cubic meters of proven reserves) with a unique degree of concentration requires special measures to encourage their fast development. Otherwise, Russia may not be able to use thispotential according to its own interests.” Accordingly, between June and September, Novatek received licenses for deposits in the region, including in the Syadorsky area of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area, and the Zapadno-Solpatinski,
Severo-Tanamski and Nyavuyakhski areas on Gydan Peninsula.
“The coincidence of the announcement of plans to urgently reduce the reindeer population in Yamal by over one third with the rapid issuing of licenses forgas extraction in the same region is cause for the greatest concern over the fateof the reindeer herders who continue their traditional family-based nomadic wayof life and have managed to defend this way of life throughout the Soviet era andup until today”, said Olga Murashko, a Russian anthropologist working with indigenous peoples. “This means that a huge number of nomads on Yamal and Gydan
peninsulas will lose their means of subsistence and the possibility to maintaintheir traditional way of life. Additionally, it is clear that within the short time frame
given, the indigenous reindeer herders cannot be properly consulted on the administration’s plans to annihilate a large number of reindeer”.8 By the end of the

80

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

year, the administration announced that 100,000 reindeer had been killed, which
is above the annual average but far from their target figure. What prevented theslaughter from affecting a much larger number was simply insufficient capacity.
Another region with a similar level of inaccessibility is Taimyr, to the east of
Yamal. The largest settlement in the region is the mining city of Norilsk, which isthe planet’s northernmost large city and one of the most polluted places on earth.
In September, Greenpeace reported on its attempts to inspect oil drilling sites on
Taimyr and how it was eventually denied access and turned back.9 At the sametime, Russian oil and gas companies are working in close cooperation with Western companies in most of these regions.

Fish administration prohibits use of traditional fishing gear
On 19 April 2016, the Ministry of Agriculture published Order 152, which prohibits
indigenous peoples from catching fish using net gear, with the exception of Pacific and Arctic salmon, between 1 May and 30 September each year. Net gearmeans literally everything, including the traditional fishing gear used by indigenous peoples such as fish traps. At the same time, fish nets remain permitted forcommercial fishing enterprises.
The indigenous people of Kovran, the main village of the Itelmen people on
Kamchatka, signed a joint appeal to the Governor of Kamchatka and the Federal
Government. On Monday 30 May, a village gathering was held in the Culture
House to protest at the actions of the Federal Fishery Agency, which allegedly
benefit the commercial fishing enterprises that are lobbying them. Participants
insisted that the local population had been using nets since before even the arrival of the Russians on the peninsula.
On 7 June, the Federation Council urgently convened a meeting of the Working Group on Improving the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East during
which representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture said that the changes to therules might be reviewed in the autumn. This would, however, have been too late
to resolve the acute food crisis. By the end of the year, the order had not beenrevised, although no legal action had been taken against indigenous people in
Kovran who had defied it. If the order is actively enforced, most indigenous peoples will lose their access to food.10

THE ARCTIC

81

Bikin National ParkThe 1,160,000-hectare Bikin National Park came into effect in 2016. The park had
been officially created on 3 November 2015. It is located in the basin of the Bikin
River, which has been nicknamed the “Russian Amazon”, and was created toprotect the Siberian tiger population. Its territory is traditionally inhabited and usedby the indigenous Udege, a people with a population of 1,500 that has been struggling for recognition of their land rights to this territory since the late 1980s. Whenthe creation of the National Park was originally announced the response wasrather mixed because indigenous peoples’ experience of national parks in Russia
is overwhelmingly negative. Indigenous peoples are usually excluded from their
management, denied access to their territories, denied the right to maintain theirtraditional subsistence activities or to engage in ethno-tourism, one of the few
potential sources of revenue. The announcement of Bikin Park had therefore
given rise to significant anxieties. In negotiations, the regional government
pledged to ensure that the federal legislation on protected areas would be
amended in order to enshrine indigenous land and participation rights in thepark’s statutes. An amendment to the federal law was not passed in 2016; however, the adopted statutes of the park guarantee that 68% of the park’s area will
be available for traditional use and that the area may not be reduced. In a major
breakthrough, in September, the government appointed Alexey Kudryavtsev, a
local person proposed by the Udege, as the park’s director who then went on toform the “Permanent indigenous peoples’ council under the national park’s administration”, the chair of which will automatically serve as the park’s vice director.
By the end of 2016, observers were therefore more optimistic with regard to Bikin,
although concerns remain regarding several other planned national parks, suchas on Kamchatka’s Commander Islands, Vaigach island in the Barents Sea, theShor National Park in Kemerovo region11 and the Udegeyskaya Legenda national
park12 in Primorye.

Criminalisation and stigmatisation as “foreign agents”
In December 2015, Sergey Nikiforov, leader of the Ivanovskoye Evenk community in Amur region who had spearheaded their resistance against Petropavlovsk,

82

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017a UK-based gold mining company that extracts gold on the Evenk territory, wassentenced to four years’ incarceration in a penal colony (see The Indigenous
World 2016). Several attempts were made during 2016 to put pressure on theauthorities to release him, including advocacy by the UK-based Business andHuman Rights Centre with the company and its shareholders and through theEuropean Court of Human Rights. This latter, however, refused to accept hiscase, as his lawyer reported in November. Amnesty International and the Memorial Centre have both identified Mr. Nikiforov as a prisoner of conscience.
The case of Sergey Kechimov, a Khanty reindeer herder and shaman charged
with attempted murder even though, according to his own testimony, he wasmerely fighting off stray dogs brought in by the oil company (see The Indigenous
World 2016) had not been finally adjudicated on by the end of 2016.
Another indigenous organisation, the Batani Foundation, was declared a “foreign agent” in March 2016 such that, three years after the adoption of the law on
foreign agents (see The Indigenous World 2013), most independent indigenousorganisations are now listed as foreign agents, together with 150 other civil society organisations. Organisations typically deem it too risky to continue once they
have been listed, and so the law has led to the disappearance of many independent NGOs that had often been around since the early 1990s.
On Sunday 11 December, internationally-renowned indigenous rights activist
Rodion Sulyandziga was detained and questioned for several hours by the Moscow Konkovo police department. He was about to chair an educational seminarwhen police officers came to his flat at 7:00 a.m., searched his apartment andseized his personal laptop. No charges were brought against Mr. Sulyandziga,
and so observers concluded that this had to be an act of deliberate intimidation.

International human rights mechanisms
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) continued
to consider the case of the Kazas village in Kemerovo region, South Siberia, in
2016, a case that had commenced with a submission to the Urgent Action mechanism in spring 2015. No decision was taken by the committee during 2016.13
However, in July, CERD received the 23-24 periodic report of the Russian government, which contains several pages of information on the Kazas case.14 This information has been deemed inaccurate by representatives of the village com-

THE ARCTIC

83

munity. In 2016, Russia also submitted its 6th periodic report to the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.15 It furthermore submitted its 4th reportunder the Council of Europe Framework Convention National Minorities (FCNM).16
The UN Development Programme has been working on a project aimed at
the conservation of biodiversity in Kemerovo region and Kazas under which i.a. aguidebook for “social dialogue” between coal mining companies and indigenous
communities was drafted. The Kazas community was very concerned at thisguidebook, for one thing because the INECA consultancy that was commissioned
to draft it usually works for mining companies and therefore has a track record ofacting in a way that is harmful to indigenous interests. Further, because it did notinclude key international standards such as FPIC and respect for customary land
rights and, finally, because the guidebook urges the consideration of international
standards explicitly for those cases where foreign businesses are involved, rather
than for all cases including those where no international or foreign creditor or
business partner requires them. 				Notes and references
1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8

Federal Act 171-FZ dated 23 June 2014.
Item 3 of Art. 31 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation before entry into force of thechanges made by 171-FZ.
Aborigeny Khabarovskogo kraia gotovy ob’javit’ massovuyu golodovku, 14 October 2016,
http://www.vostokmedia.com/r3/14-10-2016/n301596.html, in the case of one TTNU, the administration seems to have used the Far East Hectare campaign to illegally transfer the territory to alogging company, see “V Кhabarovskom krae territorii traditsionnogo prirodopol’zovaniya korennykh narodov iz’jali dlya lesozagotovok”, 18 December 2016, http://www.csipn.ru/glavnaya/novosti-regionov/2949-v-khabarovskom-krae-territorii-traditsionnogo-prirodopolzovaniya-korennykh-narodov-iz-yali-dlya-lesozagotovok.
The spiritual significance of Numto is also evidenced by the fact that, in the 1930s, state-sanctioned fishing was one of the causes of the Kazym rebellion, the last armed insurrection of
Khanty people against Soviet rule.
Order (postanovlenie) of the Government of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area No. 415-p, dated
28 October 2016.
Russia: “Heavenly lake”” Numto threatened by oil extraction, April 14 2016,
http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1325
The Guardian: Anthrax outbreak triggered by climate change kills boy in Arctic Circle https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/anthrax-outbreak-climate-change-arctic-circle-russia
Russia: Administration orders mass reindeer killing and fast-tracks gas extraction. September 17
2016, http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1396

84

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The recent experience of a Greenpeace Russia expedition to Taimyr is reported in the article“Ekologi grinpis rasskazali o masshtabnom sabotazhe i slezhke v ekspeditss na Taimyr”, dated 8
September 2016, http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2016/09/08/1548466.html
Russia bans indigenous peoples’ traditional fishing, June 14 2016,
http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1373
http://shorskynp.ru/
http://ud-legend.ru/
See the Early warning section of the CERD web page:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/EarlyWarningProcedure.aspx
http://undocs.org/CERD/C/RUS/23-24
http://undocs.org/E/C.12/RUS/6
Available from http://www.coe.int/en/web/minorities/russian-federation

Olga Murashko is a Russian anthropologist and one of the co-founders of theformer IWGIA Moscow. She works as a consultant for the Centre for the Supportof Indigenous Peoples of the North (CSIPN).
Johannes Rohr is a German historian who has been working with indigenous
peoples’ organisations in Russia since 1995, focusing on their economic, socialand cultural rights. He is currently working as a consultant for IWGIA and INFOE.

85

INUIT NUNANGAT (INUIT IN CANADA)
The majority of the 60,000 Inuit in Canada live in 53 communities in Inuit
Nunangat, the Inuit homeland encompassing the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik in Northern Quebec, and Nunatsiavut in northern Labrador. Inuit land claim agreements
shape the political contours of each Inuit region and form the basis of theInuit-to-Crown relationship. Through these constitutionally protectedagreements, Inuit co-manage with the federal government approximately
35 percent of Canada’s landmass and 50 percent of its coastline. Inuit are
represented at the national level by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and at theinternational level by the Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada. ITK’s boardof directors is made up of the leaders of the four regional Inuit rightsholding organizations: Inuvialuit Regional Corp., Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.,
Makivik Corp., and the Nunatsiavut government.

Election opens policy window for Inuit

I

nuit face severe social inequity in Canada, including limited access to healthcare,high rates of suicide, household crowding, food insecurity, and low educational
attainment. Inuit are unified politically at the national level and are taking action onpriorities that include preventing suicide among Inuit; improving access to appropriate and affordable housing; supporting Inuit self-determination in education; andenhancing the health and wellbeing of Inuit families and communities.1
The election in October 2015 of a new government and Prime Minister hadsignificant political implications for Inuit and Inuit Nunangat in 2016. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ran on a platform that promised a renewed relationship with
Indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.2 He declared in each of his mandate letters to cabinet ministers that no
relationship was more important to him and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples, and tasked each minister with contributing to the renewal of thisrelationship.

86

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

In December 2015, Trudeau announced that his government would partnerwith Indigenous communities, provinces and territories to implement the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action as a key step in advancing
reconciliation.3 The federal government announced in May that as part of thiscommitment it was now a full supporter of the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples “without qualification” and intended to adopt and implement
the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.4 ITK has called on
the federal government to take action on implementing the UN Declaration, including through national legislation.5
The Liberal government moved swiftly to distinguish itself from the previous
Conservative government through a “whole of government” approach to engaging with Indigenous peoples. This has translated into greater access to policymakers for Inuit as well as partnership on high-level policy files affecting Inuit.
Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn
Bennett met with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) board of directors in January
2016. Inuit leaders used this opportunity to share their expectations of the new
government.

Progress for Inuit Nunangat
Canada made progress in 2016 by including Inuit in some high-level policy discussions. ITK revised and contributed language on mental wellness, education
and Indigenous languages to the US-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy
and Arctic Leadership, released in March, which outlines shared policy priorities
between the two countries. ITK participated in First Ministers meetings in Marchand November to ensure that Canada’s climate policy reflects Inuit priorities. Indigenous peoples were excluded, however, from participating in the federal working groups that shaped the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, released in December 2016.
The Pan-Canadian Framework is Canada’s plan to meet its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.6 A central pillar of the framework is theintroduction of carbon pricing in each province and territory. Inuit leaders are concerned that carbon pricing will increase the cost of living in Inuit Nunangat in waysthat may worsen social and economic outcomes.

87

THE ARCTIC

1

1 Muskrat Falls

Persisting challenges
Follow-through by the federal government in terms of transforming engagementwith Inuit into policy action is a persistent challenge. For example, the Prime
Minister announced at an Assembly of First Nations gathering in December that
his government would introduce legislation to help protect and revitalize Indigenous languages. Inuit were blindsided by the announcement, only learning of theplanned legislation through the media.
Inuit advocacy led to progressive policy action on important Inuit priorities in2016. The 2016 Budget earmarked CAD 156.7 million over two years specificallyfor affordable housing in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut, Nunavik andNunatsiavut, providing Inuit with an unprecedented opportunity to self-determine
how federal housing funds were spent in these three regions.

Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy
The elevated rate of suicide among Inuit in Canada is the most urgent crisis facing the people and demands a national response. The four Inuit regions in Cana-88

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

da have rates of suicide that range from five to 25 times the rate of suicide for
Canada as a whole. In July, ITK released the National Inuit Suicide Prevention
Strategy to coordinate suicide prevention efforts among Inuit at the national, regional and community levels.7 The evidence-based strategy outlines actions
within six priority areas: creating social equity; creating cultural continuity; nurturing healthy Inuit children; ensuring access to a continuum of mental wellness
services for Inuit; healing unresolved trauma and grief; and mobilizing Inuit knowledge for resilience and suicide prevention. Minister of Health Jane Philpott announced during the release of the Strategy that Health Canada would support its
implementation with CAD 9 million over four years.
The year ended on an optimistic note for Inuit. In December, the federal government committed to creating a bilateral committee comprising Inuit leaders andkey cabinet ministers that will meet at least three times each year to develop
policy on shared priorities, and monitor progress going forward.

Nunavik
Thirty-nine percent of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat live in overcrowded homes.8 The
2016 federal budget earmarked CAD 50 million for social housing in Nunavik thatwas paid directly to the Nunavik region. Makivik Corp.’s Construction Division had
used the funds to build 144 housing units by the end of the year. Makivik, theKativik Regional Government, and the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau continued to lobby the Quebec government throughout the year to work in partnershipwith the region to implement long-term solutions that help remedy Nunavik’s
worsening housing crisis.
The Qarmaapik Family House opened its doors in March in the community ofKangiqsualujjuaq, providing board and lodging for children and parents in emergency situations. The overarching goal of the Qarmaapik Family House is to improve parenting skills and reduce the number of children going to foster homes
outside of the community. Staff also offer counselling and various social and cultural activities for parents, families and the community. It was launched through apartnership between the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services,
the Kativik Regional Government, and the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau. The
Qarmaapik Family House received a CAD 700,000 Arctic Inspiration Prize in December to continue its programming.

THE ARCTIC

89

In November, the Cost of Living in Nunavik Research Report was released
examining the impacts of cost of living on different income groups. The study was
initiated by Makivik, the Kativik Regional Government, and the Quebec government working in partnership with Université Laval. The survey documents thedisproportionate economic burden facing low-income households, which spend
over 70 percent of their income on food and shelter compared to high-income
households, where it is around 50 percent. The results of the study will support
efforts to implement long-lasting solutions to the high cost of living in Nunavik.

Inuvialuit Settlement Region
In November, Michael McLeod, Member of Parliament for Northwest Territories,
together with Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian
Coast Guard, announced the establishment of the Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam Marine Protected Area in the Beaufort Sea near the community of Paulatuk, Northwest Territories. The 2,400 square kilometers of ocean territory will safeguard key
summering habitat for belugas and is part of Canada’s conservation goal of protecting 10 percent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas by 2020.

Nunavut
The Hamlet of Clyde River’s Supreme Court challenge against the National Energy Board’s decision to allow a group of companies to conduct seismic testing in
Baffin Bay and Davis Strait was the most significant political development for
Nunavut in 2016. The case involves the Hamlet of Clyde River as plaintiff contesting the National Energy Board’s claim that it met its constitutional duty to consult
with Inuit prior to granting the permits.
The Government of Nunavut led public hearings in 2016 to gather feedbackon the territory’s Education Act. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), the Inuit rightsholding organization for Nunavut Inuit, has sharply criticized the proposed amendments to the 2008 legislation for limiting local control and reneging on the law’scommitment to provide Inuit language of instruction throughout the primary andsecondary grades.9

90

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

New tripartite negotiations on devolution began in July between NTI, the Government of Nunavut, and the federal government, which are intended to bringabout the transfer of Crown lands and resources from the federal government toNunavut. Formal devolution negotiations with the previous government took
place in 2014 and 2015 but Ottawa’s hard line on issues such as marine areas
and revenue-sharing curtailed the discussion.

Nunatsiavut
The controversial Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project overshadowed political developments in Nunatsiavut throughout the year. The project includes constructionof an 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam by Nalcor Energy, the province’s crownenergy corporation, on the lower Churchill River in Labrador, and more than 1,600
km of associated transmission lines that will deliver electricity to homes and businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. However the Nunatsiavut government isdeeply concerned that the dam will cause methylmercury contamination in Lake
Melville, an ecologically significant waterway and Inuit harvesting site. The Nunatsiavut government has insisted that fully clearing the reservoir of trees and soil
before flooding takes place is necessary to reduce methylmercury contamination
downstream.
Concerned members of surrounding communities blocked access to the site
in October, leading to a negotiated agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Indigenous representational organizations, including
the Nunatsiavut government. Under the terms of the agreement, Nalcor has beenordered to release water from the reservoir in the spring of 2017, after initial flooding, in order to facilitate further mitigation, which the provincial government says
may include clearing trees, vegetation and/or soil from the reservoir. The four
parties to the agreement have also agreed to establish an Independent Expert
Advisory Committee, which will recommend options for reducing the possible
health risks of methylmercury contamination.10 Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Dwight Ball has asserted that his government would reserve the right to a
final say on any recommendations the committee puts forward. Muskrat Falls is
expected to start generating power in 2019, with full power coming on-stream in
the second quarter of 2020. 					THE ARCTIC

91

Notes and references
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2016-2019 Strategy and Action Plan, http://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ITK_2016-2019-Strategy-Plan_E.pdf
2 Liberal Party of Canada, “A New Nation-to-Nation Process,” https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/anew-nation-to-nation-process/3 Canada, “Statement by Prime Minister on release of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” 15 December 2016, http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/12/15/statementprime-minister-release-final-report-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
4 “Fully adopting UNDRIP: Minister Bennett’s speech at the United Nations,” Northern Public Affairs, 11 May 2016, http://www.northernpublicaffairs.ca/index/fully-adopting-undrip-ministerbennetts-speech/.
5 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Position Paper: Implementing the UN Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada (Ottawa, ON: 2017), https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ITK-Position-Paper-Implementing-the-UN-Declaration-on-the-Rights-ofIndigenous-Peoples-English.pdf
6 Government of Canada, The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change,
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/environment/documents/weather1/20170106-1-en.
pdf
7 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy (Ottawa, ON: 2016), https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ITK-National-Inuit-Suicide-Prevention-Strategy-2016.
pdf
8 Shirley Li and Kristina Smith, Inuit: Fact Sheet for Inuit Nunangat (Statistics Canada, 29 March
2016), http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-656-x/89-656-x2016014-eng.pdf
9 Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., “NTI: Hiring of Inuktut-speaking teachers key to education,” 20 October
2016, http://www.tunngavik.com/blog/news/nti-hiring-of-inuktut-speaking-teachers-key-to-education/
10 Garrett Barry, “N.L. government, Labrador leaders make ‘significant’ Muskrat Falls progress,”
CBC News, 25 October 2016, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/dwightball-comments-meeting-1.3821277
1

Tim Aqukkasuk Argetsinger is Executive Political Advisor to Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national representational organization for Inuit in Canada.

NORTH AMERICA

94

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

CANADAThe indigenous peoples of Canada are collectively referred to as “Aboriginal peoples”. The Constitution Act, 1982 of Canada recognizes threegroups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians, Inuit and Métis. According to the2011 National Household Survey, 1,400,685 people in Canada had an
Aboriginal identity, representing 4.3% of the total Canadian population.
851,560 people identified as a First Nations person, representing 60.8%of the total Aboriginal population and 2.6% of the total Canadian population.
First Nations (referred to as “Indians” in the Constitution and generally registered under Canada’s Indian Act) are a diverse group, representing more than 600 First Nations and more than 60 languages. Around
55% live on-reserve and 45% reside off-reserve in urban, rural, special
access and remote areas. The Métis constitute a distinct Aboriginal nation, numbering 451,795 in 2011, many of whom live in urban centres,
mostly in western Canada.
Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing
Aboriginal and Treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples. The Supreme Court
has called the protection of these rights “an important underlying constitutional value” and “a national commitment”. Canada’s highest Court has
called for reconciliation of “pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty”.1 Canada has never proved it has legal or dejure sovereignty over indigenous peoples’ territories, which suggests that
Canada is relying on the racist doctrine of discovery.2
In 2010, the Canadian government announced its endorsement of theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September
2007. This decision came as a reversal of Canada’s earlier opposition to
the Declaration, which it had pursued together with Australia, the USA
and New Zealand, who have all since revised their attitude towards the
UNDRIP. Canada has not ratified ILO Convention No 169.

95

NORTH AMERICA

3

1

2

1 Peace River Valley			
2 Muskrat Fall
3 Great Bear Lake / Tsa Tué Int. Biosphere Reserve

UN Declaration implementation
2016 marks the first full year of the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau. The previous federal government had officially endorsed the UN Declaration in 2010. However, to demonstrate its strong commitment to implementation, the current government sent a major delegation to the UN Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues last May. The Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of
Canada spoke at the opening ceremonies and the Minister of Indigenous andNorthern Affairs addressed the plenary the next day. Both delivered the message
that Canada fully endorsed the UN Declaration without qualification and, in fullpartnership with indigenous peoples, would implement it.
In addition to these international political statements, these key Cabinet Ministers, as well as the Prime Minister, have repeatedly committed and recommitted
to implementation of the UN Declaration. In particular, the government highlighted
four important principles governing its relationships with indigenous peoples –96

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. Unfortunately, theyear ended with the appearance of little more than political rhetoric – and very
little concrete work to put action to the words. Indigenous peoples and their allies
are growing impatient with the slow pace of substantive action. It would seem
that, even with a supportive government at the federal level, implementation remains a formidable challenge for the state. Causes for this include the entrenchment of colonialism in the bureaucracy, pressures from the corporate sector, as
well disputes within government on how implementation might be advanced. The
government will need to tackle these and other challenges if it is to maintain credibility and honour the commitments it has made.
At year-end, the Prime Minister announced permanent bilateral mechanisms,with the national indigenous political bodies for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis todevelop policy on shared priorities, and make concrete progress on reconciliation.

Bill C-262
The Indigenous World 2016 reported last year on private member’s Bill C-641, the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, introduced byCree Member of Parliament, Romeo Saganash. This bill was defeated by the previous
federal government. However, in 2016, opposition MP Saganash introduced Bill
C-262,3 An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The preamble to Bill C-262 explicitly rejects colonialism. Instead, it calls for acontemporary approach based on justice, democracy, equality, non-discrimination,
good governance and respect for human rights. The bill also repudiates doctrines ofsuperiority, in the same language as in the UN Declaration.
If adopted, Bill C-262 would provide a much-needed legislative framework for
implementing the UN Declaration. The bill establishes two collaborative processes
with indigenous peoples - one to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with
the UN Declaration and the other to develop and implement a national action plan toachieve the objectives of the Declaration.
While the current government appears to support key elements of Bill C-262, it
remains to be seen if it will vote in favour of a non-liberal bill. If the government chooses not to support it, it will need to explain how such action is consistent with the mandates given to Ministers to implement the UN Declaration without qualification.

NORTH AMERICA

97

National inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women andgirls
After many years of national and international calls, Canada finally launched anational inquiry into the tragedy of murdered and missing indigenous women andgirls.4 A thorough process was undertaken to help frame the inquiry, and it was
officially launched on 1 September 2016. The commission is to recommend actions to remove the systemic causes of violence and increase the safety of indigenous women and girls. It will also recommend ways to honour and commemorate missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
It is mandated to set up an inquiry process that is informal and trauma informed; respects the individuals, families and communities concerned; respects
the diverse cultural, linguistic and spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples; promotes and advances reconciliation; contributes to public awareness of the causes
and solutions for ending violence; and provides opportunities for individuals,
families and community members to share their experiences and views, including
their views on recommendations for increasing safety and preventing or eliminating violence.5
Recommendations will be made to the government through an interim reportby 1 November 2017 and a final report by 1 November 2018. Indigenous communities and political organizations have welcomed the inquiry but have also indicated concerns at the slow start and issues have been raised with regard totransparency.

Child welfare
The child welfare case was reported on in previous issues of The Indigenous
World. On 26 January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) issued
its ruling that the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Program,provided by the Government of Canada through the Department of Indian andNorthern Affairs (INAC), had denied child welfare services to many First Nations
children and families living on reserves. The CHRT found that the funding mechanisms used by FNCFS incentivized removing First Nations’ children from theirfamilies. Further, INAC’s narrow interpretation and implementation of a child-first98

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

principle (Jordan’s Principle) resulted in service gaps, delays or denials, and overall adverse impacts on First Nations children and families on-reserve.
This tremendous victory for First Nations children came after the federal government had spent over 3 million dollars in unsuccessful attempts to get the casedismissed on technical grounds. The complaint was initially filed in 2007 by theFirst Nations Child and Family Caring Society (Caring Society) and the Assemblyof First Nations (AFN).6
Since 26 January 2016, despite welcoming the decision and vowing to takeaction, the Government of Canada has failed to comply - and has been issued
with three compliance orders by the CHRT. A second complaint was filed at the
CHRT by the Caring Society and the AFN on 16 December 2016, noting Canada’s failure to comply. The Caring Society also submitted the same issue of noncompliance regarding First Nations child welfare to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 9 December 2016.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Canada had to appear before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(IACHR) at the Organization of American States (OAS) with regard to both theissues of violence against indigenous women and girls, as well as the ongoingdiscrimination against indigenous children with regard to service delivery on First
Nations’ reserves. These reviews at the IACHR speak to the egregious nature ofrights violations that Canada has not only failed to address adequately but also
continues to perpetuate in many ways. While the federal government has takensome measures to address these longstanding and serious situations, there is an
ongoing need to pursue international bodies’ involvement in order to pressure
Canada to take concrete and effective actions.

Resource development
Key decisions to proceed with natural resource development projects have been
made this year in Canada. These projects will have disproportionate impacts on
indigenous peoples across the continent. In late November, the Government of
Canada approved the controversial Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline (car-NORTH AMERICA

99

rying bitumen from Alberta to the British Columbia coastal waters) and the Enbridge Line 3 (carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin, USA) – while continuing toclaim to be a “climate leader”.
After immense public opposition and activism from indigenous peoples in theaffected region, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline was finally rejected.
However, in the same territory, a proposed liquefied natural gas plant has been
given the green light.
While the economic benefits of these developments are appealing, especiallyto regions in economic distress, there is clearly no widespread consent for the
projects. Indeed, many indigenous people have stated that these approvals are acomplete betrayal by a government that promised to be a leader in addressing
climate change and engage in more meaningful processes with peoples affectedby resource development projects.
It remains to be seen how the Government of Canada will reconcile its commitment to the UN Declaration – including FPIC – and its clear desire to move oiland gas to markets both foreign and domestic.

Muskrat Falls
The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project at Muskrat Falls, Labrador has been
contentious since construction began in 2013. Recent studies by Harvard University scientists7 show that, if the dam reservoir is not fully cleared of vegetation
before flooding begins, there will likely be a significant increase in methylmercury
in the watershed.8
Indigenous and non-indigenous people united to call on the federal and provincial governments to prevent this contamination and the resulting effect on fish
and animals, as well as the potential devastation to traditional lifestyles.
Actions in 2016 against the flooding of Muskrat Falls included a two-weekhunger strike, the occupation of the Muskrat Falls construction site by 50 land
protectors, and demonstrations attended by hundreds of people in Labrador andcities across the country. This pressure led to an agreement between the provincial government and indigenous leaders that promised greater consultation. Despite the united efforts of Innu, Inuit, Métis, and settlers in Labrador, however,flooding of the Muskrat Falls reservoir began on 5 November 2016.

100

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The point of no return – the Site C dam
Amnesty International released its report The Point of No Return: The Human
Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada Threatened by the Site C Dam.9 The
Peace River Valley in north-eastern British Columbia is a unique ecosystem andone of the very few areas in the region that has thus far been largely preserved
from large-scale resource development. First Nations and Métis families andcommunities rely on the valley for hunting and fishing, gathering berries and sacred medicine, and holding ceremonies. Their ancestors are buried in this land.
The proposed eight billion dollar plus Site C hydroelectric dam would flood
more than 80 km of the river valley, stretching west from Fort St. John. The severe
impact on indigenous peoples is beyond dispute. A joint federal provincial environmental impact assessment concluded that the dam would “severely undermine” the use of the land, would make fishing unsafe for at least a generation, andwould submerge burial grounds and other crucial cultural and historical sites.
The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations have gone to court toprotect their traditional lands. Their struggle has been supported by the Union of
BC Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations and many others - including local
farmers and other landowners in the Peace River Valley.10

New American Declaration
The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted byconsensus of the OAS in June 2016. Indigenous peoples in the Americas now
have two declarations that specifically affirm and elaborate upon their humanrights and related state obligations.
This new American Declaration includes some provisions that fall below thestandards in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and otherprovisions that go beyond. In addition, both declarations include provisions thatthe other does not have. In any particular situation, the minimum standard is set
by whichever is the higher in these two human rights instruments.11

NORTH AMERICA

101

Tsá Tué Biosphere
In March 2016, the Tsá Tué International Biosphere Reserve in the Northwest
Territories received formal UNESCO ratification. This encompasses Great Bear
Lake, the eighth-largest lake in the world, and its surrounding watershed. The Tsá
Tué is the largest biosphere reserve in North America and the first such project tobe led entirely by indigenous peoples at their express request. The Biosphere is
the homeland of the Sahtuto’ine people and they are leading the management
plan, in cooperation with a range of agencies and organizations.

Reconciliation
Reconciliation is a journey not a step in time. The work is often one step forward
and two back. There is no question that some elements in Canada are not interested in the affirmation of indigenous peoples’ human rights. Indigenous peoples
and their allies face many obstacles and have no room to relax in the work.
In addressing Prince William and Princess Catherine during the royal visit,
Grand Chief Edward John reminded them of the history of the province of “British
Columbia”:
In the mid-1800s, colonial authorities, without our ancestors’ knowledge,
consent or agreement, unilaterally took all indigenous lands on behalf of
the Crown and called it Crown lands. The land became known as “British
Columbia”.
The fair and equitable resolution of this issue, the “land question” including recognition, restitution, redress and compensation remains outstanding. Current Crown approaches of denial and delay cannot continue. We
cannot hope that our future means more litigation or protests on the land.
In a constitutional democracy, where the rule of law is an important foundation, we expect more. 				102IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references
1

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. The British Crown is the symbolic head of state andthe term refers to government. The federal government is the Crown in right of Canada and eachof the provincial governments is the Crown in right of the province.
2 See Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery
on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress. UN Doc.
E/C.19/2014/3 (20 February 2014) Study by Forum member Edward John, available at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/241/84/PDF/N1424184.pdf?OpenElement
3 See An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (Private Member’s Bill C-262), House of Commons, 1stsess., 42nd Parl., First reading (tabled by Romeo Saganash, 21 April 2016). The short title is
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
4 Information on the inquiry can be found at: http://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca
5 https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1470140972428/1470141043933
6 For further information on this case, https://fncaringsociety.com/i-am-witness
7 See “Future Impacts of Hydroelectric Power Development on Methylmercury Exposures of Canadian Indigenous Communities”, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b04447
8 Ryan S.D. Calder et al, “Future Impacts of Hydroelectric Power Development on Methylmercury
Exposures of Canadian Indigenous Communities” in Environmental Science and Technology.
2016. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b04447
9 Amnesty International, The Point of No Return: The Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples in
Canada Threatened by the Site C Dam. Available in English, French and Spanish, http://www.
amnesty.ca/our-work/campaigns/site-c
10 This description courtesy of Amnesty International. See their report for further information.
11 For a full analysis see Paul Joffe, Advancing Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights: New Developments in the Americas. 2016

Jennifer Preston is the Program Coordinator for Indigenous Rights for Canadian
Friends Service Committee (Quakers). Her work focuses on international anddomestic strategies relating to indigenous peoples’ human rights and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She
works in close partnership with indigenous peoples’ and human rights representatives. She is the co-editor, together with Jackie Hartley and Paul Joffe, of Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, Hope andAction, Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2010.
Special thanks to Paul Joffe and Rachel Singleton-Polster for assistance withthis article.

103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Approximately 6.6 million people in the U.S., or 2% of the total population,
identify as Native American or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with another ethnic identity. Around 2.5 million, or 0.8% of the population, identify as American Indian or Alaska Native alone. 567 tribal entities
were federally recognized in May 2016, and most of these have recognized national homelands. 23% of the Native population lives in American
Indian areas or Alaska Native villages. The state with the largest Native
population is California; the place with the largest Native population is
New York City.
While socioeconomic indicators vary widely across different regions,the poverty rate for those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native alone is around 27%.
The United States announced in 2010 that it would support the UNDRIP as moral guidance after voting against it in 2007. The United States
has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169.
Recognized Native nations are sovereign but wards of the state. The
federal government mandates tribal consultation but has plenary powerover indigenous nations. American Indians in the United States are generally American citizens.

Presidential electionIn November, Donald Trump (R) was elected the next president of the UnitedStates. As a businessman with no prior political experience, it is not clear what
his election might mean for Native peoples; indigenous issues were completely
absent from his campaign. In December, however, members of Trump’s Native
American Coalition, one of his campaign support groups, proposed privatizing
Native lands that hold natural resources, thereby removing federal oversight andregulations. Trump has nominated Ryan Zinke (R), a congressman from Montana, to lead the Department of the Interior, which oversees the Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA). Zinke has opposed the sale of federal lands to states, worked on the

104

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Blackfeet Water Compact which passed Congress in December, and promotes theexport of Montana coal, much of it from the Crow Reservation (see further below).

Obama enacts measures before leaving office
In December, President Obama enacted two important measures protecting landscapes from energy development. Together with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, he announced that the majority of Chukchi and Beaufort Seas would be indefinitely closed to off-shore drilling, although this decision is subject to scientificreview every five years. The Arctic Slope Regional Council (ASRC), representing
Inupiaq interests, reacted strongly to the decision, and vowed to “fight this legacy
move by the outgoing president with every resource at our disposal”.1 In November, the administration had canceled off-shore leases in the area until 2022, after
the ASRC acquired leases that Royal Dutch Shell no longer wanted.
In another decision, Obama declared the Bears Ears area in Utah a National
Monument. This area holds sacred sites for the Ute, Navajo, Hopi and Zuni tribes.
It was the subject of the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act, a proposal by Representative Rob Bishop (R) of Utah, which would have transferred management of lands
included in the Ute Tribe’s reservation to the state, protected some of the area, andopened up large areas to energy development. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, consisting of the Hopi, Navajo, Uintah and Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, andZuni nations, had proposed the creation of a National Monument in October 2015.
Obama also established a Bears Ears Commission, made up of tribal nations, toadvise on the management of the Monument. Senator Mike Lee (R) of Utah has
stated that he “will work tirelessly with Congress and the incoming Trump administration to honor the will of the people of Utah and undo this designation”.2
Just as these two decisions could potentially be undone by the Trump administration,
so too will the fate of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the most famous point of contention in2016, depend on whether or not Donald Trump intervenes in regulatory processes.

Standing Rock and the Dakota Access Pipeline
In April, some people started to set up a camp on Standing Rock reservation in
North Dakota, protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project to carry oil from

105

NORTH AMERICA

California

Pechanga				Pine Ridge Sioux
Rosebud Sioux
Cheyenne River Sioux
Yankton Sioux

Oklahoma		

Choctaw
Chickasaw

North Dakota		Standing Rock Sioux
Three Affiliated Tribes (Fort Berthold)

Idaho

Nez Perce

Washington
		
		
		

YakamaUmatilla
Colville
Lummi

Arizona		

NavajoHopi

New Mexico

Zuni

Utah
		

Uintah andOuray Ute

Colorado

Ute Mountain Ute

South Dakota

Washington, D.C. /AlaskaShishmareff (Inupiat)
		Akiachak Native Community		
Chilkoot Indian Association
		
Chalkyitsik Village
		Tuluksak Native Community		Arctic Slope Regional Council (Inupiaq)
Nebraska
		

Omaha
Iowa

Minnesota /Montana				

CrowBlackfeet
Northern Cheyenne

106

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

western North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to Illinois. Initially, the protests were meant to safeguard the location of some burial sites on the reservation. The pipeline was not to cross reservation territory but to pass within a few
hundred meters north of the Cannonball River, the reservation boundary, before
crossing the Missouri River, here dammed as Lake Oahe. However, the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe had also been opposing the pipeline route for several years.
The confluence of the Cannonball and the Missouri is host to several sites ofgreat cultural and spiritual importance, and the tribe draws its drinking water from
Lake Oahe and feared that a spill would have grave consequences.3 In July, theStanding Rock Sioux Tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for ignoringlaws requiring consultation with tribes over sacred sites and for not consultingwith the tribe before allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. The Corps controls
the land around the lake. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe joined this suit later;
the Yankton Sioux Tribe filed a separate lawsuit. After the lawsuit was filed, many
people came to join the camp, and most camped on Corps lands. Eventually,
three different camps with thousands of people were set up. The Corps allowed
them to stay on its land as long as there was no damage but the tribal government
paid for sanitation and other services. In August, Dakota Access (which owns
75% of the pipeline) sued Standing Rock for blocking construction of the project,
and the state of North Dakota withdrew the water tanks and trailers that had provided drinking water to the camps and declared a state of emergency, which allowed it to ask for additional police officers and equipment from other states. Overthe next months, police officers from Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin andIndiana lent their support. The North Dakota National Guard also began to operate a road block on Highway 1806, the road between Bismarck/Mandan andStanding Rock reservation. The International Indian Treaty Council (an international indigenous peoples’ organization) and Standing Rock urged the UN HighCommissioner on Human Rights to look into the situation.
At the end of August, Tim Mentz, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, surveyed a segment of the pipeline route at theinvitation of a landowner. He filed a deposition with the court handling the lawsuiton 2 September, noting that he found several important cultural sites that did notappear in the surveys conducted for Dakota Access. This area was on private
land, so the federal government had no control over it. On 3 September, Dakota
Access removed the topsoil from this portion of the pipeline route and graded it.
Protesters tried to halt the activity, and unlicensed security guards working for

NORTH AMERICA

107

Dakota Access allowed their dogs to attack the people. On 4 September, Standing Rock and Cheyenne River filed a request for a temporary restraining order tohalt all work on the pipeline within 20 miles of Lake Oahe. During these events, it
became obvious that while Dakota Access needed no federal permits to build on
private lands, it had not secured the permit from the Corps to drill the pipeline
under Lake Oahe to cross the Missouri River. The court concluded that “Dakota
Access has demonstrated that it is determined to build its pipeline right up to thewater’s edge regardless of whether it has secured a permit to then build across.
Like the Corps, this Court is unable to stop it from doing so”.4 While the court
denied the request, a few hours later, the Departments of the Army, of Justice,and of the Interior released a joint statement declaring that the army would “notauthorize constructing the Dakota Access Pipeline on Corps land bordering or
under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of
its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site.” They also called for a voluntary halt to construction within 20 miles of the lake, and government-to-government consultations with tribes on the existing framework for consultations on
cultural resources.5 On 22 September, the Special Rapporteur on the rights ofindigenous peoples asked the United States to halt construction of the pipeline.
Protests continued, not only near the pipeline route and in North Dakota but
also in Washington, D.C. and other cities. On 23 October, protesters erected acamp on the direct route of the pipeline, about 2.5 miles north of the reservation,
on private land. At the same time they built three road blockades, two of them on
Highway 1806. The day before, police had arrested over 100 activists who were
trying to stop work at a construction site. On 27 October, police and National
Guard with armored vehicles cleared that camp site and the road blockades in a
multi-hour operation and arrested over 140 protesters. After this violence, Grand
Chief Edward John, member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,
traveled to North Dakota to observe the situation and collect testimonies. He
urged the Special Rapporteur to visit and voiced strong concerns about the consequences of potential oil spills, the lack of consultation, and especially the escalating violence. On 14 November, the Corps released a statement that the “Armyha[d] determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted” and thatit “continue[d] to welcome any input that the Tribe believes is relevant to the proposed pipeline crossing or the granting of an easement.” During these consultations, construction on the crossing could not occur.6 Protests and arrests still
continued and, on 20 November, police used water cannon to spray activists in

108

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017sub-freezing weather. A young woman was seriously injured by a small explosionin the conflict. On 28 November, the Corps declared that people camping on its
land would be trespassing, although it would not try to actively remove them. Thiswas followed quickly by an evacuation order by the state governor, who cited an
approaching blizzard as a safety risk. The state also considered blocking waterand food from reaching the camp but reconsidered.
On 4 December, the Army announced that it “will not grant an easement tocross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record” but would
engage in a review of alternative locations, a discussion of potential risks of oil
spills, and a review of treaty rights.7 Dakota Access’ parent company, Energy
Transfer Partners, denounced the decision as a “purely political action”, “the latest in a series of overt and transparent political actions by an administration which
has abandoned the rule of law in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency” and vowed to ensure “that this vital project is brought
to completion and fully expect to complete construction of the pipeline without any
additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe.”8 North Dakota Congressman
Kevin Cramer (R) wrote that he was “encouraged we will restore law and ordernext month when we get a President who will not thumb his nose at the rule oflaw.”9 North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D) stated that the project “remains
in limbo. The incoming administration already stated its support for the project”10and Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) tweetedthat the decision was “big-government decision-making at its worst. I look forward
to putting this anti-energy presidency behind us.” The president and CEO of theAmerican Petroleum Institute asked President-elect Trump “to restore the rule oflaw in our nation’s regulatory regime and make the approval of the Dakota Access
Pipeline a top priority when he takes office.”11 Dakota Access insists that it has all
the permits to complete its work; the Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,
Dave Archambault, has said that “this is far from over”. In light of this, the Standing Rock, Cheyenne River and Yankton Sioux tribes appeared before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights on 11 December to “call on the UnitedStates to adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to the Tribes,
their members, and others resulting from the ongoing and imminent constructionof the Dakota Access Pipeline (‘DAPL’), and from the harassment and violence
being perpetrated against people gathered in prayer and protest in opposition to
DAPL”.12

NORTH AMERICA

109

Pipelines, natural resources and conflicts
The events at Standing Rock, where militarized police with armored vehicles,
mace canisters, bean-bag and rubber projectiles, and Long-Range Acoustic Devices faced dedicated activists who blocked roads, burned cars, and occupied
land, show that the media still pays attention to Native issues mostly when violent
conflict erupts. At the same time, the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and the
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska received almost no attention when they raised similar
concerns over cultural sites and a lack of consultation in the Dakota Access routein Iowa and South Dakota.
The Three Affiliated Tribes on the Fort Berthold reservation in North Dakota,in the meantime, were prevented from interfering in the construction of the Sacagawea Pipelines under Lake Sakakawea by court order in September. The coming months will show whether the new administration will interfere in the Environmental Impact Statement process initiated by the Corps, or whether the publicawareness raised will create enough political pressure to stop the project altogether.
The Sacagawea Pipelines case shows that Native agendas are complex.
One of the partners in the pipeline is Greywolf Midstream, a company owned by
the tribe itself. The complexity of weighing economic development against ecological protection was also showcased in May, when the Corps of Engineers denied a permit for a coal shipping terminal on Puget Sound in Washington, citing
the fishing rights of the Lummi Nation. The Gateway Pacific Terminal was supposed to export 48 million tons of coal per year, mostly from the Crow reservationin Montana. The nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, was a staunch
supporter of the terminal, raising speculation that the decision could be overturned under the new administration. He also opposes a January moratorium on
new coal leases on federal lands, which affects mostly the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming and Montana, home to the Crow and Northern Cheyenne tribes. Cloud
Peak Energy’s Big Metal Mine is expected to pay the Crow tribe USD 10 million
in the first five years once it opens. In April, a coalition of environmental groups,
including Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment (CARE), filed a lawsuit
against the federal government for extending operations at the Navajo Mine andthe Four Corners Power Plant in Arizona. The Navajo Mine is operated by Navajo Transitional Energy Company, wholly owned by the Navajo Nation, which final-

110

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ized the purchase of the mine from BHP Billiton in July. The mine provided
USD 35 million to the nation’s general fund in 2015.

Land and water rights
In March, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on Nebraska v Parker,
a suit by the state of Nebraska claimed that the village of Pender was not situatedon Omaha reservation territory. The Omaha Tribe had attempted to regulate liquor sales in Pender according to its beverage ordinance. The Supreme Court
decided that although parts of the Omaha reservation were sold to non-Indians in
1882, this did not diminish the reservation; however it did not render a verdict onwhether this means that the tribe may tax retailers in Pender.
In addition to the Blackfeet Water Compact, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nations Act signed by President Obama in December included
water settlements for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in California andbetween the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and the state of Oklahoma. This isa dispute between Oklahoma City and the Choctaw/Chickasaw over who has theright to the water. The city projects that it needs more water, and the lake is
within the tribes’ territories; the southern plains, like many other areas in the US,
has a water shortage. Under the agreement, spurred by a 2011 lawsuit, the state
controls the water rights for the traditional territories of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in Oklahoma. However, the tribes are guaranteed specific stream
flows and water levels at Lake Sardis, from which Oklahoma City wants to draw
water.
In August, the state of Alaska dropped its appeal against the Bureau of IndianAffairs’ decision to allow Alaska tribes to put their lands into trust. In July, a federal court in Washington, D.C. had ruled in favor of the Akiachak Native Community, the Chilkoot Indian Association, the Chalkyitsik Village Council and the
Tuluksak Native Community, who were suing the Department of the Interior.
Tribes can now apply to have their lands transferred to the federal government,
which will hold them in trust for them. This provides protection of titles from seizure for debt, protects them from state taxation, and grants greater jurisdiction.
The first application came in October from the Craig Tribal Association, and concerned a one-acre parcel of land.

NORTH AMERICA

111

HealthIn July, emergency room services at the Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital on
Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota reopened after a seven-month closure.
Emergency services were shut down because an inspection of the hospital foundconditions there to be life-threatening. Patients had to be diverted to a facility 50
miles away, and at least six died during transport. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe filed
a lawsuit against IHS in April. In October, the Office of Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services released two reports on IHS hospitals. They concluded that there was limited oversight of these hospitals and their
quality of care. In addition, despite increasing numbers of users, two IHS Area
Offices had “reported losing over 50 percent of their staff positions in recent
years”. Most providers at one hospital “explained that the hospital’s providers areprimarily midlevel providers and family practice physicians who are not equipped
to provide specialty care”, so that patients are often referred to non-IHS providers.
Theoretically, the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program would pay for these
services but the program has been underfunded for decades and only pays for
medical emergencies. Patients from IHS hospitals that are isolated often have totravel 100 to 200 miles for post-acute care or to see specialists. In addition, IHS
hospitals showed a 33 percent vacancy rate for physicians. More than half of IHS
hospitals reported “that old or inadequate physical environments challenged theirability to provide quality care” and more than two-thirds are too small.13

Youth
In October, President Obama signed into law the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter
Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act, which creates a Commission on
Native Children. This commission will conduct a comprehensive study of federal,state and tribal programs, on the impact of jurisdiction on child welfare, and on
barriers to Native children’s success. It will then make recommendations for improvements and develop plans for federal policy related to Native children. The
issues to be studied include Indian education, juvenile justice programs, andhealth care issues. The lack of well-being of Native youth in many communities ishighlighted by high suicide rates and other social issues. In October, three judges

112

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

had their positions terminated on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota after theyordered the return of a boy to his mother who is accused of then beating him to death.
In December, new rules went into effect for the Indian Child Welfare Act(ICWA). The main change is that state courts now have to ask, in every childcustody hearing, whether the child or its parents are American Indian, and whether ICWA applies. ICWA was enacted because many Native children were placedwith adoptive and foster parents who were not Native. However, in Minnesota, forexample, the rate of Native children in foster care today is higher than in 1978,
when ICWA was passed. Fewer than two percent of children in the state are
American Indian, yet Native children make up almost a quarter of the state’s foster care population. There are often not enough Native foster parents available tohost children who need foster homes.

Further issues
Also in Alaska, in August, the Inupiat village of Shishmaref held an election onwhether to develop a new village site on the mainland in order to relocate from abarrier island that has been heavily eroded. Over 30 Alaskan villages face animminent threat of coastal erosion and flooding caused by climate change. Shishmaref voted to relocate in 1973 and in 2002, but could not find either funds orsuitable locations to make the move happen. The move would now cost USD 200
million; the state is ready to grant USD 8 million towards it.
Ancient human remains found in 1996 and known as Kennewick Man will betransferred to the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Colville tribes and the Wanapum Band in Washington and Idaho. They will be reburied at an undisclosed location. The tribes had fought a long legal battle over the remains, which were declared
to not be legally Native American under the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 2004. Recent DNA analyses were able to link the
9,000-year-old remains to the tribes, however, clearing the way for repatriation.

Native Hawaiians
In September, the Department of the Interior created a final rule re-establishingformal government-to-government relationships with Native Hawaiians, “if the

NORTH AMERICA

113

Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal
government-to-government relationship with the United States”. This “could provide the community with greater flexibility to preserve its distinct culture and traditions. It could also enhance their ability to affect its special status under federal
law by exercising powers of self-government over many issues directly impacting
community members”.14 In practice, the federal government is offering to recognize Native Hawaiians as a community in a similar fashion and with similar rights
as it recognizes American Indians and Alaska Natives as sovereign nations. It
would not change federal laws that have established trust relationships with Native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians would not be listed as a federally-recognizedtribe and would not be eligible for Indian programs, services or benefits.

Last words
On the occasion of the eighth and probably final White House Tribal Nations
Conference in September, President Obama reflected on his administration’s
legacy in American Indian policy. While he saw much progress, many of the policies may be undone by the incoming administration. Some people will see his
presidency as not having made enough progress but it is indisputable that his
administration did at least have the intention of taking Native issues and voices
seriously. He ended on an optimistic note but one that it will serve indigenous
peoples in the United States well to remember:
But this progress doesn’t end with my presidency. We need to continue theconversation and stay focused on tackling the important challenges facing
Indian country. True and lasting progress depends on all of us – not just
whoever sits in the Oval Office, but also those who are willing to organize
and mobilize, and keep pushing for justice and opportunity.15
Notes and references
1
2

ASRC Reacts to President’s Plan to Permanently Restrict Offshore Oil and Gas Development in
Alaska’s Arctic. Press Release, 20 December 2016
Sen. Lee Pledges to Fight Obama’s San Juan County Land Grab. Press Release, 28 December
2016

114

3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13

14
15

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Dave Archambault. “Standing Rock Sioux to federal government: halt the pipeline”. The Hill, 30
April 2016
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Memorandum Opinion, 9 September 2016
Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Departmentof the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 9 September 2016
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Statement Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline. 14 November
2016
Darcy, Jo-Ellen. Memorandum for Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4 December
2016
Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics Partners Respond to the Statement from the
Department of the Army. Press Release, 4 December 2016
Cramer: Corps’ Decision Denying Pipeline Permit Sends Chilling Signal for Infrastructure Development. Press Release, 4 December 2016
Heitkamp Statement on Army Corps Decision to Deny Dakota Access Easement under Lake
Oahe. Press Release, 4 December 2016
API’s Jack Gerard calls on President-elect Trump to Approve the Dakota Access Pipeline. Press
Release, 4 December 2016
Request for Precautionary Measures Pursuant to Article 25 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure
Concerning Serious and Urgent Risks of Irreparable Harm Arising Out of Construction of the
Dakota Access Pipeline. 2 December 2016
Indian Health Service Hospitals: Longstanding Challenges Warrant Focused Attention to Support
Quality Care. OEI-06-14-00011 and Indian Health Service Hospitals: More Monitoring Needed toEnsure Quality Care. OEI-06-14-00010
Interior Department Finalizes Pathway to Reestablish a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with Native Hawaiian Community. Press Release, 29 September 2016
Barack Obama. “On My Final White House Tribal Nations Conference.” Indian Country Today, 30
September 2016

Sebastian Felix Braun is director of the American Indian Studies program at Iowa State University, where he is also associate professor of anthropology in thedepartment of World Languages and Cultures.

MEXICO ANDCENTRAL AMERICA

116

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

MEXICO
Mexico is the country in the Americas with largest indigenous populationand the greatest number of native languages spoken in its territory: 68
languages and 364 counted dialect variations. The National Institute of
Statistics and Geography (INEGI), the National Population Council (CONAPO), and the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) count
16,933,283 indigenous persons in Mexico, representing 15.1% of all
Mexicans (112,236,538). The indigenous population is experiencing sustained growth, on account of higher indigenous fertility rates, offset only inpart by a greater overall mortality rate (with significant, persistent, troubling differentials in infant and maternal mortality, which, in some states,
is as high as triple the national average). The country signed ILO Convention 169 in 1990 and, in 1992, recognized Mexico as a pluricultural nation
upon amending Article VI of the Constitution. In 2001, as a result of an
indigenous peoples’ mobilization demanding legislation based on the“San Andrés Accords” —negotiated in 1996 between the Government
and the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN)—, Articles 1, 2, 4, 18,
and 115 of the Mexican Constitution were amended. As of 2003, the
EZLN and the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) commenced implementation of the Accords throughout its territories, creating autonomous
indigenous governments in Chiapas, Michoacán, and Oaxaca. Although
the states of Chihuahua, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, and San Luís
Potosí have provisions regarding indigenous peoples in their state constitutions, indigenous legal systems are not yet fully recognized. In 2007,
Mexico voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.

Indigenous peoples’ health and limited informationE

fforts to construct a panorama of the health of indigenous peoples in Mexico
faces a set of difficulties, which fundamentally result from a lack of official
epidemiological information. Officially, indigenous peoples are considered to be

117

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

1
2

1 Otomí-Mexica National Park

2 San Miguel Cueva

the most vulnerable sector of the population, with the highest maternal and infantile mortality rates, acute and chronic malnutrition rates higher than the national
average, lower life expectancy, and severe limitations for access to health services. They should therefore constitute “a group warranting priority attention.”
Nonetheless, the institutions of the National Health System (the Department of
Health, the Mexican Social Security Institute, the Institute for Social Security andServices for Government Workers, the National Defense Department, the Department of the Navy, and PEMEX) do not produce specific data in their epidemiological records. However, multiple evidence included in indigenous health casestudies “documents their high vulnerability, as well as their constant exposure toseveral risks in conditions of social inequity, which reduce their response capacity
to mobilize social resources for dealing with health problems.”1 In El Mundo Indígena 2015 we indicated that the work of the 2012 National Health and Nutrition
Survey (ENSANUT) is one of the few efforts that explicitly recognizes the need for
a comparative analysis between indigenous and nonindigenous populations. For
such purpose, “differences in proportions or averages were estimated by making

118

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017an indigenous/nonindigenous comparison for each year as well as between 2006
and 2012.2 In other words, the disadvantageous conditions of the indigenous peoples in health matters were recognized (ENSANUT itself considers that this is “agroup warranting priority attention”), but no epidemiological data logging instruments are regularly and systematically applied that distinguish the indigenous
population from the Mexican population as a whole, which, in its majority, is nonindigenous. We shall also see that when the data’s application is announced,
such data does not appear in the general reports or in the individual state reports.
The conclusions themselves, and the discussion of the above-mentioned
work regarding the ENSANUT, are illustrative of the theoretical, methodological,
and practical limitations of the National Health System for explaining the healthsituation of Mexican indigenous peoples. The results communicated by theauthors do not go beyond the data provided by the UNDP-CDI or INEGI, muchless by the status tables offered by the National Social Development Policy Assessment Council (CONEVAL):3 “60% of Mexico’s total indigenous population lives at the lowest socioeconomic level,” state Leyva Flores and collaborators, andthey add: “Increasing the coverage of the Popular Insurance presents heterogeneous results in the use of health services, while the Oportunidades Program
does not have an impact on improving the socioeconomic condition of the indigenous population.”4 In fact, CONEVAL indicates, with a greater analytical scope:“This is reflected in the fact that, according to estimates of poverty developed by
CONEVAL, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line in 2012that speaks an indigenous language was almost double that of the population that
does not speak an indigenous language (76.8 as compared to 43.0 %) and thepercentage of the population living in extreme poverty was almost five times greater (38.0 as compared to 7.9 %). Also contributing to this situation is the fact thatsix out of every ten indigenous language speakers suffer from at least three factors to their social detriment, while such a situation only affects one third of persons who do not speak any indigenous language. Furthermore, half of the indigenous language speaking population have income below the cost of basic foodstuffs, compared to 17.9 % of population that do not speak an indigenous language.”5 The authors conclude that: “In Mexico there has been little analysis to understand the indigenous health situation, and the ENSANUT represents one of
the few sources of information for analyzing health and the effective scope ofsocial programs. This work shows that there are differences in terms of the averages and proportions of the indicators selected in the years 2006 and 2012 (toMEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

119

which the ENSANUT was applied) Such a comparison in time is made by way of
a description, and we are aware of the limitations for establishing causal relationships, which are not the subject matter of this work”.6

Indigenous Mexicans in the United States labor market
The current political changes in the United States and the belligerent discourse of
its president towards migrants in general and Mexicans in particular has intensified
the debate over the presence of the indigenous Mexican population in that country’s
agricultural fields and, significantly, in California. According to data from the 2010
United States Census, California is one of the states with the greatest diversity of
Mexican indigenous groups, 31 of which have been counted, of which Mayans,
Mixtecos, Zapotecos, Purépechas, and Triquis are the most numerous. These
groups represent 47%, 19%, 9%, 8% and 4%, respectively, in relation to the total
indigenous population registered in the State. Durand and Massey have proposed
to call this process the “indigenization of agricultural labor in the United States”.7
This population has been integrated into the work that requires the greatest
physical effort and that is the worst paid. Thus, it is considered to constitute labor
reserve: “The last group able and willing to work in agriculture under the current
conditions [...]”8 The vulnerability of indigenous Mexicans in the United States is
associated with the position they occupy in the structure social: “due to their position of political, social, and cultural subordination, as well as to economic exploitation in Mexico and the United States”.9
Indigenous presence in the agricultural labor markets contradicts migration
enforcement policies, because a large undocumented population works in thisactivity. Research by the University of California, Berkeley reported data in said
regard: “in five years (1992 to 1997) the proportion of agricultural workers in California without authorization to work legally in United States increased from 9 to43%.” Nonetheless, as Barrón mentions, there is a labor market that absorbs
them.10 The explanation for their presence in California’s labor markets lies in thefact that the contracting of the indigenous population has allowed U.S. producers
to reduce production costs by resorting anew to a contracting scheme that employs “cheap,” “flexible” labor, because they provide forced labor for low wages.
The ñuu savi are one of the groups that fulfilled the demand for labor in Mexico’s
agricultural zones. Afterwards, they were brought in as a labor for Southern Cali-

120

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

fornia growers, not only due to their experience working the land, but also because they accept low wages.
Notwithstanding the above, for them and other groups, agricultural wage labor continues to be a labor option in the United States. Some ñuu savi of San
Miguel Cuevas state that they prefer it, because it is what is closest to what theyknow how to do, and because they can earn more if they work more than eight
hours. When there is less work in the agricultural fields, they perceive the advantage of being able to go back to their towns to participate in the patron saint festivals and visit their relatives. In other words, they do not have a labor situation that
limits them. It is also difficult for them to work in other economic activities given
their undocumented status, and because they do not have academic or technicaltraining and do not speak English.
Given how far back this phenomenon dates and because Mexicans now seekother employment to increase their income and reduce the physical effort they expend in agriculture, their integration into other activities has also been documented.
Wallace and Castañeda11 reported the following demographic data on the labor
profile of Mexicans in the United States: 50.3% of sewing machine operators; 43.4%
of agricultural workers; 41.6% of fence erectors; 41.4% of drywall installers andplasterers, and 39.1% of dishwashers are Mexican. For women, 43.2% of recent
Mexicans immigrants ages 18 to 64 participate in the U.S. labor force. They comprise 34.2% of farm workers, graders, and sorters; 26.3% of meat processing workers;
25.9% of hand packers and packagers; and 25.4% of packing machine operators.
310,000 Mexican immigrants work as housekeepers and 64,000 in childcare.
Labor markets have diversified, but precise data is not available on how manyof these workers are indigenous. Some studies indicate their participation in gardening, the construction industry, factories, restaurants, services, the hotel industry, electronics, salmon fishing, childcare, dishwashing, foods, and canning.12 The
network of home-town association, ethnicities, of friendships or work relationships help them get more information on the labor markets, which in turn helps
them become part of a broader labor pool.

Indigenous candidate for the 2018 presidential elections
In the framework of the Fifth National Indigenous Congress (CNI) from October 9
to 14, the EZLN and the CNI commemorated the 20th anniversary of the National

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

121

Indigenous Congress and of the living resistance of the native peoples, nations,and tribes of Mexico. At the close of the Congress they released a communiqué
named: And May the Earth Tremble at its Core (quoting a line from the Mexican
National Anthem) where they report that they will run an indigenous woman as anindependent candidate for the 2018 elections.
In its communique the EZLN mentioned “ […] we declare ourselves as being
part of an ongoing assembly, and we will engage in consultation in each of ourgeographic areas, territories, and travels regarding the resolution of this Fifth National Indigenous Congress (CNI) to designate an indigenous council of government whose word will be materialized by an indigenous woman, and who will represent the CNI as an independent candidate running on behalf of the National
Indigenous Congress and the Zapatista National Liberation Army in the 2018
elections for the presidency of this country”.13 As one would suppose, the declaration has aroused intense national debate, since the indigenous organization
spent more than 20 years opposing the electoral process in the country. 2016 wasmarked by a constant struggle waged by teachers against the Educational Reform. The EZLN also joined that struggle and on May 30, 2016 published a communiqué entitled: “May: Between Authoritarianism and Resistance”.14 In that
communiqué it announced its support for the struggle of the National Confederation of Education Workers (CNTE) and its total opposition to that Reform, while
stating:“The misnamed ‘educational’ reform is not an educational reform; it is a labor
reform. Had it been an educational reform it should have taken the opinionsof teachers and families into account. When the government refuses to dialogue with teachers and families regarding the reform, it is acknowledging
that what is sought is not to improve education, but to ‘adjust the payroll,’
which is the name given by capital to firings. Yes indeed, the objective of theeducational reform is to privatize education. In fact, such privatization is already underway. Leaving schools without attention and without a budget
failed to do away with public education in Mexico for a human reason: theteachers. So now, those teachers, be they men or women, must be destroyed.”
Finally, on Monday, December 26, the EZLN inaugurated the conference entitled“Zapatistas and those with a ConScience for Humanity” at the installations of the

122

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

University of the Earth (Universidad de la Tierra - UniTierra), with the participationof 82 scientists from 11 countries. The scientists made presentations on mathematics, volcano studies, astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear fusion, geophysics,
neurosciences, agro-ecology, energy savings, and several other subjects. Subcommander Galeano in his participation asked certain questions to the scientists
and stated that in Chiapas, rather than fortresses, open pit mines, and luxury
hotels, “under our collective operation direction, what is being built are astronomical observatories, laboratories, physics and robotic workshops, as well as
observation, study, and nature conservation posts.”

Otomís evicted and robbed of their lands in Xochicuautla
for construction of a highway
On December 5, 2016 the construction project commenced for the Toluca-Naucalpan highway, which affected a large part of the Otomí-Mexica State Park, thelargest natural area (105,875 hectares) protected by the Mexican government
since 1980. The company named Autopista de Vanguardia SA de CV (Autovan),an affiliate of the Higa Group, is in charge of this work. However, members of the
San Francisco Xochicuatla Otomí community, belonging to the Municipality of
Lerma, State of Mexico, were not notified in advance of the project that encroached upon their lands. In February 2016 District Court Number Five (State of
Mexico) granted a definitive suspension of the project, but the project did notcease going forward, which led to the demolition of the home of Armando García
Salazar, an Otomí leader and municipal representative, on April 11, 2016. Nearly
800 police also demolished the Peace and Dignity Resistance Camp in Xochicuautla, set up by the Peoples Front in Defense of the Resources of Mother Earth
to stop the highway’s construction. On September 4, 2016 six members of theUnited Nations Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational
Corporations and other Business Enterprises met with the inhabitants of this community to hear their denunciations regarding how they would be harmed by the
highway’s construction. This case is a clear example of how construction companies operate in indigenous territories of Mexico. It also exposes a problem that not
only affects the indigenous population but that, if the ecocide of the Great Otomí
Forest is perpetuated, would affect one of the vital natural resources for the ñätho
community and the cities of Toluca and Mexico City: water. If the highway is built

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

123

through the Great Otomí Forest, water production would diminish by 2 million liters per year.

Repression and violence in Nochixtlán, Oaxaca
Since the year 2012, the current federal administration has been promoting an
Educational Reform that has not enjoyed the consensus of teachers on a national level. This resulted in a series of protest actions that became particularly
acute during 2016. The states with the greatest presence of indigenous population in the country were the ones that have shown the greatest resistance. Teaching is one of the few professional sectors where young indigenous people candevelop a professional career. There were several highway blockades during themonth of June in the State of Oaxaca, and June 19 was the day on which theFederal Police decided to disperse them in the cities of Oaxaca, Juchitán, andNochixtlán. All of those cities have a predominant presence of a Zapoteca andMixteca population. On said account, there were violent confrontations. The mostviolent one was the dispersing of the blockade maintained by teachers from Local
22 of the National Confederation of Education Workers (CNTE) and parents on
the Oaxaca-Mexico City highway, in Nochixtlán, Oaxaca. That confrontation resulted in at least 6 deaths and dozens of wounded. According to several communication media reports, anti-riot police opened fire in an attempt to break up
the protests, in which vehicles had been burned and blockades and barricades
had been set up on certain roads. What ensued was practically a state of siegethat led to deaths of indigenous teachers and members of the civilian population.
The repression of the teachers’ movement and the criminalization of its leaders,
who were held responsible for the confrontation, is a clear sign that the federal
government has no intention of backing down from its dismantling of the only option for basic education that the indigenous populations in Mexico have: free public education.

The right to autonomy
In what is considered a historic meeting, held in the municipality of Hopelchén,state of Campeche, on Saturday, August 13, 2016, members of the Mayan, Za-

124

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017poteca, and Yaqui peoples signed a proclamation addressed to the Enrique Peña
Nieto regime, in which they called for their human rights to be respected, particularly their right to autonomy, to free development, and to prior, informed consent
in relation to megaprojects intended to be developed in their communities. Theyemphasized that so far, consultations conducted in their ancestral territories havebeen carried out without using proper procedures and “as mere paperwork” to getapproval for the projects. In their declaration, the native peoples demanded thedefinitive cancelation of the megaprojects adversely affecting them, in particular,
the voiding of the administrative permits granted by the Mexican State in violationof their human rights; respect for self-determination and autonomy regarding theirdecision to hold a consultation; the conducting of consultation processes in a free,prior, informed, culturally appropriate manner, respecting the decision of the communities, and that no comments be made aimed at influencing the decision of thepeoples consulted.

San Miguel del Progreso and the mining companies
The me’phaa indigenous community of San Miguel del Progreso in the municipality of Malinaltepec, Guerrero, through community organizing, succeeded in preventing the entrance of two mining companies that had a concession over 142,430 hectares, belonging to 7 municipalities. In 2010, the inhabitants of this community requested the corresponding information regarding the concessions
granted to the following companies by the Department of the Economy: Minera
Zalamera (an affiliate of Chesapeake Gold Corp., with legal domicile in Canada),
Minera Hochschild México (a Peruvian company with British capital), and Camsim Minas SA de CV (with legal domicile in Acapulco). In the region of the Mountains and the Costa Chica region of Guerrero there are 42 mineral deposits, on
which the Mexican federal government has granted 30 concessions with 50 year
terms for their mining exploitation. In 2015 the inhabitants, represented by the
Tlachinollan Mountains Human Rights Center (CDHM-T), requested the revisionof certain articles of the Mining Act, because they considered that those articles
violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples under Convention 169 of International
Labour Organization (ILO). The result of this revision resulted in the cancelationof 22 of the 44 mining concessions registered up until December 2016. TheseMEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

125

cancelations were made by the companies themselves, thus leaving 32,616 hectares occupied. 						Notes and references
1

2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

Leyva Flores, René, César INFANTE XIBILLE, Juan Pablo Gutiérrez and Frida Quintino, “Inequidad persistente en salud y acceso a los servicios para los pueblos indígenas de México, 20062012,” Salud Pública. Mexico City, 2013; Vol. 55 (sup. 2):123-128,
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0036-36342013000800008
Op cit, p. 123.
National Social Development Policy Assessment Council, La pobreza en la población indígena
de México 2012, Mexico City, CONEVAL, 2014.
Op. cit., p. 123.
CONEVAL, p. 12.
LEYVA et al., p. 123.
Durand, Jorge and Douglas S. Massey, 2003, Migración México-Estados Unidos en los alboresdel siglo XXI, Mexico City, Colección Desarrollo y Migración, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, p 159.
Ibid, p. 162
Solís Lizama, Mirian and Patricia Fortuny Loret de Mola, 2010, “Otomíes hidalguenses y mayas
yucatecos. Nuevas caras de la migración indígena y viejas formas de organización,” in Migraciones Internacionales, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 103.
Barrón Pérez, María Antonieta, 2005, “Trabajadores agrícolas mexicanos en Ontario y California. El caso de los jornaleros en Salinas, Greenfield y Watsonville, California, USA y Simcoe,
Ontario, Canadá,” in Revista Mexicana de Estudios Canadienses, Vol. 1, No. 9, Mexico City, p.
50.
Wallace, Steven P. and Xóchitl Castañeda, 2008, “Demographic Profile of Mexicans in the UnitedStates,” in Berkeley, Health Initiative of the Americas, Berkeley, University of California, UC
Berkeley School of Public Health.
Clark, 2004, “Los Mixtecos y sus derechos humanos en el norte,” in Stefano Varese and Sylvia
Escárcega (coordinators), La ruta mixteca, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Mindek,
2003, Mindek, Dubravka, 2003, Mixtecos, Mexico City, National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples; Stephen, Lynn, 2004, “Campesinos mixtecos en Oregón: trabajo yetnicidad en sindicatos agrícolas y asociaciones de pueblos,” in Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado (coordinators), Indígenas mexicanos migrantes en los Estados Unidos, Mexico City,
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Miguel Ángel Porrúa, pp. 375-386; Sánchez, García,
Carolina, 2017, Caminantes. Ñuu savi en Fresno, CA y Tijuana, BC. Apropiación y construcción
social del territorio, Doctoral Thesis in Anthropology, IIA-UNAM; Schmidt and Crummett, 2004,“Heritage Re-Created: Hidalguenses in the United States and Mexico,” in Jonathan Fox andGaspar Rivera–Salgado (editors), Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States, Universityof California, San Diego.
Que retiemble en sus centros la tierra, Enlace Zapatista, http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.
mx/2016/10/14/que-retiemble-en-sus-centros-la-tierra/

126

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

14 Mayo entre el autoritarismo y la resistencia, Enlace Zapatista, http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.
mx/2016/05/30/mayo-entre-el-autoritarismo-y-la-resistencia/

Article written by José del Val, Director of the University Cultural and Intercultural Diversity Studies Program (PUIC-UNAM), Juan Mario Pérez Martínez,technical secretary of the PUIC-UNAM, Carolina Sánchez, academic secretaryof the PUIC-UNAM, and Carlos Zolla, research coordinator of the PUIC-UNAM.

127

GUATEMALA
Guatemala is estimated to have six million indigenous inhabitants, accounting for approximately 60% of the country’s total population. The principal ethnic groups are the Achi’, Akateco, Awakateco, Chalchiteco,
Ch’orti’, Chuj, Itza’, Ixil, Jacalteco, Kaqchikel, K’iche’, Mam, Mopan, Poqomam, Poqomchi’, Q’anjob’al, Q’eqchi’, Sakapulteco, Sipakapense,
Tektiteko, Tz’utujil, Uspanteko, Xinka, and Garífuna. The country stilllacks a differentiated statistical base on indigenous peoples, especially on
indigenous women. The publication “El Perfil de Salud de los Pueblos
Indígenas de Guatemala de 2016” [Indigenous Peoples Health Profile ofGuatemala, 2016], published by the government, the Pan-American
Health Organization, and the World Health Organization, highlights thedisparities between the indigenous and the non-indigenous population in
employment, income, health, and education. The statistics clearly demonstrate persistent racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples.
Despite representing more than half of the population and participating
actively in the country’s economy, their political participation is not equitably reflected.

Given the political changes in the fight against corruption and impunity thatmobilized the most diverse sectors of Guatemalan society, 2016 was expected to be a key year for reaching consensus to overcome the historical problems of poverty, exclusion, and discrimination. The political situation in 2015 wascharacterized by intense social mobilization, which led to the resignation andsubsequent prosecution of several government officials. Yet this opportunity forchange was lost, since no commitments were made to change the direction of thecountry’s development model. The new administration, which took office in January 2016, soon showed that it lacked a work plan and would continue in the political style of its predecessors: exclusionary, lacking participation, and even withindications of corruption. The government quickly lost credibility in the eyes of the
population.

128

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

During 2016, little progress was made in the political participation and living
conditions of indigenous peoples. In fact, only one indigenous woman was appointed to a high office in government. (Aura Leticia Teleguario, Ministry of Laborand Social Benefits). Of the 158 representatives in the Guatemalan Congress, on
18 were indigenous, two less than during the previous session. This shows that
under an electoral system marked by exclusion, indigenous peoples primarily
participate as voters, rather than as candidates with true possibilities of being
elected. The new administration did not promote any legislative bills or propose
any public policy in response to the indigenous peoples’ demands. Rather, indigenous leaders were often persecuted and criminalized.

The social gap for the indigenous population
With respect to health, employment, income, housing, and education, there is agreat disparity between indigenous peoples and the rest of the population. Official
data indicates that extreme poverty affects 21.8% of the indigenous population,compared to 7.4% of the non-indigenous population. However, critics point out
that the situation may even be worse, as the State is suspected of intentionally
avoiding differentiated or updated statistics so as to not show the severity of theethnic gaps.
Reports on the social situation of indigenous peoples published by several
different sources show an enormous contrast between indigenous and non-indigenous populations. For example, on health issues, the highest maternal mortality
rate is among indigenous women. Despite the magnitude of the problem, theState has not developed any specific strategies to change this state of affairs,
since the indigenous agenda is a low priority for the current administration, as isreflected in the lack of budgetary items specifically addressing the particularneeds of indigenous peoples.

Impunity for the stealing of river water, lack of a Water Act,and hydroelectric projects
Due to the absence of a water act, the use, management, and conservation ofwater is not officially regulated. Many types of businesses, such as industry, agri-

129

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

1

1 Community La Puya

cultural plantations, cities and towns, recreation centers, and hydroelectric projects take advantage of this situation. They pay nothing for their water usage, do
not contribute to water conservation, and assume no responsibility for pollution
caused by discharges of waste. What is alarming is that the majority of groundwater recharge areas are located within indigenous territories, yet the affected indigenous peoples do not receive any support from the State or from the various
water users to protect the aquifers.

130

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Several indigenous and local communities have denounced that many riversof the Southern Coast region have been illegally diverted to sugar cane, banana,and palm oil plantations and cattle ranches, especially during the dry season(December to April). This situation was denounced in previous years, but no attention was paid to it by the government. The stealing of river water, a very common practice among powerful landowners, robs from the Communities of a valuable resource, radically transforming the natural ecosystems and considerably
reducing local fishing yields, which for many living in these areas is their primarymeans of subsistence. A clear example is the case of the polluting of the La
Pasión River, reported in Mundo Indígena in 2016, which has not moved forwardin the court system despite overwhelming evidence. The case evidences a true
ecocide caused by the palm oil processing centers.
The new administration’s Minister of Environment, when he came into office,offered to address the matter and headed up a series of inspections that corroborated the communities’ denunciations. He also offered to file charges against
those responsible for the plundering of the rivers. His offer quickly evaporated,
however, and the subject received little attention from the public. Many analysts
interpret this situation as a step backward, owing to pressure from large economic interests that use water resources with impunity.
In response, several communities organized a “free the rivers” campaign anddemanded that the State commence a broad discussion to draft a water act. Indigenous and civil society organizations, along with the University of San Carlos
of Guatemala met to discuss the bills, but were countered by other bills proposedby interest groups. As a result, approximately ten bills have been drafted, whichhave not moved forward or been debated by Congress. The possibility of aprompt consensus among the different sectors to enact a water act is highly unlikely.
At the same time, the Chuj and Kanjobal communities in the department of
Huehuetenango in northwestern Guatemala continue defending their ancestral
territories. The communities demand the suspension of the hydroelectric project
being built by the Spanish-owned company Ecoener Hidralia on the Cambalam
River. This project started construction without respecting the right to free, prior,and informed consultation with the indigenous peoples, thus directly affecting the
livelihoods of the local inhabitants. The government’s response always favoredbusiness interests. Several indigenous leaders have even been arrested, thoughlater freed when not found guilty of any crime. Finally, in an official communiqué,MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

131

the company announced the suspension of its investments, alluding to the project’s social impact.1 With the company’s withdrawal, a social peace and order isreturning to the affected communities. Now these communities must recover fromthe impact of the murders, kidnappings, assaults on women, and the incarceration of their leaders. Above all, they have a long road ahead to mend the disintegration of the social fabric harmed by the economic interests of the hydroelectric
project.

The Sepur Zarco case and access to justice for indigenous peoples
The complainants in the Sepur Zarco case, a group of 15 women of the Maya
Q’eqchi people who were victims of rape and sexual slavery committed bymembers of the army in the Sepur Zarco military base during the internal armed
conflict, denounced those acts and asked for justice. After a long process, twoof the principal culprits were arrested: a coronel and a commissioned officer.
Finally, 34 years after the acts were committed, in February 2016, the army
officers were sentenced to 120 and 240 years of imprisonment, respectively.
Clearly, this case sets a precedent worldwide, since it is the first time a crime ofsexual abuse during an armed conflict has been tried in the same country
where it was committed.2
Nonetheless, other cases of crimes committed by the military against theindigenous population during the armed internal conflict remain in impunity.
Such is the case of the former Commander in Chief, Efraín Ríos Montt, whosecase is no longer being prosecuted due his mental incapacity to stand trial.
Other cases of high-ranking military officers are still awaiting trial and are expected to be long, costly processes, given the power still held by several of
those implicated.

Legal claims for indigenous rights
On October 12 the principal organizations of indigenous peoples held a massive
march, demanding recognition of their collective rights to land and indigenous
and communal territories. The organizations took the occasion to file a series of
specific legal complaints with the justices of the Supreme Court regarding restitu-

132

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tion of territorial rights. Representatives of the Q’eqchi, Ch’orti, Kaqchikel, andIxil peoples submitted files on the plundering they have been subjected to, so thatthose cases will be taken up by the courts.
Historically, the legal claims of indigenous peoples over territorial rights did
not reach the courts, because the governmental entities systematically blocked
them. But in the past five years some cases have received a favorable response,
which indicates that the possibility is opening for the State to restore the rightsthat have been denied them.
In 2016 several indigenous mobilizations took place, all of which focused on
the core demand to have the State recognize the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. Some mobilizations demanded the termination of mining licenses,
as is the case of the Puya Community, who, over the course of the year, maintained an ongoing protest in front of the Ministry of Energy and Mines to demandsuspension of the gold and silver mining project named Derivada IV. In a major
win for the indigenous and peasant struggle, in June the Constitutional Court —the highest-ranking constitutional review court in the country—, ordered the definitive suspension of this mine, on the grounds of failure to consult with the surrounding communities.3
In the department of Alta Verapaz, 196 communities of the Maya Q’eqchi’
people of Santa María Cahabón had planned to hold a ballot referendum on July
31 regarding the Oxec I and Oxec II hydroelectric projects on the Río Cahabón
River. But a last-minute constitutional relief action in favor of the construction
company suspended the referendum. The hydroelectric project was approved by
the government without taking the impact on the communities into account. Although the company claims to have conducted the community consultation, thelocal inhabitants indicate that the consultation never took place. Recently, in April
2016, the Supreme Court of Justice provisionally suspended the license grantedby the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Nonetheless, the company continued operating. Toward the end of year, the Supreme Court of Justice granted constitutional relief in favor of the communities against the project.4 This case is expected
to be a long legal dispute.
Other indigenous and peasant mobilizations took place throughout the year to
demand better conditions of life, and especially the enactment of the Rural Development Act, which has been held up in the Congress of the Republic.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

133

Climate change and the rights of indigenous peoples
Guatemala is considered to be one of the most vulnerable countries in the world
to the impacts of climate change. To counteract these effects, a series of measures have been created, including public policy, laws, and legislative bills. Nonetheless, these initiatives have not been sufficiently discussed, and are seen to bevery weak with respect to indigenous peoples in terms of their implementation. In
response, the Mesa Indígena de Cambio Climático [Indigenous Climate ChangeRoundtable] has demanded greater inclusion of indigenous peoples in decision
making and in proposals being brought to international forums on climate andbiological diversity, where indigenous participation is insignificant. Several studies
demonstrate, however, that it is the indigenous peoples who have contributed themost important advances for the conservation and management of natural resources, as is reflected in the Map of Indigenous Peoples and Natural Ecosystems of Central America.5 Even so, the governments resist recognizing their territorial rights and their systems of governance.6

The Peace Accords twenty years later: current demands
2016 marked the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Peace Accords which
put an end to a 36-year armed conflict that devastated the country between 1960
and 1996. After two decades, the country was expected to have advanced in solving the problems that unleashed the war. Yet socioeconomic indicators indicatethat these structural problems either remain or have worsened, especially on key
issues such as access to land, employment and income, access to health andeducation, and discrimination and racism. Consequently, the organizations of Indigenous Peoples, in a series of commemorative activities, reiterated their proposals for building a society with greater equity and social justice.
The Accord on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes fundamental aspects, such as recognition of a pluri-national State; the fight against
discrimination and racism; recognition of the right to tenancy of ancestral lands;
recognition of the indigenous legal system; and the development of an educational model with cultural relevance. Nonetheless, the since then only minimal

134

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

progress has been made, far from overcoming the inequality that still reigns in the
country.

Constitutional reforms
One of the political commitments assumed by the government following the social
mobilizations of 2016 is to promote constitutional reforms allowing for improved
coexistence and, above all, ensuring a better functionality of the judicial system.
During 2016 several sectors, supported by the International Commission against
Impunity in Guatemala, supported dialogue among the various parts of society toobtain ideas for a constitutional reform proposal. In connection with that effort, theorganizations of indigenous peoples made several proposals. An example is the
proposal made by the Indigenous Peoples Coordinating and Convergence Body,
which includes a series of proposals to guarantee the recognition of indigenous
rights, recognition of the pluri-national nature of the State, access to justice andthe indigenous legal system, the strengthening of the indigenous worldview andidentity, and the right to territory.
Among the proposed constitutional reforms was to substitute a paragraph of
Article 203 of the Constitution that currently states “No other authority may intervene in the administration of justice” with the following: “The authorities of the indigenous peoples may exercise judicial functions using the standards and procedures of the indigenous peoples themselves, provided that the same are notcontrary to the Constitution, to human rights, and to the laws of Guatemala. This
shall be regulated by statute.”
Against all predictions, the Constitutional Reform Project did not receive thenecessary support in the Congress of the Republic. The discussions have been
postponed until 2017, but analysts predict that its approval is highly unlikely. 

Notes and references1“La empresa española Ecoener-Hidralia anuncia su retirada de Guatemala tras años de lucha
indígena,” eldiario.es, 12/26/2016. At: http://www.eldiario.es/desalambre/hidroelectrica-EcoenerHidralia-anuncia-retirada-Guatemala_0_593890887.html

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

2
3
4
5
6

135

http://www.mujerestransformandoelmundo.org/es/articulo/caso-sepur-zarco-el-largo-camino-lajusticia
http://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/justicia/cc-suspende-licencia-de-minera-derivada-vii-ensan-jose-del-golfo
http://lahora.gt/csj-declara-lugar-amparo-hidroelectricas-oxec-i-ii/
http://www.burness.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Descripci%C3%B3n_MAPA_pueblosind%C3%ADgenas-SP.pdf
http://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/Mesomerica-Resumen-de-Politicas-Consorcio-TICCA-no.-3.pdf

Silvel Ely is a professor at the School of Agronomy of the University of San Carlos in Guatemala. He is the chair of the Program for Rural and Territorial Studies(PERT FAUSAC) and is involved with initiatives for the recognition of collective
rights of indigenous peoples.

136

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

NICARAGUA
The seven indigenous peoples of Nicaragua are distributed, historically andculturally, between those of the Pacific, Central and Northern region where
the Chorotega (221,000), Cacaopera or Matagalpa (97,500), Ocanxiu or
Sutiaba (49,000) and Nahoa or Náhuatl (20,000) peoples live; and those on
the Caribbean (or Atlantic) coast, inhabited by the Mískitu (150,000), theSumu-Mayangna (27,000) and the Rama (2,000) peoples. Other peoples
who enjoy collective rights under the Constitution of Nicaragua (1987) are
Afro-descendants, referred to as “ethnic communities” in the national legislation. They include the Creole or Kriol (43,000) and the Garífuna
(2,500) communities. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front(FSLN) took power in Nicaragua, after which it faced an armed confrontation supported by the United States. The indigenous peoples of the
Caribbean coast, principally the Mískitu, participated in the opposition. In
1987, in order to put an end to indigenous resistance, the FSLN created theAutonomous Region of the Caribbean (Atlantic) Coast, as well as theNorthern and Southern Autonomous regions (abbreviated in Spanish as
RACCN/RACCS). This system of autonomy was based on a new Constitution and an Autonomy Charter Act (Law 28). As a result of the judgment of
the Inter- American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Mayangna(Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua in 2001, Law 445 was issued
on the Communal Property Regime of the Indigenous Peoples and EthnicCommunities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Bocay, Coco, Indio, and Maíz Rivers. That law also provides for the right to self- government in the communities as of 2003 andcreates a procedure for them to gain title to their territories. As of 2005 theState commenced the process for granting title to 23 indigenous and Afrodescendent territories in the Autonomous Regions, which culminated withthe granting of property deeds in the year 2013. In addition, the General
Education Act of 2006 recognizes an Autonomous Regional Educational
System (SEAR). In 2007, Nicaragua voted in favor of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in 2010 it ratified ILO
Convention 169.

137

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

1

2

1 Mayangna territoriesF

2 Rama and Kriol territoryor the indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants of Nicaragua, 2016
was marked by a harsh situation of illegality for indigenous and Afro-descendant authorities. It is likewise important to note that little respect is shown forcommunal property titles and the communities’ legal representation. Anothertroubling aspect is the increase in deaths of Miskitu divers related to sea cucumber fishing off the Caribbean coast.
Just as in 2015, a major concern is that the national government is unilaterally
pushing ahead with the construction and promotion of the Grand Interoceanic Canalthrough communal lands. At the international level, the case of Acosta, et al. v.
Nicaragua was filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR Court),
on which judgment is expected to be handed down next year.

138

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Indigenous Miskitu men and sea cucumber fishing
For several decades, deaths of indigenous Miskitu men who dive for lobster (Panulirus argus) in the Caribbean has remained an unresolved issue, despite multiple denouncements and legislation enacted to address this problem.
Fishing for “sea cucumbers” (Holothurians or Holothuroidea) has added anotherdramatic dimension to this situation. Between September and October 2016, 15
accidents were reported, with 14 deaths of Miskitu men from the RACCN Autonomous Region. The divers engage in deep sea diving using an improvised
system for diving as deep as 120 feet below the surface for up to six hours daily.
This creates a high-risk situation due to the depth, the frequency of the dives,and lack of training and/or proper equipment. Divers often suffer from decompression syndrome, also known as the “bends.” Many divers, when experiencing
minor symptoms of decompression self-medicate or even drink alcohol to easethe pain. Some go so far as to use drugs such as marijuana and crack before
diving to gather more courage. This situation increases in the likelihood of accidents or death.
Evenor Saballos, a leader of the Divers Union of the Autonomous Regionof the North Atlantic (Sibumiraan) stated that divers do not have life insurance
and are not affiliated with the Nicaraguan Social Security Institute (INSS), eventhough 1800 divers have been accounted for, who work in approximately 900
sea cucumber fishing boats. In the year 2016, as of the month of July, Nicaragua
had exported 8.30 million USD worth of sea cucumbers; amounting to a 207%
increase compared the same season in 2015. The economic chain involves
diving crews who go out to fish in boats and then sell the product to stockpilers.
The companies then export the product or sell it to other larger companies tobe exported to the United States and from there to Asian destinations, suchas Hong Kong or China. 1
Families of the deceased divers say that the time has come for the authorities
to take the pertinent measures to stop the deaths of Miskitu divers in the
Caribbean, either by changing the fishing method or by prohibiting this mode offishing.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA139

The Case of Acosta et al. vs. Nicaragua before the IACHR Court
During the 56th Special Session of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
which took place in October 2016 in Ecuador, the public hearing was held in thecase of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. 2 Judgment in this case is expected to behanded down in April 2017.
The case involves the murder of Francisco José García Valle, the husbandof human rights defender María Luisa Acosta, 3 which occurred at their homein Bluefields in 2002. At the time of his murder, Mrs. Acosta, the coordinatorof the Indigenous Peoples Legal Assistance Center (CALPI), was counsel forthe indigenous and Afro-descendant communities of the Twelve Communities of
the Laguna de Perlas Basin and of the Rama and Kriol territory, which had been
adversely impacted on account of the Internet sale of seven of the Perla Keys
and other properties by Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez Fox, whom Mrs. Acosta
indicates as the intellectual authors of the murder. 4
In June 2007, CALPI, along with the Center for Justice and Human Rightsof the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua (CEJUDHCAN) and the Nicaraguan Human
Rights Center (CENIDH), in representation of the victims, filed the case with theInter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). After exhausting allprocedures in search of an amicable solution with the State of Nicaragua, the
IACHR found that the criminal proceedings over the murder of Mr. García Valle
were marked by violations of the right to personal integrity, as well as violationsof guarantees and of the right to protection by the courts consecrated in theAmerican Convention. Therefore, on August 9, 2015, the IACHR filed the casebefore the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR Court).
In its petition, the IACHR and the victims motioned the IACHR Court to rule on“the right to defend rights” and to declare the international liability of the State ofNicaragua, since “the flagrant omissions in investigating the strongly suspected
intellectual authorship of a crime such as the one committed against Mr. García
Valle could be understood as a form of deliberate cover-up” perpetrated by
the Nicaraguan judicial system. 5

140

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Limited respect by the State for communal property deeds
The National Commission on Demarcation and Title Granting (CONADETI),
in Resolution No 016-26-03-2012, recognized 382,007 hectares of land as theterritory of the Twelve Indigenous and Afro-descendent Communities of the Laguna de Perlas Basin. In this area the communities carry out their traditional activities, including on the 24 small islands or keys for traditional fishing. The deed
is for Full Dominion over the Communal Property, which is “inalienable and perpetual, and which cannot be sold, given away, or taxed.”
Nonetheless, less than two months before the President of the Republicof Nicaragua formally handed over title to the authorities of the Laguna de
Perlas Basin, 6 the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua, through its October
4, 2016 judgment, canceled the registrations of six out of the seven Perlas
Keys, that is, all but the Grape Key. 7 Rather than maintain the seven Keys
in favor of the indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, whose property
deed was issued by the State in the year 2012, the judgment established themas communal property, and the Supreme Court registered the Keys in the nameof the State of Nicaragua.
Although the judgment establishes that the Perlas Keys do not belong to
Mr. Tsokos, 8 this nonetheless constitutes a tremendous setback for therights of indigenous peoples, given that it orders the Keys to be registered
as government property. Thus, the judgment turns the State of Nicaragua into a“third party” in indigenous lands. “Third party” is defined by Law No 445 9 as: the“Legal entities, other than the communities, that claim ownership rights within acommunal land or an indigenous territory.” This undermines the legal certainty ofindigenous ownership of the Keys, which privileges traditional use over any title
that was not supported by possession prior to 1987. 10
With this judgment, the State of Nicaragua failed to comply with its legal
obligation to honor the title issued by the State of Nicaragua itself in favor of thecommunities of the Laguna de Perlas Basin and protected by the sui generiscollective land regime, which recognizes the ancestral and historic use andenjoyment by the indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants as a source ofownership right established in the Constitution of Nicaragua.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA141

The Community of Tilba Lupia excluded from the Tasba Pri
Territory
The Community of Tilba Lupia, comprised by 500 families, extends over 10,000
hectares located in the municipalities of Prinzapolka and Puerto Cabezas in the
RACCN Autonomous Region, with a collective property deed since 1905. In
2013, the Secretary of the National Commission on Demarcation and Title
Granting (CONADETI) issued the Communal Property Deed over the Tasba Pri
Mískitu Territory, certifying that this territory is comprised by several communities,
including the community named 5 Kukalaya Puente. The deed listed Tilba Lupia
as a hamlet of Kukalaya Puente, but in reality Kukalaya Puente is a hamlet within
the community of Tilba Lupia.
The authorities filed a claim with CONADETI, since the CONADETI is the
body that issues certifications of demarcation and title grants for the communal
area and the supplementary area of the indigenous community of Tilba Lupia.
In February 2014, as is recorded in the Meeting Minutes, an agreement wasreached between the authorities of the Community of Tilba Lupia and CONADETI,
that: “…In the month of March, the authorities will meet… the non-inclusion will
be discussed of Kukalaya Puente as a Community in the Deed to the Territoryof Tasba Pri; since they are not of Indigenous stock and do not possess lands;
because they are settled on the lands of Tilba Lupia … CONADETI, recognizes
these authorities as the legitimate owners of Tilba Lupia …” and it was agreed
that the community of Tilba Lupia would continue to be part of the Tasba Pri
Territory.
Nonetheless, once again the agreements were violated, and CONADETI,
through Resolution No 022-23-06-2014 issued the “Miskitu indigenous Tasba
Pri territorial and communal property deed,” in which it recognizes Kukalaya
Puente as a community and excludes the community of Tilba Lupia. This
resolution was not notified to the representatives of Tilba Lupia, who found out
about the resolution when the President of the Republic of Nicaragua, on October
29, 2016, granted title to six territories, among them the Territory of Tasba Pri. 11
The problems of ownership and legal representation of the community of Tilba
Lupia have grown over recent years, given the enormous wealth represented by
the territory, which has been exploited and pillaged by persons from outside thecommunity and who have been attributed its legal representation. 12

142

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Deed of the Creoles of Bluefields
The process of granting title to the traditional territory of the Black Creole Indigenous
Community of Bluefields (CNCIB) in the RACCS Region was aborted by the Stateof Nicaragua in June 2013, based on the enactment of Law No. 840,13 which grants
the concession of the Great Inter-Oceanic Canal by Nicaragua (GCIN) to the Hong
Kong Nicaragua Development (HKND) company, owned by Chinese capital.14 Boththese events were carried out by the State without consulting the indigenous Ramapeoples and Kriol Afro-descendants or the CNCIB, even though 52% of the GCIN’sroute runs over the territories of these peoples. These acts violate the right to Free,
Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), according to international standards established for that type of project.
In 2006, the CNCIB applied for title, which was accepted by the State in2010. The Diagnostic of the Territory of the Black Creole Indigenous Communityof Bluefields was submitted in 2012.15 During 2013, certain meetings were heldwith the CONADETI. No agreement was reached, however, principally because
the representative of the President of the Republic in the RACCS Region intended
to deny the CNCIB its territorial rights. Finally, after admitting that the CNCIB had
those rights, he considered that the territory claimed was too large.
But rather than proceeding with a technical and legal negotiation over the
territorial area claimed, as is provided for in the procedures established by Law
445, the State, through members of its political party involved in the municipal
and regional administration, illegally worked to create a parallel government to
the government of the CNCIB.
Once the traditional institutions of the CNCIB had been weakened, the State
also usurped the position of the Creole representative before CONADETI, and,in violation of due legal process, it issued title to less than 7% of the 2,004,952
hectares of land plus 114,696 nautical miles of marine zone administratively
claimed by the CNCIB.
On October 29, 2016 the President of the Republic granted the deed to theparallel government of the CNCIB, thus freeing up 93% of the CNCIB’s territorial
claim over the route of the GCIN.16
In addition to what is stated above, there was a lack of guarantees andprotection by the courts, since the Nicaraguan judicial system has not taken into
account any of the 10 constitutional relief (amparo) actions filed by the CNCIB.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

143

Those actions documented each and every one of the violations of due
process perpetrated between 2013 and 2016, starting with the enactmentof Law No. 840. Therefore, the CNCIB, together with members of the Rama
Indigenous People and of the Kriol communities, filed a Petition with the
IACHR to regain their rights to personal integrity, to a life with dignity, toFree, Prior, and Informed Consent, to self-determination, and to ownership of
their traditional territory.17

The Rama and Kriol Territory to which the State granted title
in the year 2009
Even though the State granted them title in the year 2009, in 2013, the State
granted the concession of the GCIN over part of their territory, thus violating theright to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the Indigenous Rama people and of
the Kriol Afro-descendants communities who comprise the Rama and Kriol Territory. Bangkukuk Taik is one of the nine communities that comprise the Rama andKriol Territory, with the last speakers of the Rama language. 18 It has been oneof the most hard-hit communities, together with Monkey Point, since, according
to the Environmental and Social Impact Study of the GCIN approved in 2015, a
Deep Water Port is planned to be built on their land. As a result, the community
will be displaced. Yet to date nothing has been proposed to them.19
Members of the Rama and Kriol Territorial Government (GTR-K) in January
2016 denounced coercion by the State to sign the “Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent Agreement for Implementation of the Grand Interoceanic Canal of
Nicaragua Development Project,” which contains the acceptance of having
attained Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for a leasing with an “indefinite” orperpetual term of 263 Km2 of the Rama and Kriol territory. 20
Given the refusal of the GTR-K to sign the “Agreement,” on May 3 thePresident of the GTR- K appeared in Managua, signing it. The judicial system
did not take up the 2 amparo petitions submitted by the authorities of the GTR-K,
and the State presented the “Agreement” as “a unique precedent in the history
of Nicaragua, of Latin America, and possibly of the world” 21 before the United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2006.
Nonetheless, the authorities of the GTR-K filed their complaints within the
Petition before the IACHR in 2014, and appeared as the protagonists of the video

144

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

“We Do Not Consent”, 22 indicating the lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
over the “Agreement.”

Representative Brooklyn Rivera returns to the National Assembly
The Representative of the regional indigenous party, Yapti Tasba Masraka
Nanih Aslatakanka (YATAMA), Brooklyn Rivera, was stripped of his parliamentary
immunity in the previous legislative session by the representatives of party in office,for allegedly selling land illegally. He was never accused before the judiciary, however, and was reelected as a congressional representative by the RACCN region to
the National Assembly during the November 2016 elections.
The election for the presidency and for the National Assembly members wasmarked by abstentions and was widely indicated as fraudulent. The
Supreme Electoral Council (CSE) transported the electoral results records
from the RACCN to Managua with the pretext of conducting a recount, while themembers of YATAMA protested and while Bilwi, Puerto Cabezas was militarized
by members of the National Police anti-riot unit. 23
At the same time, the official daily La Gaceta and the official webpage of
the CSE published inconsistent results. The CSE webpage doubled the votes
favoring the party in office in the RACCN and RACCS regions, which led toRivera losing his seat. 24 Finally, it proclaimed that Brooklyn Rivera won the only
seat as a representative awarded to YATAMA, with Nancy Elizabeth Henríquez
as alternate representative. In total, 71 of the 92 representatives for the next
legislative assembly went to the party in office.

Measures by the Inter-American Court andInter-American Commission
In January 2016, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of sevencommunities in the territories of Wanki Li Aubra and Li Lamni Tasbaika Kum, 25
in addition to those granted to 5 communities on October 14, 2015, making a
total of 12 communities. The conflict involves the illegal invasion of non-indigenous persons or “settlers” in legally titled indigenous territories. However, theState of Nicaragua did not respect the precautionary measures. Thus CEJUDH-MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

145

CAN and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), requested provisional measures from the IACHR Court, which were granted in September 2016.
Those measures were requested in order to prevent irreparable harm to
the rights to the life and personal integrity of the members of the indigenous
Mískitu communities of the RACCN. Nonetheless, due to the lack of State action,community members are still unable to move freely for the use and tenancy of
their lands to freely engage in their hunting, fishing, and fruit gathering activities,
because they are faced with armed settlers who are invading encroaching
upon their lands. 26 In particular, many women and children have been forcibly
displaced and have abandoned their homes for fear of being attacked, and haveeven taken refuge in Honduras.
Nonetheless, the State of Nicaragua, through a report to the IACHR, has
tried to justify its inaction, arguing that the acts have not been denounced to thenational police. For their part, the indigenous peoples and their attorneys state
that: “the community members have denounced the crimes or disappearancesthat have occurred there to the Police, but the Police have not conductedinvestigations because they say that they have not received orientations
from their superiors”. 27
Moreover, during 2016, violence in these communities has received
extensive coverage in the national and international communications media, andthe authorities are obligated by law to investigate on their own initiative once they
become aware of illegal acts. 				Notes and references
1

2

3

4

El pepino de mar: manjar de la muerte, La Prensa, 10/30/2016,
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/10/30/suplemento/la-prensa-domingo/2126010-el-pepino-demar-manjar-de-la-muerte
Caso Acosta y lo peligroso que es defender los derechos humanos en Nicaragua. La Prensa,
09/20/2016,
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/09/20/nacionales/2103171-caso-acosta-lo-peligroso-de-defender-los- derechos-humanos-en-nicaragua
Estado debe responder por caso Acosta, La Prensa, 09/19/2016,
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/09/19/nacionales/2102390-estado-responder-caso-acosta,
Gobierno: En Nicaragua no hay persecución a defensores de derechos humanos, La Prensa,
10/11/2016, http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/10/11/nacionales/2115370-en-nicaragua-no-haypersecucion-a-defensores- alega-gobierno
Murder and Manifest Destiny on The Mosquito Coast, BuzzFeed, 08/21/2014,

146

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017https://www.buzzfeed.com/fredam2/murder-and-manifest-destiny-on-the-mosquito-coast, VideoThe Living Documents, https://vimeo.com/183824145#at=5.
Corte IDH, Audiencia Pública sobre Caso Acosta y otros Vs. Nicaragua [IACHR Court, Public
Hearing on the Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua], Part 1: https://vimeo.com/186445710, Part
2: https://vimeo.com/187876001
See supra Note 8, Granting of Title, from “Territory of Twelve Native and Afro-descendent communities of the Laguna de Perlas Basin: 12 communities and 24 keys, 3,820.07 km2 and 2, 181
families.”
All of which were registered irregularly starting in the decade of the 2000s in the name of Mr.
Peter Tsokos. Legal Analysis on the Sale of the Perlas Keys. VANI. Maria L. Acosta. 2002, http://
www.calpi-nicaragua.org/analissi-juridico-sobre-la-compa-venta-de-los-cayos-perlas/
The dragging on of time is evidenced in the case of the Perla Keys, which commenced in April
2001 and whose judgment was handed down on October 4, 2016, more than 15 years later.
This systematically and repeatedly reaffirms the lack of reasonable timeframes as well as thelack of simple and effective remedies on the part of the Nicaraguan Judicial System.
Law on the Communal Property Regime of Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of theAutonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of Bocay, Coco and Indio, and Maíz
Rivers.
Law 445, Article 35. The historic ownership and occupation rights of the indigenousand ethnic communities shall prevail over titles issued in favor of third persons who have neverpossessed them and who as of 1987 wish to occupy them.
See supra Note 8, Granting of Title, “…The new territories granted title in the Northern Caribbean are: … Tasba Pri Territory: 11 communities, 800.90 km2 and 1,653 families.”
Intrusos negocian tierras de Tilba Lupia. La Prensa. Moisés Centeno. 6/5/2007
http://archivo.elnuevodiario.com.ni/departamentos/211821-intrusos-negocian-tierras-tilba-lupia/
Special Law for the Development of Nicaraguan Infrastructure and Transportation related to
the Canal, Free Trade Zones, and Associated Infrastructures, published in the Gazette, Offi­cial
Daily No. 110 of 06/14/2013.
La “telaraña” de Wang Jing y la conexión militar con China. La responsabilidad delmisteriosoconcesionario canalero se diluye en 15 empresas asociadas a HKND, https://
confidencial.atavist.com/la- telaraa-de-wang-jing-y-la-conexin-militar-con-china-clone-4nxgh
For more information see: Diagnóstico del Territorio de la Comunidad Negra Creole Indígena de Bluefields. Bluefields, RAAS. June 2012,
http://www.calpi-nicaragua.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DIAGNOSTICO-4-7-12-IMAGENES-final.pdf
Comandante-Presidente Daniel entrega títulos comunitarios a pueblos originarios de la Costa
Caribe de Nicaragua (hereinafter “Granting of Titles”). 19 Digital. 10/29/2016, https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:48337-comandante-presidente-daniel-entrega-titulos- comunitarios-a-pueblos-originarios-de-la-costa-caribe-de-nicaragua
CIDH admite petición de comunidades indígenas del caribe por la construcción delcanal. http://www.agenciasnn.com/2014/11/cidh-admite-peticion-de-comunidades.html Indígenas piden a CIDH proteger sus derechos ante plan del canal en Nicaragua. El Nacional. EFE.
6/27/2014, http://www.el-nacional.com/mundo/Indigenas-CIDH-proteger-derechos-Nicara­gua­­­_0_435556621.html
Video: El ocaso de un idioma, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbHZqbZofU4
A Canal where a Language Used to Be https://schwafire.creatavist.com/linguistic_peril_canalMEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

147

19 Executive Summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Study of the Nicaragua Canal. June
2015, p.57, http://hknd-group.com/portal.php?mod=view&aid=245
20 Indigenous and Afro-Caribbeans say Nicaragua coercing them on canal, Al Jazeera, 1/12/2016,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/12/indigenous-leaders-say-nicaragua-pressuringthem-to-agree-to-canal.html# Indigenous and Afro-Caribbeans claim they were forced to negotiate over Nicaragua Canal, The Tico Times, 1/14/2016, http://www.ticotimes.net/2016/01/14/
indigenous-afro-caribbeans-claim-forced- negotiate-nicaragua-canal; En el Caribe Sur. Gobierno presiona a ramas para firmar acuerdo sobre el Gran Canal, La Prensa, 10/1/2016, http://
www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/01/10/nacionales/1966964-gobierno-presiona- ramas-firmar-acuerdo-gran-canal, Gobierno presiona a ramas por Canal. Líderes indígenas denuncian que lesexigen que firmen un arriendo perpetuo de sus tierras para proyecto canalero, La Prensa,
11/1/2016, http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/01/11/nacionales/1967324-gobierno-presiona-aramas-por-canal
21 Destacan en la ONU restitución de derechos de pueblos del Caribe nicaragüense, La Voz delSandinismo, 5/11/2016, http://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/nicaragua/2016-05-11/des­ta­canen-la-onu-restitucion-de- derechos-de-pueblos-del-caribe-nicaraguense-texto/
22 https://vimeo.com/184864298, September 2016.
23 Rivera regresa al parlamento por la “puerta grande,” Crónica de la revista Nacla sobre laresistencia indígena en la RAAN en las elecciones. 12/17/2016, https://confidencial.com.ni/rivera-regresa-al-parlamento- la-puerta-grande/
24 CSE duplica en su web a los votantes del FSLN en el Caribe Norte, La Prensa,
11/12/2016, http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/11/12/politica/2134148-cse-duplico-en-su-web-vo­
tan­tes-del-fsln-en-el-caribe-nor, CSE duplicó votos en la Costa Caribe, La Prensa, 11/13/2016,
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/11/13/politica/2134404-cse-duplico-votos-en-la-costa-caribe
25 La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos amplía protección a comunidades miskitas, CEJIL, 1/25/2016, https://www.cejil.org/es/comision-interamericana-derechos-humanosamplia-proteccion- comunidades-miskitas-0
26 Ortega ignora pedido de la CIDH para protección a pueblos indígenas, Diario Las Américas,
9/20/2016, http://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/ortega-ignora-pedido-la-cidh-proteccion-pueblos-indigenas- n4103437
27 Violencia contra los indígenas en Waspam, es ignorada por el gobierno, La Prensa,
11/26/2016, http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2016/11/26/nacionales/2140778-violencia-los-indigenas-waspam-ignorada- gobierno

María Luisa Acosta is a Nicaraguan attorney who has worked for 24 years withindigenous peoples and Afro-descendants of Nicaragua and Central America.
She is the coordinator of the Center for Legal Assistance to Indigenous Peoples(CALPI)148

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

COSTA RICA
The indigenous territories in Costa Rica account for some 6.7% of thenational territory (3,344 km2) while the indigenous peoples make up 2.4%of the total population. According to the 2010 National Population Census, around 100,000 people self-recognise as indigenous.
Eight different peoples live in the country’s 24 indigenous territories,
seven of them of Chibchense origin (Huetar in Quitirrisí and Zapatón;
Maleku in Guatuso; Bribri in Salitre, Cabagra, Talamanca Bribri andKëköldi; Cabécar in Alto Chirripó, Tayni, Talamanca Cabécar, Telire andChina Kichá, Bajo Chirripó, Nairi Awari and Ujarrás; Brunca in Boruca,
and Curré, Ngöbe in Abrojos Montezuma, Coto Brus, Conte Burica, Altos
de San Antonio and Osa; Teribe in Térraba) and one of Meso-American
origin (Chorotega in Matambú). Indigenous territorial rights are constantly
violated in the country and more than half the area of some territories is
now occupied by non-indigenous settlers, with the state doing nothing torectify this theft. In Costa Rica, as in other countries of the continent, theindigenous lands were titled without a prior process of regularisation.
ILO Convention 169 was ratified more than two decades ago but thisdid not result in recognition of indigenous rights in the country. The indigenous peoples continued to be discriminated against, with greater levelsof social exclusion and less public investment. Although the 1977 Indigenous Law recognises the traditional indigenous organisations, the concept of Integral Development Associations (ADIs) has, in practice, been
imposed on them with the aim of representing each territory. This concept
is completely alien to their traditional power structures. The validity of the
ADIs depends on the supervision, approval and willingness of the National Department for Community Development (Dinadeco), a state bodythat does not have the capacity to understand cultural diversity, indigenous rights, differences between peoples and territories or an intercultural approach.

149

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

23
24
1
2

3
4
11
5 6
7 8 12
9
10
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
22
21

*

HUETAR

1. Quitirrisi
2. Zapaton

3.
4.
CABECAR 5.
6.
7.
8.

BRIBRI

11. Keköldi
12. Talamanca NGÖBEBribri
BUGLE
13. Salitre
14. Cabagra

Nairi-Awari
Bajo Chirripo
Alto Chirripo
Tayni
15. Terraba
TERIBE
TelireTalamanca
BRUNCA 16. Boruca
Cabecar
17. Curre
9. Ujarras
10. China Kicha

MALEKU

18. Coto Brus
19. Abrojos
Montezuma
20. Osa
21. Conte Burica
22. Altos de
San Antonio
23. Guatuso

CHOROTEGA 24. Matambú* El Diquis Hydroelectric ProjectAlthough concrete progress was made throughout the year in terms of thegovernment’s consultation of indigenous peoples and, at the end of the year,
the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) were fulfilled, the indigenous rights agenda continued tosuffer delays in 2016. This related particularly to Congress’s consideration of the
Law on Indigenous Peoples’ Autonomous Development. Two decades on, this150

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

has still not been discussed due to strong racist resistance and opposition fromthe private sector, which considers the right to self-determination and self-management of indigenous territories to be a risk to extractive investments.
The national policy for a Society Free from Racism, Racial Discrimination and
Xenophobia (2014-2025), which should have commenced in 2015, is still awaiting
implementation.

Preparing a general consultation mechanism for indigenous peoples
The consultation processes initiated by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute – anautonomous institution – were halted by the government in 2015 as this latter has,since 2012, been working on a “single consultation protocol” with the support of
UNDP. By ignoring the differences between peoples and consultation issues, this
instrument may well have created conflicts and sociopolitical tensions in the indigenous territories, both between the communities and with the state. In any case,at the end of 2015, the Presidency of the Republic drew up a directive aimed at
establishing the basic conditions for designing participatory consultation mechanisms. At the start of 2016, the Presidency of the Republic issued the 042-MP
Executive Directive, which sets out the steps to be followed in agreeing the necessary features of the process for consulting the country’s indigenous peoples. The
government drafted a proposed consultation mechanism that drew comprehensively on national and international indigenous rights legislation, although it was
still far removed from the cultural and sociopolitical realities of the eight different
peoples that make up the country’s indigenous diversity. The process of producing the consultation mechanism was launched in 2016, with the following results:1••

An initial informative stage during which 22 informational workshops were
held in the country’s 24 indigenous territories. The aim of the workshops
was to analyse the main international standards on consultation and present a proposal for the process and subsequent stages. During the workshops, the specific territories were able to include suggestions aimed at
adapting the proposal to each territorial reality.
An initial territorial meeting, the aim of which was to commence the joint
production of the mechanism using guided methodologies in focus
groups. A series of questions was used to initiate the dialogue. The infor-

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA•

151

mation was systematised in what were known as “feedback documents”,
to which was annexed an initial government proposal on the issues discussed at each meeting.
A second territorial meeting was held with three main objectives: 1) torevise the feedback documents and make relevant amendments, 2) tounderstand the government proposal on the stages of consultation, and
3) to elect the territorial representatives to the National Indigenous Consultation Meeting. Twelve meetings were held at this level in 2016 andanother twelve are planned for 2017.

Some positive aspects should be noted:•••

Up until 2016, the different state institutions were conducting various
kinds of consultations with indigenous peoples, some of them side-lining
the traditional authorities, thus creating conflicts and giving a general impression of a lack of consistency in public policy and in the application ofindigenous rights. With the Presidency of the Republic’s process of producing a consultation mechanism, these parallel consultations havecome to a halt and will be re-commenced on the basis of these agreements, presumably during 2017.
Although the Costa Rican Institute for Water and Sanitation had reached
an agreement with the Brörán Council of Elders (Térraba territory) on amethod for consulting on the route and management of a rural aqueduct,
it is hoped they will be able to agree the consultation mechanism. In 2016,
this same institute employed professionals to work on the indigenous territories from an intercultural approach in order to be able to conduct consultations appropriate to their reality.2
It should be emphasised that the Costa Rican Institute for Water andSanitation did put the award of a contract for the air transportation ofmaterials out to consultation with the indigenous Bribri community in Telire territory, and ruled out hiring a company that had previously entered
the territory (transporting mining scouts) without seeking the permissionof the authorities.3

The following are just a few of the strategic issues that should be included for
discussion on the agenda of the consultation mechanism in 2017:

152

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017•••

The institutional framework for the consultations, including allocation of abudget that will enable its permanent functioning.
The specific features required of the consultation according to the different indigenous peoples, different territories and different issue to be consulted on. It should be recalled that each people has different power anddecision-making structures, as well as different roles assigned to theirtraditional authorities, such as for example, the clan heads, spiritual
guides, elders and women.
The funding of the consultations.

Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination continues to bedenied by the state
The draft bill of law on indigenous peoples’ autonomous development has still notbeen discussed in the Congress of the Republic, despite being submitted morethan two decades ago following a wide consultation process with the indigenous
peoples. Because of the failure to enact this law, indigenous peoples and theirterritories continue to be represented by organisations that have structures aliento their cultures, and which were defined at the end of the 1970s by a regulationthat lacked any ethnic and cultural sensitivity.

Lack of recognition of territorial rights
The territorial rights of Costa Rica’s indigenous peoples have been recognised
since 1956. More than 300,000 ha have been registered in the names of indigenous peoples and communities, divided between 24 different territories. Theselands were never regularised, however. The 1977 Indigenous Law4 establishes abudgetary precept exclusively for the regularisation of the indigenous territories
but in the four decades that have passed since its entry into force, this budget has
never been allocated. Land invasions continue and indigenous production systems have been destroyed by the plundering of settlers, who transform the forests
into pastureland for their cattle. More than half the area of some territories is now
occupied by non-indigenous settlers.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

153

The state has tolerated this invasion of indigenous land, and the Indigenous
Development Associations – legitimised by the state – have registered outsiders
as indigenous so that they are able to occupy the lands. These actions have resulted in serious conflict, are preventing indigenous territorial governance andhuman development, and form a backdrop to the poverty and social exclusion ofindigenous peoples. The government institution responsible for the regularisationof the indigenous territories is the Rural Development Institute (INDER).
In 2016, INDER hired a group of officials to fulfil its duties with regard to indigenous lands. The indigenous organisations, the Ombudsman and indigenous
rights organisations all considered this a positive sign. Studies on the regularisation and reorganisation of indigenous lands have begun, in particular a census offarm holdings; however, no financial resources have been allocated to this process, nor any compensation for non-indigenous settlers. The indigenous leaders’demands relating to the lack of information on this process and the failure to meetthe deadlines agreed with the government for progressing with the land regularisation (which expired in 2016) are therefore serious.
The land recovery movement, which began in 2011 on the Bribri territory of
Salitre in the South Pacific region of the country, has spread to neighbouring territories, particularly Cabagra, which also belongs to the Bribri people.
This process of land recovery has created a climate of tension in the region
that is legitimising acts of violence (threats, physical torture, burning of houses
and crops, theft of animals, racist insults, etc.) towards indigenous peoples on thepart of farmers and other non-indigenous people. In 2015, the Presidency of the
Republic handed responsibility for this conflict to the Ministry of Justice andPeace. During 2016, this ministry was therefore responsible for institutional coordination and local dialogue aimed at halting the increased local discrimination
towards indigenous peoples and the ever more intense acts of violence.
In April 2015, given the gravity of the situation and the state’s lack of action in
the face of the racist violence, the IACHR granted precautionary measures for theBribri of Salitre and the Brörán of Térraba, these latter for aggression committed
by non-indigenous settlers living on their territory and who are members of their
ADI. In practice, however, the state did not implement these measures.
State representatives never met with the Brörán. They held a meeting with
the Bribri from Salitre in April 2016 but, by November, had only discussed an
outline of how the precautionary measures would be implemented. On 2 December 2016, in the context of a working group meeting at the 159th period of sessions

154

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017of the IACHR in Panama, the state undertook to reach an agreement with theBribri and the Brörán in order to work on implementing the measures requestedby the commission. These arrangements were due to start in January 2017. However:[…] “Despite recent demonstrations of good faith by the state, the violation of
the distinct rights of the indigenous peoples is a reality in Costa Rica. On 29
November 2016, a Petition was thus presented to the IACHR (No. P-247216) on behalf of the Bribri of Salitre. This denounces violations of the right toproperty, primarily due to the fact that the territorial demarcation conductedby the state does not correspond to their traditional territory, because theproperty title is not held by the people as such but by the Integral Development Association (ADI) and because the territory is occupied by non-indigenous persons, for which reason Costa Rica is also failing to meet its obligation to remove all kinds of interference on the territory in question. The violation of the right to legal status is also denounced, due to the state’s imposition of the concept of ADIs, in contrast to the peoples’ right to elect their own
forms of political and legal representation. In addition, violation of access tojustice is cited, due to the lack of a mechanism for claiming territorial rights,
the ineffectiveness of joint actions taken against illegal occupants of the territory, and the undue delays in processing complaints of violence. Furthermore, violation of the right to physical integrity is cited due to the constantaggression being suffered by community members in retaliation for their land
recovery action, without the state taking the necessary action to correctly
investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible. In
essence, what is cited is a lack of correspondence between Costa Rican law
and Inter-American law”.5
The preliminary report of the 14th mission of the Human Rights and Indigenous
Autonomy Observatory (ODHAIN), which visited Salitre and Cabagra at the endof December 2016, indicates the following:•		 “An important event that coincided with these recoveries in Cabagra was
the burning of the Úsure (a house of special use – Bribri spirituality – Bribri ceremonies and rituals), located in Rafael de Cabagra, which wasbuilt at the initiative of one of the Cabagra Councils of Elders, with the

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

155

support of universities and other Costa Rican social and professionalorganisations.
•		 The two violent attacks that have taken place in the last 10 months, including firearm injuries requiring hospitalisation, leaving some permanently injured, were denounced by those (affected) but those responsible
were never arrested, despite having been identified by the victims of theattack and by witnesses to the aggression; these criminals remain on the
Cabagra Territory, taking lands and promoting threats and violence.
•		 They stated their disheartenment, powerlessness and indignation at thelittle or no action taken by the government authorities and the courts inthe face of the constant aggression, threats and grabbing of their lands.
•		 They conveyed the sense of fear and uncertainty these latest aggressions have left them with, in both communities, in terms of living andmoving freely, working in the fields or going to the mountains, due to thedirect threats and constant intimidation with gun fire, among other formsof violence, from non-indigenous settlers and their employees”. 6

Conclusions
The issue of indigenous rights in Costa Rica and, in particular, the rights to landand self-determination, is facing fierce resistance from those who hold politicaland economic power. This is why, even though ILO Convention 169 was ratified
in 1993, it has not been implemented and alien forms of social and political organisation continue to be imposed on the indigenous peoples.
There were nonetheless some positive signs in 2016:•••

The process of jointly producing an indigenous consultation mechanism.
The start-up of studies to analyse land tenure in the indigenous territoriesof the South Pacific region.
The stated willingness to comply with the IACHR’s precautionary measures granted in favour of the inhabitants of Salitre and Térraba in December.

Despite this progress, risks do still persist, however, including a lack of state
consideration with regard to indigenous peoples’ own organisations, the insuffi-

156

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

cient research into territorial rights and indigenous systems of land and water
governance, the lack of an interdisciplinary perspective in the analysis and operation of indigenous rights and the emphasis on legal issues. The lack of an adequate institutional framework for defending the rights and autonomous development of the indigenous peoples is a contributory factor in all of these issues. The
existing institution, the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs, continues tohave an integrationist outlook, and its definition has not been revised in line with
the new concepts of indigenous rights and the international conceptual and legal
framework. 						Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6

William Vega, Office of the Presidency, Costa Rica. Pers. comm. February 2017.
Grettel Gamboa, National Institute for Water and Sanitation. Pers. comm. February 2017.
Ibid.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/text.jsp?file_id=221054
Karine Rinaldi. Sobre las medidas cautelares a favor de los bribris de Salitre y de los brorán de
Térraba. Forest Peoples Programme, 2016.
Observatorio de Derechos Humanos y Autonomía Indígena (ODHAIN). Informe preliminar 14ta
misión de Observación de la situación en los territorios indígenas de Salitre y Cabagra. San
José, ODHAIN, 2017.

Carlos Camacho-Nassar is an anthropologist and geographer, a member of the
Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Observatory (ODDIICC). He has conducted studies of indigenous rights, particularly on indigenous territories and associated conflicts, in South America, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.
He has had a number of books published on the subject.

157

PANAMAThe seven indigenous peoples of Panama (Ngäbe, Buglé, Guna, Emberá, Wounaan, Bri bri and Naso Tjërdi) numbered 417,559 inhabitants inthe 2010 census, or 12% of the total Panamanian population.1 The following five regions (comarcas) are recognised by independent laws and are
based on the indigenous peoples’ constitutional rights: Guna Yala (1938),
Emberá-Wounaan (Cémaco and Sambú) (1983), Guna Madungandi(1996), Ngäbe-Buglé (1997) and Guna Wargandí (2000). These comarcas cover a total area of 1.7 million hectares. The Afro-descendant population, which is significant in Panama, does not claim its rights as collective subjects.
Since 2008, there has been another way of obtaining the titling ofcollective lands: Law 72, which sets out the special procedure for awarding collective title to the lands of indigenous peoples not within comarcas.2 To date, only five territories have been titled under this law, andthese were smaller in size than the actual area of the traditional territory
claimed. It is estimated that, once the process of collective land titling has
been completed, either by means of comarcas or Law 72, a total area of
2.5 million hectares will have been recognized to the indigenous peoples,
covering most of the country’s forest vegetation. A number of protectedareas have been superimposed on these territories, many without consulting with or having gained the consent of the indigenous peoples. The
titling of 25 outstanding territories is an urgent need given that it has beenshown to be an effective way of preserving Panama’s forests, which havebeen cleared at a at an alarming rate over the last 10 years. The indigenous peoples are organised into 12 representative structures (10 congresses and two councils) affiliated to the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples of Panama (Coordinadora de los Pueblos Indígenas dePanamá / COONAPIP).3
Since 2010, the government has announced on various occasions
that it would ratify ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
in Independent Countries but no significant progress has yet been madein this regard.

158

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 20172016 was markedly different from the previous year in Panama, with the Panameñista Party government curtailing implementation of indigenous rights in various
ways.
The year began with a highly complicated dialogue meeting on 15 March
2016 at which all the highest authorities of Panama’s indigenous peoples managed to obtain an audience with the national government cabinet through thegood offices of the United Nations. Initially, their (indigenous) technical staff were
not permitted to take part but a favourable intervention from the First Lady rectified this and the President of the Republic took this opportunity to state his commitment to ratifying ILO Convention 169 no later than 30 September of that year.
In addition, an interinstitutional working commission was established, and thisundertook a legal consultation with the director of the International Standards
Office (ILO offices in San José) and the director of the PRO 169 Department of
the ILO’s International Standards Office in Geneva. The issue was also placed on
the agenda of the Cabinet Council. However, the Ministry of the Interior attempted
to put the issue of ratification out to a public consultation, thus causing a “justified”
delay due to a misinterpretation of the indigenous requirement for “Free, Priorand Informed Consultation”. In the end, the UN Resident Representative, Martín
Santiago Herrero, withdrew as mediator of the process and there was no further
follow-up on President Juan Carlos Varela’s commitment in 2016.
At the same meeting on Isla Colón, Interior Minister Milton Henríquez statedin front of the leaders of all the country’s indigenous congresses and councils thatthe state would only recognise the traditional authorities of the five existing comarcas, thus side-lining the authorities of 30 indigenous territories from any future
consultations and negotiations.
The Minister was consequently declared persona non grata by all the indigenous authorities. Some decided not to participate as beneficiaries in the Indigenous Peoples’ Comprehensive Development Plan, and the Guna Yala General
Congress, whose authorities had suffered other intimidation opposed to their rightto control access to their comarca and tourism, decided to expel government officials from their comarca, particularly those of the Panamanian Maritime Authority (AMP) and the National Migration Service, which had offices on the island of
Gaigorgordub and in Puerto Obaldía. Both offices have now closed.
It was precisely at this time that the international Mossack Fonseca scandal
erupted and Panama’s public image was seriously affected. Minister Milton Henríquez had no alternative but to apologise, stating his recognition of all the au-

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

159

160

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

thorities of the seven indigenous peoples and their autonomies, in order to prevent further political tension. Being able to demonstrate a climate of social peace,thus guaranteeing favourable conditions for foreign investors and depositors, aswell as safe use of the Panama Canal, is a high priority for Panamanian governments.
Although Mossack Fonseca’s involvement in facilitating an unlawful system oflarge-scale tax evasion - used by international politicians, businessmen and celebrities alike – has no direct effect on the indigenous movement, it does harm
them indirectly. The illegal depositing in Panama of funds coming from companies
and people in wealthy countries inflates Panama’s Gross National Income (GNI).
Most international cooperation agencies are unable to assist indigenous peoples
with technical and financial cooperation if a country’s GNI is above the OECD
DAC threshold, set at USD 12,745 per capita.4

The Indigenous Peoples’ Comprehensive Development Plan under
the spotlight
In 2016 the Panamanian government obtained financial commitments from Canada, by means of an 80 million dollar loan through the World Bank, to finance theIndigenous Peoples’ Comprehensive Development Plan. The attempts of a groupof indigenous lawyers (via a draft bill of law) to ensure that this kind of plan would
become a permanent fixture in the national budget, under some level of indigenous control, were not successful. Quite the contrary, the Vice Minister of Indigenous Affairs directly hired indigenous technicians and handed the project administration over to a tourism company, Universal Travel, leaving the indigenous authorities without a social monitoring system.

Indigenous movement’s unity continues to build around territorial
defence
The traditional congresses and councils of all seven of Panama’s indigenous peoples have now spent two years coordinating a struggle around the specific fulfilment of their territorial rights. This includes the titling of pending territories, thedefence and regularisation of their territories and ratification of ILO Convention

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

161

169. This alliance, known as the “Unity Forum”, also comprises authorities fromcomplementary areas to the already-established comarcas.

“Eyes in the sky and feet on the ground”:
cutting-edge technology in indigenous hands
As a result of the several youth training and field work projects conducted byhighly qualified technical support staff, through the traditional authorities, the indigenous peoples of Panama now have a satellite system for monitoring land use
in their territories. Some of the FAO’s contributions to this process appear to be
aimed at preparing the incorporation of the indigenous forests into the REDD
mechanism, while others seek to build an early warning system for deforestationand illegal settlement of these forest territories. With free images provided byNASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) and open-source geographic information system (GIS) software, it is now possible to see, at a very low cost, changes in the land use to an accuracy of 5x5 metres every 16 days. This technology
has been used to produce a base map of forest cover, with indigenous territories
that are recognised or in the process of recognition, and their correlation with thecorresponding protected areas, for use as a reference in support of territorial defence initiatives (see map).
Using this technology, it was possible in 2016 to ascertain that Panama’s indigenous territories account for two thirds of the country’s closed forests and,analysing the changes in land use inside the boundaries of the indigenous territories and protected areas, that in most cases the indigenous territories have demonstrated a greater capacity for conservation than the national protected areas
system.

Collective titling process halted at critical point
Since the titling of two territories, Arimae and Ipetí, in 2015, no new titles havebeen registered by means of Law 72.
One reason is because the Ministry of the Environment (MiAmbiente) declared the inadmissibility of holding collective lands in areas overlapping with protected areas. This obstacle seems to be a political statement rather than an ad-

162

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ministrative or legal one as MiAmbiente referred to an unrelated law in making
this decision.5 Moreover, one of the first territories titled via Law 72, Puerto Lara,
was recognised despite it overlapping with a protected area, as is the case alsoof all the comarcas.
This position seems to lack strategy as it endangers the country’s social
peace and political stability by provoking indigenous peoples as a whole, giventhat such a decision will prevent the titling of 10 whole territories, including
Tagarkunyal, which is the ancestral home to the Guna people, plus all the landsof the Naso Tjërdi people, along with half of the Bri bri territory, creating a real riskof genocide for these latter. An international legal study of the case states that “by
not fully recognising the indigenous peoples’ territorial rights, it is highly likely that
the Panamanian state if taken before the international bodies will de found guiltyof violating the right to collective property and other human rights, and consequently will have an international obligation to provide compensation for such violations”.6
Under pressure from COONAPIP and the Unity Forum, MiAmbiente informed
they would consult the Attorney-General’s Office regarding the legality or viabilityof titling collective lands in protected areas. In actual fact this never happened,thus demonstrating its lack of will to make progress in the titling process.
Meanwhile, progress was being made in preparing scientific and legal documentation as justification for the titling of each one of the pending territories, including the Emberá Ẽjuä Sö territory (The Heart Territory), which is also completely superimposed by a protected area (Chagres National Park). This area isalso under a special administrative regime, being located in the Hydrographic
Basin of the Panama Canal. This territory generates the larger proportion of thewater resources needed for the functioning of the canal. In this case, through aprocess of digital mapping as part of the “Eyes in the Sky-Feet on the Ground”
project of Forests of the World, it has been possible to verify that a significant
peasant farmer population has been settled unlawfully in this basin for some decades, causing alarming deforestation precisely over the same period during
which the Chagres National Park (which covers the same basin) has been in existence. Given that the national authorities have not acted to reverse this process,the Emberá authorities have felt obliged to develop a proposal for intercultural
cohabitation, including conditions that will guarantee the recovery of the forest
cover, and improve the quality and volume of water collected. By titling the wholeof the basin (88,850 hectares) as indigenous territory, it is thus hoped that the

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

163

state will gain its best ally for the conservation of water resources, acting as aprecedent for other similar cases around the country.
By the end of 2016, there continued to be a lack of legal recognition of 25 indigenous territories. Of these, 22 belong to the Emberá and Wounaan peoples,
one to the Guna (Tagarkunyal) and one to the Bri bri. There is also the comarca
to be created for the Naso Tjërdi, as well as the areas to be annexed to alreadyrecognised comarcas, as in the case of the Buglé in Santa Fe, Veraguas Province, plus the inclusion the 21 Guna communities of Nurdargana into the Guna
Yala Region (comarca).
In 2016, the titling and territorial defence processes received support from theDanish NGO Forests of the World, Rainforest Foundation US, Culturas y Desarrollo en Centroamérica from Costa Rica and the International Land and Forest
Tenure Facility. This latter initiated a pilot project for the titling of Emberá communities in Bajo Lepe, Pijibasal and Majé Cordillera/Unión Emberá and the creation of a legal clinic but the project had not achieved the expected outputs by theend of its trial period so it was extended until February 2017 with its remaining
funds distributed to other territories such as Tagarkunyal, Bri bri, Naso Tjërdi,Wargandí and Wounaan. It was also decided to reorganise its managerial andadministrative set-up with a view to a possible continuation.

New laws without prior, free and informed consent
Executive Decree No. 59 of 9 March 2016 was enacted during the year, creating
and regulating the concept of “shared management” in the National Protected
Areas System (SINAP). In contrast to what was agreed between the state and
COONAPIP, however, this decree was not put out to prior consultation with therepresentative indigenous authorities, which is compulsory given that it establishes a system for the management and administration of protected areas which,in 26 cases, overlap with indigenous territories. MiAmbiente recognises “comarcal populations” and that the consent of “communities in collective lands” is required to sign a shared management agreement but it does not refer to all indigenous territories admissible via Law 72 and nor does it clearly recognise indigenous peoples as subjects of collective territorial rights. This means that MiAmbiente has missed a legal opportunity to promote synergy with all indigenous peoples around conservation.

164

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Law 37 of 2 August 2016 establishes the mechanism for indigenous peoples’
prior, free and informed consent and, if applied appropriately, has the potential toprevent many future conflicts. Nonetheless, despite its draft bill having initiallybeen presented by an indigenous Member of Parliament, and it having been considered by the Legislative Committee for Indigenous Affairs, this law was also not
put out to consultation with each and every one of the indigenous peoples as itshould have been. This is very important given that the aim of the law itself isprecisely to ensure the right to free, prior and informed consultation. This omission has meant that a number of weaknesses remain in its content. First, there isno definition of a proactive role for the state in the case of private sector projects
on indigenous lands/territories, nor of most importance, considering the unfortunate experiences of the past year, does it clarify that the concept of “free”, also
refers to indigenous peoples’ right to choose and benefit from whatever advisory
assistance they should wish. Second, it is not clear that the mechanism must be
applied regardless of whether the jurisdiction of collective indigenous property
has been legally recognised or not. Nor has it been clarified that possible agreements are binding on the state, the indigenous people affected and the company,as it refers confusingly to only “both parties”, and finally, these agreements will besettled with the traditional authorities registered with the Ministry of the Interior,
where party-political manipulation is reported to exist. One final feature is that thelaw only comes into force on 20 June 2017, more than a year after its approval,
which is prior to the promised ratification of ILO Convention 169, which would
otherwise have served as a reference point for standards in this regard.

Risk of flooding continues in negotiations on the Barro Blancohydroelectric project
The Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in the Ngäbe-Buglé territory, adjacent tothe comarca of the same name, continues to be implemented without consent,with funds from the German Development Bank, a subsidiary of the German public financial institution, KfW and the Dutch Development Bank, FMO. The construction company is Generadora del Istmo (GENISA). The dubious consent
agreement signed at the end of 2015 between President Varela and the head of
the comarca, Silvia Carrera, was not approved by the comarca’s congress despite including significant compensation. Indeed, the congress reacted by replac-

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

165

ing their leader for having failed to conduct prior internal consultation on saidconsent. Communities were forcibly evicted from the project area in order to begin a test fill of its reservoir, which flooded sacred sites, farmland and houses.
These apparent violations led the indigenous authorities, in cooperation with activists, to draw international attention to the matter and, as a consequence, thePanamanian government has removed the project from the list of initiatives fromwhich the state benefits through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). 						Notes and references
1
2
3

4

5

6

According to the 2010 National Census.
Regulated via Executive Decree No. 223 of 29 June 2010.
The number of councils and congresses affiliated to COONAPIP varies in real terms dependingon the issues it is working on and the level of representativeness perceived by the authorities ofeach territory/people in the different political environments. As of the end of 2015, the following
were not involved in COONAPIP’s dynamic: Congress of the Guna Yala Comarca, Guna Congress of the Madungandi Comarca and the Wounaan Congress, the General Congress of Embera de Alto Ba Yano and the General Council of Naso Tjërdi.
GNI in Panama in 2013 was USD 10,700 per capita and in 2014 USD 11,130 per capita. If thepreliminary results of research into the size of illegal deposits are correct, they correspond toseveral full years of Panama’s current Gross National Income. If these funds were returned totheir countries of origin for the appropriate payment of tax, the indigenous peoples – who are notbenefiting from these funds in Panama – would stand a better chance of receiving appropriate
support.
The Ministry of the Environment refers to Law 80 of 2009 on ownership rights and the titling ofindividual (not collective) lands in coastal and island areas, which provides that ownership rights
will not be recognised in protected areas unless initiated prior to the areas being declared assuch and, in this case, “to enjoy the land, the title holder will be subject to applicable environmental regulations” (Art. 10). Similarly, Law 1 of 1994, which establishes the forestry legislation, declares the state’s forests as inalienable and indicates that no state body or institution, including
ANATI, “may rent, sell, allocate or dispose of lands with primary forests belonging to the State’s
Forest Heritage without the prior appraisal of the corresponding authority and favourable opinionof the [Ministry of the Environment], which will determine their use in line with their forest vocation” (Art. 31).
Legal assessment of the rights of indigenous peoples and the overlap of protected areas andindigenous lands in Panama, Leonardo J. Alvarado, Rainforest Foundation – US, 7 September
2016.

166

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Claus Kjaerby is a Danish civil engineer with a Master’s in International Development. He has worked in the Amazon, Andes and Central America for the past 20
years on indigenous affairs, territorial governance, forest conservation, protectedareas management, ecotourism and land titling on the Nicaraguan Caribbean
Coast with funds from Danida and the World Bank/DfID. He is Forests of theWorld’s regional representative for Central America. This section on Panama has
been produced in cooperation with Surub Heraclio López Hernández, Guna,
Coordinator of the Unity forum for territorial defence of the congresses and councils of the indigenous peoples of Panama.

SOUTH AMERICA

168

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

COLOMBIA
According to official data, indigenous peoples’ population in Colombia iscurrently estimated at 1,500,000 inhabitants (3.4% of the total population). In fact, 80% of indigenous peoples in Colombia are concentrated in
the Andean area and la Guajira, to the North East of the country. The
majority of indigenous peoples live in regions like the Amazon and the
Orinoco (70), with a very low population density, several of them with serious survival problems. There are 65 Amerindian languages spoken in the
country, from which five have no capacity for revitalization and another 19
are “in serious danger” of disappearing. Almost a third of the national territory is indigenous “Resguardos” (Reserves). Most of them have environmental conflicts due to extractive activities in the zone. Between 1990 and
2000, trafficking funds allowed the appropriation of more than 5 million
hectares of agricultural lands. At the national level, indigenous peoples
are represented by two main organizations: the Organización Nacional
Indígena de Colombia (ONIC) and Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia(AICO). The Political Constitution of 1991 recognised the fundamental
rights of indigenous peoples, and ratified ILO 169 (today Ley 21 de 1991
[Act 21 of 1991]). In 2009, Colombia supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. With Decree 004 of 2009, theConstitutional Court ordered the state to protect 34 indigenous peoples atrisk of disappearing due to the armed conflict, a situation that the Court
described as “an unconstitutional state of affairs.” President Juan ManuelSantos signed Decree 1953 of October 7th, 2014, which created a special
regime to put into operation the administration of indigenous peoples’
own systems in their territories, until Congress issues the Organic Law ofTerritorial Management that will define the relations and coordination between the Indigenous Territorial Entities and the Municipalities and Departments. In December 2016, negotiations between the government of
President Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia(FARC) finally concluded, ending an armed conflict that lasted more thanhalf a century, and which displaced many “campesinos” (peasants), indigenous and Afro Colombian families from their territories.

169

SOUTH AMERICA

1
3

4

2

5

COLOMBIA

1 Serranía del Perijá
4 Toribio Cauca

C

2 Catatumbo Region
5 Alto San Jorge

3 Sierra Nevada Santa Marta

olombia is a country where the vast majority of its people are discontent withthe social system and dissatisfied with the social results of the government.
Nonetheless, it manifests indifference and pessimism towards policies that seek
to transform it. This was revealed in October’s referendum to approve the peace

170

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017agreement between the government and the FARC, having a high abstention(63%) and which results rejected the Agreement to finally achieve the peace.
More than indifference and pessimism, there is scepticism about the possibilities
to change the economic model. Even worse, the idea that all institutions are corrupt or corruptible and that there are no impartial institutions is very widespread.
The abomination of this situation is that reality may be giving reason to dissidents.
The most harmful, however, is this exploitation of nonconformity and dissatisfaction present in a large part of the population that can generate a generalized
feelings of rejection to the political class, leading the people to support - once
again - an authoritarian populist model, as is happening in several regions of theworld.
An example of this nonconformity is what is currently happening with theagrarian problems, which concerns in particular landless campesinos, indigenous
peoples and Afro-Colombians. In economic terms, it would be very productive forthe country that the displaced population return to their lands. For that purpose,the law on victims and restitution of land was issued. However, that project has
been politically unfeasible, as shown in an Amnesty International report1 on theland restitution fiasco in the last two and a half years. Land has been returned tojust over 300 people. Furthermore, many of the displaced have not received theland because “good faith” people, such as Cementos Argos, had occupied it. In
the department of Meta, 25% of the returned land ended up in the hands of only
one person. Should this trend continue, in the 10 years of the implementation ofthis law, only an estimate of 1,200 people of the 192,638 indigenous people and794,703 Afro-descendants will benefit, people that according to the Victims Unit
have been hit by the armed conflict.2 Despite this data, there is hope that thepeace agreement with the FARC could change this situation and accelerate theprocess of land restitution so that at last indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants can live peacefully in their ancestral territories.
At the heart of the problem is the political unfeasibility in the “real existing
Colombia” to reform the land tenure system, which is the most important socioeconomic component to allow Colombia to move forward towards the creation ofa modern society and state.
This political unfeasibility to achieve social readjustment of the land has been
accentuated with the polarization between the current President Juan ManuelSantos, as an entrepreneur representative, and the former president Álvaro
Uribe, who besides representing the business class, also represents the land-

SOUTH AMERICA

171

holder class. This polarization turned out to be the best business for the Colombian oligarchy, since it generated the weakening (in part division and co-optation)of the democrats and the left sector. With the defeat of the October referendum toendorse the Havana Agreement the government’s ability to negotiate and manoeuvre to implement the post-conflict agrarian agenda agreed upon in Havana
declined. This included the following topics: land acquisition, funding of productive projects, substitution of the economy of drug trafficking, redress for victims,
modernization of the rural registry, among others. Given these circumstances,many analysts wonder whether in the implementation of the Peace Agreementwith the FARC the country will be able to undertake a radical reconfiguration in
the relationship of the state with society, which will allow it to put an end to this“certain inevitability” of the civil war that has always operated in Colombia.3

And after the peace agreement, what is next?
Surely the FARC will demobilize and thousands of fighters will be reintegrated
into civilian life to try to make with their lives something socially more constructive
than cultivating coca, kidnapping, carrying out attacks, and keeping entire regions
on tenterhooks. It will not be easy for them to build a powerful political force, butthey will be integrated into civil society. Peace will also bring, if not justice for thevictims, at least closure to the conflict so that they return to their lands and rebuild
their lives. In any case, there is still some uncertainty regarding the behaviour of
those who oppose land restitution and do not hesitate to kill agrarian leaders.
There will probably be a reduction in coca cultivation, and possibly some ruraldevelopment in areas where there are social organizations and communities withsome capacity to decide on the public goods that will be provided by the state
under these agreements. Meanwhile, FARC will find a way to momentarily enter
the spheres of power, and they will shine for few years in the political firmament,
but the establishment will then close its ranks to suffocate them and finally they
will languish. And what will happen to Colombia? The state will reduce poverty
levels and impunity somewhat, improve employment situation and temporarily
combat the terrifying corruption, illegal mining and illicit crops. That is, manythings will change so that everything stays the same. Certainly, there are things
that are not going to change. Defence and security expenses will remain, because contrary to what it is believed, which it is that the mobilisation of the FARC172

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

will bring some relief to the finances, the state will continue to prepare to face thesocial conflicts of the future, predicted to be equally ill-fated if the inequality gap
is not addressed and closed.
Hence, this is the moment to take Colombia forward to the next level, andaddress the fundamental problems that keep the country poor and unequal, andwhich generate conflicts.

Dimension of ethnic issues in the peace agreement
Data from the Victims Unit show that 192,638 indigenous people and 794,703
Afro-Colombians were affected by the war experienced in recent years. The guerrilla made life impossible for several indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians.
Massacres such as that of the Awá in Nariño and Afro-Colombians in Bojayá(Chocó), mined collective territories, communities stripped of their territories andyoung people and children recruited are some examples of the FARC’s violent
acts carried out against ethnic peoples. Forced displacement caused by the conflict in their territories is the most common victimizing fact that the ethnic population of the country has suffered as a result of the armed conflict. Among them are
Afro-Colombian peoples who have been the population group most affected,
marginalized, and displaced by the war. In this sense, a closure of the armed
conflict represents the hope of being able to live quietly and peacefully in theirterritories, but indigenous peoples pursue something more. They demand thetruth and reparation, in addition to demanding to be protagonists of the implementation of the Agreements in their territories (point V). For all these reasons AfroColombians fear that the political class in their regions will continue to decide on
the economic and social development of their communities and manage investment resources, or that self-appointed leaders from new groups will emerge after
the conflict and, in the framework of the Agreements, lead the implementation ofdevelopment plans in their territories, occupying spaces of political participationof ethnic organizations.
It is also of concern to indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians how thecreation of Peasant Reserve Areas (Zonas de Reserva Campesina; ZRC) willaffect their territories. These areas will receive FARC combatants that have been
reintegrated, in regions like the Pacific, traditional territory of Afro-Colombian andindigenous communities, which have been the epicentre of multiple armed con-

SOUTH AMERICA

173

frontations. For example, in several regions of the coast in the department ofNariño there is heavy fighting among medium level FARC’s commanders andAfro-Colombian leaders who will not accept the creation of ZRC in non-titled territories of black communities, or that these areas could be used for cultivation ofillicit crops or mineral extraction. In order to avoid future disagreements, the Commissioner for Peace Sergio Jaramillo developed a peace scheme with a territorial
approach to guarantee an ethnic perspective in the development of the agreements. But indigenous peoples, fearing the laxity of the state in the implementation of the Agreements, demanded alongside with the Afro-Colombian leaders theinclusion in the final Agreement of what was called the “Ethnic Chapter.”

The Ethnic Chapter of the Peace Agreement
On the 8th of March, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia; ONIC) and the Afro-Colombian National
Peace Council (Consejo Nacional de Paz Afrocolombiano; CONPA) issued Resolution No 001, with the intention of actively participating in all discussions of thepeace process. The Resolution allowed for the creation of the Ethnic Commission
for Peace and the Defence of Territorial Rights. The Commission was installed asa national body, autonomous, plural, decisive, and participative and self-representative of peoples and organizations. This Commission was created with theaim, inter alia, of “working for the construction of peace from our peoples in function of our rights to identity, autonomy, participation, territoriality, exercise of selfgovernment and peace of the Nation.” In this way, it was made known to thegovernment and the negotiating table of Havana.
However, on the 29th of June, the movement Patriotic March, very close to the
FARC, published a document in Havana that revealed the “contributions of indigenous peoples to an ethnic territorial approach in the Havana agreements.”4
Through this document, “indigenous grassroots organizations grouped together
in the National Coordination of Indigenous Peoples, Organizations and Indigenous Leaders (Coordinación Nacional de Pueblos, Organizaciones y Líderes Indígenas; CONPI) made a political and ideological proposal, which should be included in the agreements as a road map for the subsequent implementation ofagreements in the territories.”

174

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

However, ONIC and OPIAC disregarded this general approach, which appeared on the scene of the negotiation process as a parallel organization, andpresented the substantive and structural issues they had been raising since thebeginning of the dialogues. These included the territorial issue, illicit crops, victims and the termination of the conflict, as well as the future of the indigenous
people who are linked to the FARC after the demobilization process. They also
raised central concerns about the implementation of agreements and demining insome indigenous territories that were the epicentre of the armed conflict.
On Tuesday 24th of August, while the press and negotiators announced thatthe imminent peace agreement with the FARC was ready and that only the negotiating chiefs’ signature was missing, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians
knew nothing regarding the fate of their proposals.5 Despite being the main victims of the conflict, they endured uncertainty until the last minute in order to be
included in the final agreement.
Although the FARC agreed with the document (20 pages), they objected to
two main issues: the Peasant Reserve Areas (ZRC) and indigenous justice. Regarding the first, the position of indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians demanded that these reserve areas should not overlap with their collective territories, also stating that this was a matter that concerned only ethnic groups andcampesinos, and was completely inappropriate for the FARC to speak on theirbehalf and even less to represent them on this issue.6 Second, on the issue ofjustice, according to the FARC this also had to be solved. On this issue they referred to the situation of indigenous guerrillas belonging to the FARC, who weresentenced in November 2014 by the indigenous justice for up to 60 years prison
for the assassination of two members of the indigenous guards belonging to the
Nasa people, in Toribio, Cauca.
The government delegation intended that in the official text of the Havana
Agreement it would only be stipulated that these agreements have an ethnic focus and it was not possible to devote a specific chapter to the ethnic issue. Given
the indigenous refusal to accede to this claim, the government proposed to summarize the proposal in one page. In the end they reached a deal comprised of afour-page Agreement that included an “Ethnic Chapter.” From Havana that sameday, the chief negotiators announced the signing of the last agreement. Iván
Márquez, head of the negotiating delegation of the FARC, affirmed that the Ethnic
Chapter had been achieved by “the very struggle of indigenous peoples and Afrodescendants.” This referred to the fact that a couple of days before, indigenous

SOUTH AMERICA

175

peoples had declared themselves in permanent assembly, threatening with roadblockades at national level and to vote against the approval of the Agreement in
the referendum due to the exclusion of the Ethnic Chapter from the final agreement. Only then, at the last minute negotiators in Havana accepted to meet delegates from ONIC and CONPA to solve the ethnic issue in the peace agreement.
What was agreed in the Ethnic Chapter:
•
•
•
•

•

The agreements signed in Havana cannot be “to the detriment of the rights of
ethnic peoples;”on the issue of rural reform, the current legal conditions of property and ancestral territories will be guaranteed;with regard to participation, the inclusion of candidates from ethnic peoples in
the lists of Special Territorial Peace Constituencies will be guaranteed;
it was defined that ethnic peoples’ own security systems (indigenous guard
and maroon guard) should be expanded and strengthened. On the issue ofillicit drugs, it was agreed that “the cultural use and consumption of traditional
plants classified as illicit will be protected and respected;”programs for the settlement, return, devolution and restitution will be created
for the Nukak indigenous community, the Embera Katío people of Alto San
Jorge, the territory of the Alto Mira and Frontera Community Council, and thecommunities of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó.

Issues of concern in the Peace Agreement
The mechanism of “Special Electoral Peace Constituencies” (Circunscripciones
Electorales Especiales de Paz) enables the demobilized FARC, already without
their weapons, to have political advantages when competing for local power. This
will encourage the political organization and participation of reintegrated guerrillas. However, in a region with a high presence of ethnic groups, this mechanism
could generate tensions with indigenous and/or Afro-Colombian organizations.
Regarding this point, organizations and specially communities are asking if
the state will be able to shield the territories abandoned by the FARC so otherarmed groups do not occupy them. There is uncentainty also with regard to what
will happen in the territories where there are already illicit crops and whether de-

176

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

mobilized sectors can sell the franchises to other groups (armed or not) to continue their exploitation.
Some guerrilla fronts are made up of indigenous people and/or Afro-Colombians, many of them forcibly recruited and others seduced by economic retributionsor the ostentation of authority given by the weapons. Some communities, fromwhich these demobilised people originated, reject them and others demand thatthey be re-integrated into their territories, subject to the authority of their organizations. The majority, however, demand that they disassociate themselves from any
political organization outside their own communities, and that they do not participate in political projects coming from the FARC’s political party. An additional
concern is who will judge these indigenous or Afro-Colombian ex-combatants forcrimes against humanity, committed against members of their own communities.
Will that be special peace judges or an indigenous jurisdiction? These concerns,
and others which are starting to come to light, are legitimate and will have to becarefully addressed in the post-conflict with the participation of indigenous peoples.

National Indigenous Congress
Freed from the burden and tensions generated by their work in the last months
in order to guarantee that their rights were recognised in the formulation of thePeace Agreement, ONIC held its IX Congress in Bosa from the 8th to the 14th ofOctober. With its slogan up: Strengthening our autonomy and unity, we defend
our ancestral territories for the construction of peace and survival of peoples!
The congress brought together almost 4,000 indigenous people from all over thecountry, belonging to 47 indigenous subsidiaries. This congress sought to establish guidelines to lead the work and course of action so that their rights are notviolated during the implementation of the agreements. The event agenda concentrated on strengthening the notions of territory, unity, culture and autonomy,
which have been the motto of the organization since it was founded 35 years ago.
The congress was attended by several personalities of Colombian culture
and politics, who not only participated in the deliberations of the Congress, butappreciated the indigenous gastronomy, tasting culinary delights of the different
ethnic groups of the country, having the opportunity to also admire and buy authentic works of art. The former mayor of Bogotá, Gustavo Petro, a passionate
friend of the indigenous people, highlighted with a speech aimed at encouraging

SOUTH AMERICA

177

the spirit of ethnic resistance of the indigenous struggle in the past to oppose the“paramilitarism that with chainsaws tried to take over the country.” The seniorcouncillor of ONIC, Luis Fernando Arias, described with memorable genius theresistance and autonomy with which this organization will face the challenges ofthe moment: “the recognition of the indigenous government is not granted by colonial or republican institutions. These are formal aspects to continue to control
the legal and political life of all the (indigenous) peoples of the world...” 7
On the 12th of October, as is traditionally done in the country, indigenous
peoples made a formidable mobilisation in commemoration of the “Day of theResistance of the Peoples.” On October 13th, the closing ceremony of the IX
Congress was held with the election of ONIC’s Major Governing Council. The
Congress elected an illustrious group of regional leaders and senior councillor
Luis Fernando Arias was re-elected, a distinguished leader of the Kankuamo ethnic group of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta. Arias pledged to keep strong thefighting spirit of Colombian indigenous peoples.
The campesinos, Afro-Colombian and indigenous leaders participating in the“Post-Conflict” Inter-Ethnic School are aware - even with the concerns they haveand the new difficulties that will surely appear in the future - that ending the war
will greatly benefit their peoples and communities. On the one hand, they will finally have the opportunity to develop their life projects without the interference ofweapons that have caused them so much suffering, and may also continue theprocess of recovery and consolidation of their political autonomy with more reasons to live a good life. 					Notes and references
1

2
3
4
5

Las críticas de Amnistía Internacional a la restitución de tierras, Verdad Abierta, 26.11.2014,
http://www.verdadabierta.com/restitucion-de-bienes/5528-las-criticas-de-amnistia-internacionala-la-restitucion-de-tierras
Las pobres cifras de la restitución de tierras, Fundación Paz & Reconciliación, 26.3.2014,
http://www.pares.com.co/documentos-e-informes/las-pobres-cifras-de-la-restitucion-de-tierras/¿El final del comienzo?, El Espectador ,7.01.2017,
http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/colombia-el-final-del-comienzo-articulo-673655
http://www.conpi.org
Although the formal proposal for indigenous and Afro-Colombians had been included in the final
agreement since August 12, only until Wednesday morning (one day before the signing) indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians were summoned by the parties in Havana.

178

6
7

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

According to ONIC, there are problematic cases such as the Serranía del Perijá inhabited by theindigenous Yukpa, or the Catatumbo where the Barí people live.
Más de 4.000 indígenas se reúnen en el IX Congres Nacional de la ONIC, Contagio Radio,
10.10.2016, http://www.contagioradio.com/mas-de-4-000-indigenas-se-reunen-en-el-ix-congreso-nacional-de-la-onic-art

Efraín Jaramillo is an anthropologist at the Colectivo de Trabajo Jenzera. He has
accompanied several indigenous peoples of Colombia in their ethno-development plans.

179

VENEZUELAThe Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (1999) for the
first time in history, recognized the multiethnic, pluricultural, and multilingual character of Venezuelan society. 2.8% of the country’s 30 million inhabitants identify as indigenous. In 2001 Venezuela ratified ILO Convention 169, and it has enacted a set of laws directly developing the specificrights of indigenous peoples, such as the Law on Demarcation and Guarantee of the Habitat and Lands of Indigenous Peoples (2001), the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities (2005), and the Indigenous Languages Act (2007), as well as several favorable provisions
found in a number of Venezuelan legal norms. Venezuela has also created institutions devoted to overseeing public policy formulation in indigenous affairs, such as the Ministry of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples.

Venezuela saw 2016 open with a reconfiguration of the political scenario, resulting from the opposition taking a majority in the National Assembly. The
opposition party clearly established its lines of action, aimed at removing President Nicolás Maduro from power. Legislative activity was suspended based on an
injunction issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, which voided the election of
the three winning candidates in the State of Amazonas, plus the indigenous candidate for the southern region. The opposition proposed several strategies: direct
removal of the president from office, a National Constitutional Assembly, and a
revocation referendum. While none of those three proposals succeeded in being
implemented, the last of them was especially controversial due to the different
positions in favor and in against it among the various sectors of the country. The
National Electoral Council (Consejo Nacional Electoral; CNE) applied state court
injunctions on requests to activate the referendum and suspended their processing. This situation created a climate of political instability throughout 2016. In thelatter half of 2016, Pope Francis, given the severity of the situation, invited thevarious political players to a “Dialogue Table” in search of a peaceful conflict
resolution mechanism, but to date that effort has not had concrete results.

180

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Second Universal Periodic Review of Venezuela
In November the Venezuelan State, for a second time, underwent a United Nations review of its compliance and commitment to its human rights obligations.
This second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review focused on follow-up of therecommendations made by the States during the first interactive dialogue, which
had been held in 2011, as well as on the general human rights situation between
2011 and 2016. On this occasion, the Minister of Popular Power for Indigenous
Peoples, Aloha Núñez, highlighted three fundamental aspects of the presidential
administrations of Hugo Chávez Frías and Nicolás Maduro: the allocation anddemarcation of lands in the zones belonging to the ethnicities, the application of
measures for proper mining extraction, and the inclusion of these communities in
activities of the executive branch. “In the year 2014, under our democratic government, President Maduro created the Council of Indigenous Peoples to promote public policies on indigenous affairs, in which more than 2,000 of the country’s communities participated”.1

Demarcation of indigenous territories
The demarcation of indigenous territories continues to be the principal right pending resolution for Venezuela’s indigenous peoples and communities. The Constitution’s interim provisions obligated the State to demarcate indigenous territories
within not more than two years. However, according to reports from the indigenous peoples and communities themselves, the amount of lands provided did notsurpass 13% of the total. In August 2016, the indigenous organizations groupedaround in the Regional Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Amazonas (ORPIA)
and the Confederation of Indigenous Organizations of Amazonas (COIAM) issued a communiqué voicing their concern over insufficient progress in the demarcation of indigenous habitat and lands, almost 17 years after the enactment of theConstitution’s Article 119, which establishes a constitutional obligation for the
Venezuelan State to demarcate and uphold the integrity of indigenous territories.
“We are concerned over the standstill in the national process of demarcation,
particularly in the State of Amazonas, where the Regional Demarcation Commission, coordinated by the Ministry for Indigenous Peoples (MINPPI) has gone

181

SOUTH AMERICA

2

1

1 Yapacana National Park

2 Delta Amacuro

more than two years without holding a meeting, and its Executive Secretariat has
informed us that there is no budget to work on the pending files. We are saddened
upon seeing that the cases of the Yabarana-Multiethnic (Manapiare) UwottüjaJivi (Autana) and Ye’kuana-Sanemá (Manapiare) peoples not only fail to advance,
but are at a standstill, without expectations for being processed”. 2
The Amazon Social and Environmental Working Group “Wataniba,” whichaccompanies the struggle of these organizations on an ongoing basis, has also
insisted on several occasions upon the need to activate the demarcation process.
This deactivation of the demarcation process has not held back the work of indigenous organizations. For instance, in March 2016 the “Horonami Organización

182

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Yanomami” submitted its request to the Regional Demarcation Commission of theState of Amazonas to commence a demarcation process. The Horonami’s submission of the request for demarcation is of great relevance. It is the product ofsustained work over many years, where the organization’s membership and thecommunities, with technical support from the “Wataniba” Social and Environmental Working Group, developed mental maps, georeferenced their territory, andconducted censuses to request commencement of the demarcation process.3
As of the writing of our article, the 2016 Report and Statement of the Ministryof the Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples has yet to be published. The mostrecent official data correspond to the 2015 Report and Statement and reflect thefollowing: 64 consultations were conducted in stages of the demarcation, benefitting a total of 4,761 persons. Workshops were held to disseminate information on
demarcation, in which 630 persons participated. 10 cases were brought for Collective Titles for the Kariña, Cumanagoto, Pume, Chaima, and Japreria Indigenous Peoples of the states of Anzoátegui, Apure, Monagas and Zulia, corresponding to a total of 264,563.84 hectares.4 On the other hand, in 2016, during
the presentation of the Venezuelan Report on Human Rights to the United Nations in Geneva, the Minister of Indigenous Peoples stated that the government
had provided 102 collective land titles for approximately 3,280,298.72 hectares
where 101,498 people live, grouped into more than 25,000 families from 683
communities.5

Mining and the rights of indigenous peoples
Conflicts over illegal mining in Amazonas and Bolívar
In 2016, ORPIA and COIAM denounced encroachment by illegal miners in thearea of the Parucito River and its tributaries (Manapiare Municipality). Aggression
and threats were denounced, occasioned upon the Yabarana, Hoti, and Panare
peoples, who are the original inhabitants of that zone, affecting their constitutional rights to territory (Article 119), to a healthy environment (Article 127) and to
personal and cultural integrity (Article 121).6 ORPIA and COIAM also denounced
increased illegal mining in several zones of the State of Amazonas. They statedthat over the past three years an increase has been seen in illegal mining of thebeds of several rivers and zones of the high rainforest. This includes the use of
motor pump machines, which utilize river dredging methods. The result of this

SOUTH AMERICA

183

activity has been an evident environmental destruction in areas such as the Yapacana National Park and the Orinoco, Atabapo, Guainía, Sipapo - Guayapo,
Alto Cuao, Ocamo, Manapiare - Ventuari, Parucito - Majagua, Parú, Asita, Siapa
and other rivers. Such activity has polluted the waters due to the presence of
mercury and has altered the river ecosystems in general, among other things,
taking the lives of numerous fish that are a source of food for indigenous communities along the river banks.7 For its part, the Working Group on Indigenous
Affairs (Grupo de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas; GTAI) of the University of theAndes published a communiqué exposing death threats made by illegal Brazilian
miners in the zone against indigenous captain general Pemón of the Ikabarú Juan
Gabriel González sector in the Municipality of Gran Sabana of the State of Bolívar.8

Creation of the Orinoco Mining Arc Strategic Development Zone
On February 24, 2016, President Nicolás Maduro issued Decree No. 2,248, creating the “Orinoco Mining Arc Strategic Development Zone” (AMO). The AMO iscomprised by a territory measuring 111,843.70 square kilometers, corresponding
to 12.2% of Venezuelan national territory. The zone is divided into four areas forthe exploration and exploitation of minerals: Area 1 (24,680.11 kms2), predominantly for bauxite, coltan, rare earth elements, and diamonds; Area 2 (17,246.16
kms2), predominantly for iron and gold; Area 3 (29,730.37 kms2) predominantly
for bauxite, copper, kaolin, and dolomite; and Area 4, (40,149.69 km2) predominantly for gold, bauxite, copper, kaolin, and dolomite. There is also a special blockoutside of the arc, located in southern Bolívar, in the Ikabarú zone. 150 companies from 35 countries will be participating in this megaproject. 7.51 % of the indigenous population lives inside the boundaries of the Orinoco Mining Arc.9
According to experts, the negotiations with the mining companies did not include consultation with the Indigenous Peoples, thus violating the right to free,prior, and informed consultation guaranteed in Article 120 of the Constitution and
Article 11 of the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities. Theseexperts also stated that none of the environmental impact studies, mandated under Article 129 of the Constitution, have been carried out. Likewise, some indigenous persons have come out against this decree. In March 2016, Gregorio Mirabal, the coordinator of ORPIA, expressed the concerns of indigenous organizations and communities in the Venezuelan Amazon over the Orinoco Mining Arc
plan: “It affects us, because they’re talking about a mining exploitation, about an

184

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

extraction policy, about searching for resources, and it takes a high toll on us.
Why? Because it will bring about the destruction of the forests and of the Venezuelan Amazon’s most important river basins.”10 Pressure and arguments on thepart of the indigenous organizations and of the “Wataniba” Social and Environmental Working Group kept up in 2016 in response to the Mining Arc and its implications for what, from a legal perspective, was a historically protected status.
The State of Amazonas, which originally formed a part of the “Mining Arc,” wasfinally excluded from it.
On May 4, 2016, the Kuyujani Organization of Caura (State of Bolívar) andauthorities from 49 Ye’kwana-Sanema and Pemón indigenous communities issued a statement in opposition to the Orinoco Mining Arc decree:“We consider the Mining Arc to be a violation of our legitimate right to healthand to a secure territory of our own, with quality of life. We consider the decision taken on the mining policy within indigenous territories to be inconsistent, insofar as it undermines the indigenous rights consecrated in the Constitution, in Convention 169, and in the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples.
The Ye’kwana and Sanema cultures depend upon the forests, waterways,
and other ecosystems and natural resources of the Caura river basin to continue our existence. The illegal mining activity in our territory has had its first
impacts on the environment and on human health, which are the initial signsof a process internationally classified as ethno-genocide”.11
In August 2016, COIAM issued a communiqué alerting as to “the potential social,
cultural, and environmental impacts of the implementation of new policies for mineral extraction in the country’s southern region, such as what is being called the
Orinoco Mining Arc, to be carried out in extensive territories occupied by indigenous peoples and communities and without processes for free, prior, and informed consultation. One of the most negative impacts of these activities might
be the abandonment of the indigenous peoples’ traditional activities in their territories and in their own subsistence economy, when social and production patterns
are introduced that are not in keeping with their social and cultural dynamics andtheir identity. These policies could lead to a true ethnocide.”12 Upon becoming
aware of the inclusion of Ikabarú in the Mining Arc, the indigenous authorities
noted that they already have title to Ikabarú, and they requested “the elimination

SOUTH AMERICA

185

of the Special Ikabarú Block identified by the Orinoco Mining Arc Strategic Development Plan”.13
The indigenous peoples’ voices have also been joined with by academic
scholars, intellectuals, and social movements, who have called upon the National
Government to “Stop Mining Ecocide...” 14 A group of citizens even created aspace for coordination named Platforma (“Platform”), calling for the AMO to bevoided, and they brought an action before the Political and Administrative Divisionof the Supreme Court of Justice to void the AMO on the grounds of illegality andunconstitutionality. A group from the Institute of Tropical Zoology and Ecology of the
School of Sciences of the Central University of Venezuela wrote a report named“Environmental Consequences of the Mining Arc Project,”15 in which they requested
information from the Venezuelan State regarding the phases and procedures of the
AMO, since they were unaware of plans for mitigation and restoration in the areasthat will be affected by mega-mining in “oldest zone of the planet.”
As a consequence of being questioned by a broad range of sectors, in April
2016 the Presidential Commission on Eco-Socialist Development and Safeguarding of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Mining Activity was created16 throughPresidential Decree No. 2,265, published in Official Gazette Number 40,864. This
permanent, multidisciplinary, inter-institutional, high-level consultation and advisory body seeks to strike a balance in the first decree with respect to the presenceof indigenous communities living in the AMO. Likewise, the National Executive
Branch, through Decree No. 2,350, published in Official Gazette No. 40,922 ofJune 9, 2016, created the Ministry of Popular Power for Ecological Mining Development, whose mandate was “the development, exploitation, and control of nonrenewable natural resources under its jurisdiction, in keeping with applicable laws
and regulations, always observing a deep respect for human beings and the environment.” On August 3, 2016, the Vice President for Social Development, Jorge
Arreaza, reported that approximately 181 indigenous communities would be incorporated into the Mining Arc: “we are conducting the consultations; we started
in one of the areas of the Mining Arc with eight indigenous peoples. The Mapoyo
and Pijiguaos populations have made extraordinary contributions that will be incorporated into the mining plan and the strategic development zone”.17 On August
9, 2016 the National Executive Branch issued Decree No. 2,412,18 prohibiting theuse of mercury for mining exploitation. However, that decree did not determine
how large-scale extractive industries will engage in open-pit exploitation of minerals. The decree also raises the question of what will happen with the present

186

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017conflicts over illegal mining, which has not been brought under control despite theimplementation of several different plans, such as mining reconversion and theCaura Plan, implemented in 2010 by the national government to stop the environmental devastation generated by illegal mining.

Coal mining project and thermoelectric plant in the State of Zulia
During 2016 denunciations continued to be made over Decree No. 1,606 published in Official Gazette No. 40,599, which transfers coal exploration and exploitation rights to Carbones del Zulia, an affiliate of Petróleos de Venezuela, in anarea encompassing 24,192.14 hectares. Current mines cover an area of 1,763
hectares, with concessions for a total of 7,250 hectares, implying an expanding
activity. The Homo et Natura organization explains that the expansion, if it takes
place, will harm more than 13,000 inhabitants in the municipality of La Guajira
and approximately 12,000 persons from the municipality of Mara.19 “It will affectus a lot. It has already been decreed and will result in the displacement of theindigenous communities, who will be left without water and without a territory,”
indicated Diego Fuenmayor, a representative of the wayúu Maikiraalasalii indigenous association, who also pointed out that the indigenous peoples were notconsulted.20

Indigenous right to health
An HIV epidemic continues affecting the Warao people located in the State of
Delta Amacuro. The first cases were detected in 2007 by the Red Cross. In late2011 researchers from the Venezuelan Scientific Institute (IVIC) and the Biomedicine Institute of the Central University of Venezuela conducted a study (2013),
which found that 55 indigenous persons were carrying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. These specialists were alarmed, because 9.55% of the inhabitantsfrom eight communities studied had contracted the virus. In July 2015, a group ofphysicians took new tests from 666 Waraos in 15 communities. The results were
a 7% prevalence, greater than what was estimated both in Venezuela and in therest of the world.21 In addition, Warao physician Jesús Jiménez reported that in
one month 37 indigenous persons had died from multiple causes in the community of San Francisco de Guayo alone, which is located in the State of Delta

SOUTH AMERICA

187

Amacuro. According to Jiménez, the shortage of doctors and medicines at threehospital centers, which are the only hospital centers in the municipality of Antonio
Díaz, were determinant factors for their deaths.22
Malaria has also expanded in Venezuela, principally in areas where indigenous peoples and communities live. According to data from the Defending Epidemiology Network and the Venezuelan Public Health Society, the year 2016 closedwith 210,000 cases. The State of Amazonas was one of those most affected.
Currently four municipalities are in a state of epidemic. The situation has been
aggravated by recurring shortages in the supply of medications, the precarious
control of the vector occasioning the disease, problems entailed in supplying arough terrain, and illegal mining. Statistics from the Environmental Health Serviceof Puerto Ayacucho indicate that in 2016 there were 27,212 cases counted in theState of Amazonas, 20% more than in 2015. Of them, 3,810 ill persons sought
medical attention in the municipality of Atabapo (with a 90% indigenous population) once diagnosed.23 In 2016, COIAM alerted a deteriorated provision of healthservices to indigenous communities from the various municipalities of the State of
Amazonas, as well as impacts to the outpatient care system, major shortages inthe supply of medications and logistic resources (fuel, radios, and outboard motors), and a lack of budget funds for the functioning of fundamental programs
such as control of malaria and other endemic diseases.
José David González (Wayuú), coordinator of the Human Rights Committeeof Guajira (State of Zulia), stated that one of the most severe problems in territoryof the Wayuú is malnutrition. On June 4, 2016 two brothers, Jaimy Yairuma (aseven month old baby) and Jaiber (eight years old) from the community of Wayamurisirra died at the Adolfo Pons Hospital of Maracaibo. The committee has also
reported twelve cases of malnutrition among children and adults from Sinamaica
and Alta Guajira, and reported a complete family in a state of malnutrition in thecommunity of Caracolito.24 In November another boy died of malnutrition who wasjust two months old.25
Notes and references
1

Aloha Núñez defendió ante la ONU la atención del gobierno a las etnias indígenas, El Nacional,
Nov. 1, 2016, http://www.elnacional.com/noticias/politica/aloha-nunez-defendio-ante-onu-atencion-del-gobierno-las-etnias-indigenas_6049

188

2
3

4
5

6
7
8

9

10

11

12
13
14
15
16

17

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Communiqué of the Indigenous Organizations of Amazonas for International Indigenous Peoples
Day, August 9, 2016.
Press release: The request was filed this Thursday with the Regional Demarcation Commissionof the State of Amazonas. Amazon Social and Environmental Working Group - Wataniba. March
17, 2016.
Ministry of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples. 2015 Report and Statement. Page 29.
Aloha Núñez: Gobierno Bolivariano visibilizó y reivindicó a los pueblos indígenas, AVN. November 1, 2016, http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/aloha-n%C3%BA%C3%B1ez-gobierno-bolivariano-visibiliz%C3%B3-y-reivindic%C3%B3-pueblos-ind%C3%ADgenas
COAIM and ORPIA Communiqué on illegal mining in the Parucito River and the assault on the
Yarabana people. February 1, 2016.
Press Release. Indigenous Organizations of Amazonas Ask President Nicolás Maduro to Take
Measures against Illegal Mining in the Region. April 2016.
Communiqué of the Working Group on Indigenous Affairs of the University of the Andes:
http://gtaiula.blogspot.com/2017/02/comunicado.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcTUXoy+%28Grupo+de+Trabajo+sobr
e+Asuntos+Ind%C3%ADgenas+%28GTAI%29++%29
The Orinoco Mining Arc includes both the right and left side of the Orinoco and goes from theApure River (lands of the Pumé), passing through Palital (Kariña zone across from GuayanaCity) to the limit with the State of Delta Amacuro in Barrancas (Warao zona) along its left side; itthen goes towards the right of the Orinoco, to Cuyuní (Arawak, Pemón, and Kariña zona), to thezone of influence of the Canaima National Park (Pemón), to the Paragua River (a tributary of theCaroní-zone Pemón, Sapé, and lands of the last Uruak and Arutani) and then goes down to the
Aro (Kariña zone). From there it moves to the Caura basin (Yekwana, Sanema zona), which it
crosses and then continues to the Sierra de Maigualida Natural Monument (Hoti zone) to the
Cuchivero (Eñe’pa or Panare zone) and to the Parguaza (Wanai or Mapoyo, Piaroa zone). Finally, it returns to the original point, which is also seasonally occupied by the Hiwi.
Líderes indígenas rechazan activación del Arco Minero del Orinoco, Revista Sic, March 5, 2016,
http://revistasic.gumilla.org/2016/lideres-indigenas-rechazan-activacion-del-arco-minero-del-orinoco/
Organización Kuyujani: Pronunciamiento de pueblos indígenas Ye’kwana-Sanema y Pemón sobre el Arco Minero del Orinoco, Revista Sic, May 4, 2016, http://revistasic.gumilla.org/2016/rechazo-del-arco-minero-orinoco-yekwuana-sanema-y-pemon-de-la-cuenca-del-caura/
Communiqué of the Indigenous Organizations of Amazonas on International Indigenous Peoples
Day. August 9, 2016.
http://fundacionmujeresdelagua.blogspot.com/2016/12/venezuela-admitio-ante-la-comision.
html
https://www.aporrea.org/poderpopular/n289065.html
Consecuencias ambientales del Proyecto Arco Minero, Revista Sic, October 20, 2016, http://revistasic.gumilla.org/2016/consecuencias-ambientales-del-proyecto-arco-minero/
Arco Minero impulsará desarrollo sustentable y bienestar de comunidades, AVN, April 5, 2016,
http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/arco-minero-impulsar%C3%A1-desarrollo-sustentable-y-bienestar-comunidades
Más de 180 comunidades indígenas participarán en desarrollo del Arco Minero del Orinoco,
AVN, August 3, 2016,
http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/m%C3%A1s-180-comunidades-ind%C3%ADgenas-participar%C3%A1n-desarrollo-del-arco-minero-del-orinoco

SOUTH AMERICA

189

18 Published in Official Gazette No. 40,960 of August 9, 2016.
19 Due to coal, the burning and exploding of the Perijá Sierra: http://elestimulo.com/climax/sierrade-perija/
20 Ibid.
21 Research report: Una epidemia de sida está diezmando a los warao, Armando Info, February 10,2017,https://www.armando.info/historias/series/epidemia-de-sida-warao/7410=una-epidemia-de-sida-esta-diezmando-a-los-warao#; Viaje al fondo de una etnia enferma, Armando Info, November
25, 2015, http://www.armando.info/historias/6032=viaje-al-fondo-de-una-etnia-enferma; El HIV
trasmutó hasta los matrimonios warao, Armando Info, November 30, 2015, http://www.armando.
info/historias/6031=el-vih-trasmuto-hasta-los-matrimonios-warao; Un pueblo abandonado a su
suerte, Armando Info, December 1, 2015, http://www.armando.info/historias/6025=un-puebloabandonado-a-su-suerte
22 Las muertes no contadas del warao, Radio Noticias Venezuela, February 21, 2017, http://www.
radiofeyalegrianoticias.net/sitio/2017/02/las-muertes-no-contadas-del-warao/
23 La malaria se esparce en el remoto Amazonas, Armando Info, February 12, 2017, http://www.
armando.info/historias/7413=la-malaria-se-esparce-en-el-remoto-amazonas
24 Hambre y desnutrición en comunidades indígenas de Venezuela, Revista Sic, October 12, 2016,
http://revistasic.gumilla.org/2016/hambre-y-desnutricion-en-comunidades-indigenas-de-venezuela/
25 Alimentación y derechos de los indígenas en Venezuela: Las inexactitudes de las declaraciones
del Estado venezolano en el EPU, CODHEZ, November 16, 2016, https://codhez.wordpress.
com/2016/11/16/alimentacion-y-derechos-de-los-indigenas-en-venezuela-las-inexactitudes-delas-declaraciones-del-estado-venezolano-en-el-epu/

Article written by the Amazon Social and Environmental Working Group WATANIBA with the collaboration of journalist Minerva Vitti.

190

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

FRENCH GUIANA
Guiana is an overseas department and region of France in South America. It is bordered to the west by Suriname and to the south and east by
Brazil. It has a population of 244,118 inhabitants (INSEE, 2013). The interior of the country (90% of the land mass) is covered by dense equatorial
forest that is only accessible by plane or canoe along the Maroni River
from the west or the Oyapock River from the south-east.
Indigenous peoples account for 5% of the population, or around
10,000 people. The Lokono (or Arawak), the Téleuyu (also called Kali’na,
Galibi) and the Pahikweneh (or Palikur) live along the coast between
Saint Laurent du Maroni and Saint Georges de l’Oyapock. The Teko (orEmerillon) and Wayampi live along the upper Oyapock, and the Wayana,plus a few Teko along the upper Maroni. Their traditional practices of fishing, hunting, gathering and slash-and-burn agriculture have become increasingly difficult due to numerous regulations and mining activities.
France has ratified the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but not ILO Convention 169. It only recognises Areas ofCollective Land Use Rights (Zones de Droits d’Usage Collectifs / ZDUC),
concessions and transfers. These areas cover 8% of the area of Guiana
and give only a simple right to use of the land.

During 2016, representatives of Guiana’s indigenous organisations, associations and networks (customary chiefs, National Indigenous Organisation of
Guiana/ONAG, Federation of Indigenous Organisations of Guiana/FOAG, First
Nations Collective, Consultative Council of Amerindian and Bushinenge Populations/CCPAB, indigenous youth, Collective Alliance of Amerindians of Guiana/
ACAG…) continued to make their voices heard and denounce the recurrent problems affecting indigenous men and women.

191

SOUTH AMERICA

2
1
2
1
3
3
3

6 4
6

4
5

5

1 Lokono (or Arawak)
4 Teko (Emerillon)

2 Téleuyu (Kali’na, Galibi)
5 Wayampi

3 Pahikweneh (or Palikur)
6 Wayana

Map adapted from Pierre Jobert, Parc Amazonique de la Guyane (PAG), 2013

Biopiracy and bioprospecting
On 25 January, in Paris, the Senate examined the draft bill of law to recapture thebiodiversity of nature and landscapes. At the same time, the France LibertésFoundation denounced “the unethical practices of the Institute for Development
Research (IRD)”. In a press release, it emphasised that the Institute “was relying
on the traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities to submit apatent related to a Guianese plant; this would give the Institute a monopoly over

192

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017its commercial exploitation without recognising the contribution and rights of the
Guianese people who had participated in the research project”.1 The Foundation
has lodged an appeal with the European Patent Office, and ONAG has supported
it in this action.

Consultative Council of Amerindian Populations and Bushinenge(CCPAB)The CCPAB was established by Law No. 2007-24 dated 21 February 2007 following an amendment by Guianese Senator Georges Othily.2 Amendment no. 344,
article 18, on Recapturing Biodiversity, submitted to the National Assembly by
Mrs Chantal Berthelot & al., on 24 February 2016, recalls that “the CCPAB must
be able to express an opinion on all projects or proposals for deliberation by theGeneral Council, Regional Council or State with regard to the environment, living
environment and cultural activities of Amerindian and Bushinenge populations”. It
highlights that “in fact, it has been called upon rarely, and nothing in the law requires that it is”. Since the transition in 2016 to the Territorial Authority of Guiana(CTG), there has been a duty to inform the Council. The texts anticipate a majorchange for the CCPAB: “all projects or proposals for deliberation that have consequences for the environment, living conditions or are related to the activities ofAmerindian or Bushinenge populations must be submitted for the prior opinion of
the Consultative Council / Article L71-121-4”. Finally, the CCPAB becomes “thelegal person of public law responsible for organising the consultation with the inhabitants of the community (ies) who hold traditional knowledge associated withgenetic resources under conditions set out in Articles L. 412-9 to L. 412-12 of thislaw”.3
In a letter dated 4 December sent to the President of the Republic, the CCPAB
expressed its concerns at the points contained in the Agreement on the Future of
Guiana.4 It recalled that the customary chiefs had not been involved or consulted
and that their consent had not been sought. The CCPAB considers that thisAgreement on the Future of Guiana “directly affects their customary communities,
in violation of Law 2011-884 of 27 July 2011, Heading XII Chap. 1: Art L71-121-4
and L 71-121-5”. Such is the case of the planned cession of 200,000 hectares ofprimary forest to the CTG, intended for biomass. This project directly affects thecustomary lands and subsistence areas of the communities. The CCPAB recalledSOUTH AMERICA

193

in its letter that “previous demands made by their communities (since 18/12/1992)
under the auspices of Law D 34 of the State Property Code and Decree No. 87467 of 14 April 1987 were frozen by the local and state authorities; the communities are still demanding the return of their customary lands to this day”. The
CCPAB is not in favour of granting the CTG the power to regulate, let alone legislate, on the land issue in Guiana.5

Education
The start of the 2016 school year was heavily marked by a lack of accommodation and support for Amerindian high school students who are following their studies on the coast and by a need to keep the Cayenne residential schools open at
the weekends and during short holidays. Parents from the Upper Maroni repeatedtheir desire to build a “middle school” in Wayana country, at Taluen village. They
feel their children are still too young (at 10 and 11 years) to leave the family nest
and fend for themselves in Maripasoula.
France has recognised regional languages since 1992. There has been academic provision for mother-tongue teachers (Intervenants en langue maternelle–ILM-) since 1998, within the context of Article L31 of the Education Code. This
provision helps pupils feel at home at school and gives them the opportunity ofdeveloping a mastery of their mother tongue and valuing their culture, in order tohelp develop their self-esteem and facilitate their learning of French. The Guianese authority has signed an agreement with the university to establish, as from2016 on, a university degree in education and training sciences that will enable
ILM to take part in examinations for the teaching profession and thus put an end
to their precarious situation.

Gold mining
The Guiana Amazonian Park (PAG) noted an increase in illegal gold mining sites
during 2016. By November, the PAG had recorded 139 sites of illegal operations.
This represents a 23% increase on 2015. This is the highest number of illegalsites observed in the park since the start of the overflight campaigns in 2008. In
2016, the PAG noted eight active sites at Camopi, nine at Saül and 91 at Maripa-

194

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

soula. Twelve barges (eight active and four under construction) were present
on Guiana’s inland waterways as opposed to only one the previous year.6 Illegal
gold mining affects natural habitats and the local populations who depend on
those habitats. It causes methylmercury contamination, which enters the foodchain through the consumption of fish and is toxic to the central nervous system.7 Wild game is increasingly rare, the forest and river environment is polluted and destroyed. There are significant health (skin problems, deformations
related to mercury etc.) and social consequences (insecurity, illegal trafficking,prostitution, violence, etc.). In September, five young Wayana men were arrested by the Surinamese police for stealing a canoe in relation to illegal gold
mining. They were imprisoned in g, prostitution, violence, tions related to mercury etc) and social consequences (insecurity, illegal trafficking, prostitut Paramaribo in Suriname, where they await their fate. The inhabitants of the Upper
Maroni and Upper Oyapock regularly protest against illegal gold mining, withshots sometimes being exchanged with the Surinamese and Brazilians.

Religion
Forced evangelisation of the Amerindian population of the interior is not a newphenomenon, but it has grown considerably in scale in recent years, particularly during 2016. In April, young residential students in Maripasoula and inhabitants from the villages of the Upper Maroni suffered from attacks of “spasmophilia”. Some months later, Talhuen village had its first evangelical church. The
practices promoted run counter to respect for traditional, particularly shamanic,
beliefs. Followers of this church consider shamanism to be evil. They are encouraging changes in the traditional way of life of the Amerindians: to stop
drinking cachiri (a traditional drink) and to no longer practise their artisanal andceremonial activities… In the context of several meetings, the ADER association alerted the indigenous organisations and public authorities: sub-prefects,
Guiana Amazonian Park, Regional Unit for Better Living for the Populations of
the Interior (CeRMEPI)…. PAG’s Scientific Committee also took a position in
December, sending the Prefect a letter of warning regarding the increase inevangelical movements.

SOUTH AMERICA

195

Guiana’s Amerindian populations at the Senate
A Guianese delegation of some 15 people (representatives of Amerindian communities, local and voluntary actors, elected members, heads of public authorities, of CeRMEPI…), responded to an invitation from Senator Aline Archimbaud,co-author with deputy Marie-Anne Chapdelaine of the parliamentary report on
suicide among the Amerindian population,8 to attend a seminar on Guiana’s Amerindian population at the Senate on 30 November. The follow-up given to thereport, published at the end of 2015, and its 37 proposals for countering the
problem of suicide9 and creating the conditions for well-being, were discussed.
Some delegation members met the Minister for Overseas Territories and raised
the lack of consultation of indigenous populations on the part of Guiana’s different
authorities and institutions.					Notes and references
1

2
3

4

5

6
7
8

Thomas Burelli, “Des chercheurs français s’approprient des savoirs guyanais ancestraux”,
France Libertés, 25 January 2016, http://www.france-libertes.org/Des-chercheurs-francais-biopiraterie.html
Maude Elfort, “Pouvoirs publics, populations amérindiennes et bushinenge en Guyane Française”, Pouvoirs dans la Caraïbe, n°16, 22 September 2011, http://plc.revues.org/819.
Chantal Berthelot et al., “Reconquête de la biodiversité”, Amendment No. 3442, National Assembly, Art.18., 24 February 2016. At the start of 2017, the government adopted an amendment
in the Senate enabling the regional authority to create an “establishment for cultural and environmental cooperation”. A third of the representatives of the Consultative Council for Amerindianand Bushinenge Populations were to sit on the Board of Directors (Art. L. 7124-21).
The agreement on the future of Guiana was announced by the President of the Republic on 13
December 2013. It sets financial, structural, legislative, social and other commitments for the
next 15 years on the part of the State and Guiana’s elected representatives in essential areas
such as infrastructure, education and health, in order to encourage Guiana’s development.
Conseil Consultatif des Populations Amérindiennes et Bushinenge de Guyane (CCPAB), “Pacted’avenir de Guyane”, Lettre à l’attention de Mr le Président de la République, 4 December 2016,
http://foag.over-blog.compa/2016/12/lettre-du-conseil-consultatif-des-populations-amerindiennes-et-bushinenge-ccpab.html
PAG, Suivi de l’évolution de l’orpaillage illégal, http://www.parc-amazonien-guyane.fr/
Aline Archimbaud & Marie-Anne Chapdelaine, “Suicides des jeunes Amérindiens en Guyanefrançaise”, Rapport au Premier Ministre, 2015, proposals 26 & 27, pp. 93-94.
Ibid.

196

9

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The annual rate of suicide in metropolitan France is 16 per 100,000. In 2014, it was 172 per
100,000 in Upper Maroni and Upper Oyapock combined. This was 11 times more than in metropolitan France (Sources: Decentralised Health and Prevention Centres (CDPS) of the Andrée
Rosemon Hospital (CHAR); ADER Association; Remi Pacot, 2016, La problématique du suicidechez les Amérindiens de la commune de Camopi entre 2008 et 2015, Medicine Thesis; and the
National Suicide Observatory (ONS).

Rachel Merlet, anthropologist, is the regional coordinator for a programme developed by Actions pour le Développement, l’Education et la Recherche (ADER)
in two remote border communes of Guiana. GITPA (Groupe international de travail sur les populations autochtones) Expert.
Florencine Edouard, General Coordinator & Alexandre Sommer, General Secretary, Organisation des Nations Autochtones de Guyane (ONAG).
Jean-Philippe Chambrier, General Coordinator & Anne-Marie Chambrier, Delegate Coordinator, Fédération des Organisations Autochtones de Guyane(FOAG).
Christophe Pierre, Réseau Jeunesse Autochtone.
A huge thank you to the representatives of Guiana’s indigenous organisations,groups, associations and networks for their contributions to this article.

197

SURINAME
The Indigenous peoples of Suriname number approximately 20,344 people, or 3.8% of the total population of 541,6381 (census 2012). The fourmost numerous Indigenous peoples are the Kali’ña (Caribs), Lokono(Arawaks), Trio (Tirio, Tareno) and Wayana. In addition, there are small
settlements of other Amazonian Indigenous peoples in the south of Suriname, including the Akurio, Apalai, Wai-Wai, Katuena/Tunayana, Mawayana, Pireuyana, Sikiiyana, Okomoyana, Alamayana, Maraso, Sirewu
and Sakëta. The Kali’ña and Lokono live mainly in the northern part of thecountry and are sometimes referred to as “lowland” Indigenous peoples,
whereas the Trio, Wayana and other Amazonian peoples live in the south
and are referred to as “highland” peoples.
Suriname is one of the few countries in South America that has not
ratified ILO Convention 169. It did vote in favour of adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 but the legislative
system of Suriname, based on colonial legislation, does not recognize
Indigenous or tribal peoples, and Suriname has no legislation governing
Indigenous peoples’ land or other rights. This forms a major threat to thesurvival and well-being of Indigenous and tribal peoples, along with respect for their rights, particularly given the strong focus that is being
placed on Suriname’s many natural resources (including oil, bauxite,
gold, water, forests and biodiversity).

Land rights issuesT

he recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Suriname, including land
rights, has not advanced, in spite of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights ruling of November 2015 which ordered the State to do so. Threats andconflicts continued, with the issue of the land title acquired by the international
airport of Suriname, covering two Indigenous villages as a continued hot topic.
The brutal arrest of two village leaders in June 2016 led to an outburst by the villagers and barricading of the road to the airport. Talks between government min-

198

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

isters and the villages in the following months did not lead to a solution, and theministers referred the issue back to the President of Suriname for further instructions.
In the village Maho whose case before the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights was admitted in 2009,2 the situation also got grimmer, after a newland owner bought land covering part of the Kali’na community’s traditional territory. The new land owner immediately started to level the terrain with the apparent intention of a land development project for building houses. At the same time,
the government started the construction of a road through the village. Protests byvillagers are still ongoing, and one of them has been brought to court in Surinameby another land owner at the time of writing this article.
On 9 August which in Suriname is also celebrated as a national holiday,
namely the Day of Indigenous Peoples, a manifestation to demand attention forthese and other issues was held in the streets of Paramaribo, the capital. A petition requesting protection and support from the national parliament was handed
over to the chairperson of the National Assembly. Reassuring words by the chairperson however, did not materialize in solutions.
On a more positive note, the Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname, VIDS (Association of Indigenous Village Leaders), implemented a land andresource management project, funded by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)which resulted in, among others, mapping of the traditional territories of six villages in the Para Oost region of Suriname and initial land and resource management plans.

Kaliña and Lokono case
The judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Kaliña and
Lokono against the State Suriname has quickly become a major stronghold forthe Indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname, in the absence of domestic protection and remedies. The judgment3 of the Court of 25 November 2015 and officially published on 28 January 2016, orders Suriname to, among others, legally
recognize the collective property of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples to their traditional lands and resources, and their legal personality before the law in Suriname.
In addition, the judgment also affirms the rights of the Kaliña and Lokono over theprotected areas that were established in their territories and ordered a process for199

SOUTH AMERICA

1 2

1 Wane Kreek Natural Reserve

2 Bajo Marowijne Villages

restitution or compensation for those lands. The Court decided in similar terms on
third-party titles over Indigenous lands that have been given out without theirconsent. The State Suriname is also held to rehabilitate the area affected bybauxite mining in the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve.
The Kaliña and Lokono case was similar to the Saramaka4 and relevant partsof the Moiwana5 cases, and because of this repetitious nature of Suriname’s violations of Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights, the Court ordered similar measures for all Indigenous and tribal peoples of Suriname.
The victory was celebrated throughout Indigenous villages across the country. VIDS, the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders, and the village leadersof the Kaliña and Lokono peoples of the Lower-Marowijne area united in theirorganization KLIM, organized information sessions about the content of the judgment in villages across Suriname. In March 2016, also the paramount chief of theN’Dyuka tribal Maroon people was visited to share this information, since the

200

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

N’Dyuka lands border with the Kaliña and Lokono territories. During this visit, thehistoric bond and traditional agreements between Indigenous and tribal Maroon
peoples and respect for each others’ territories were reiterated. KLIM similarly
signed a joint statement with the Moiwana settlement to also reiterate these traditional agreements, and to declare their cooperation in jointly pursuing the implementation of their respective judgments by the Inter-American Court.
The Presidential Commissioner on Land Rights, who was also the lawyer for
the State Suriname in the K&L case, was dismissed by the President. Rather
than appointing another commissioner, the president installed a presidential commission on the rights of Indigenous peoples to formulate proposals for addressing
the issue of land rights. At the time of writing this article, the commission had not
met for the first time yet.

REDD+
The REDD+ readiness preparation project that started in Suriname in July 2014
with 3.8 million US dollar financing from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility(FCPF), completed another year of implementation without Indigenous peoples’
participation in its decision-making structures. VIDS and the Vereniging van Saramakaanse Gezagsdragers (VSG, Association of Saramaka Authorities) presented various protests, demanding to be included in their own right as representative
traditional authority structures and respect for self-selection. The implementing
agencies of the project however, continued to consider individuals that they had
appointed as “REDD+ Assistants” as the “representatives” of Indigenous andtribal peoples. Also, various consultancies were undertaken on sensitive strategies and future implementation of REDD+ projects in Suriname without any
meaningful participation and input. New project staff appointed late in 2016
seemed to have change the environment, and more constructive dialogue resumed in December 2016.
In spite of a contentious start in Suriname, a REDD+ related project by Conservation International (CI) resulted in a valuable “Community Engagement Strategy”, with detailed guidelines for government (and other actors) when engaging
with Indigenous and tribal communities. The project was criticized by VIDS andVSG because it had “hijacked” their demand for training of government authorities on indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights. Such training was a condition stipu-

SOUTH AMERICA

201

lated by the FCPF Partners Committee when approving the Suriname grant for a
REDD+ preparatory project. This would be overseen by the indigenous and tribal
peoples themselves but instead, CI obtained a grant from the US State Department to implement its “Widening Informed Stakeholders Engagement in REDD+”(WISE-REDD+) to do so, in a rather top-down, consultant-driven manner andunknowing to VIDS and VSG. Only when notified of the start of its implementation, discussions between VIDS, VSG and CI started, and resulted in a contract
to VIDS and VSG to undertake the necessary work in this regard. In addition to
the engagement strategy, VIDS and VSG also delivered a training workshop togovernment officials which was evaluated strongly positive by the attendees. A
spin-off of the project was the initiation of a process among the representatives ofthe different Maroon traditional authorities towards a coordination structure, to becalled “KAMPOS” in accordance with the tribal Maroon peoples’ names (Kwinti,
Aluku, Matawai, Paamaka, Okanisi, Saamaka).

Other developments
VIDS launched a national awareness programme on Indigenous peoples’ rights,
in order to gain more understanding and sympathy among the general public on
Indigenous peoples’ rights. The EU-funded project foresees in, among others, thedevelopment and distribution of information on Indigenous peoples’ rights, publicdebates and awareness sessions in various villages.
In response to remarks and suggestions by VIDS about an agrobiodiversity
project of the Centre for Agricultural Research in Suriname (CELOS), the instituteasked VIDS to support with consultations of the involved villages. The project
aims to document the traditional agricultural methods of indigenous and tribal
farmers, and an FPIC protocol on the sharing of traditional knowledge and accessto (plant-genetic) resources is to be developed. VIDS has been asked to undertake consultations and develop such an agreement. Work towards this has started in 2016 and will continue in 2017.
The research by cultural experts of the Kali’na people of the so-called “Penard manuscripts” continued in 2016. These manuscripts were made by two
Dutch brothers in the 19th and early 20th century based on information obtained
from Kali’na persons, including shamans, with the intention of publishing an encyclopaedia. The publication never materialized and the original manuscripts were202

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

apparently lost, but re-found in the Rijksmuseum of Leiden in the Netherlands in2011. The museum and VIDS decided to cooperate, initially by making an inventory of the rather voluminous manuscripts that contain a wealth of cultural information such as stories, songs and drawings. This inventory has been completed
in 2016, with funding from the Dutch government. New funding will need to besought to continue the research and outreach to the communities where the information came from.
VIDS implemented a project on community-based health education, by wayof setting an example for such information. The initiative was funded by the PanAmerican Health Organization (PAHO) as an example of a different approach tohealth promotion, which VIDS criticized to be usually top-down, consultant-driven
and urban-focused, in languages and forms that are not readily understood byremote communities, and therefore not effective. The project resulted in, among
others, a methodology for designing bottom-up, community-based health education, and two short video clips in which villagers in their own language provide
information about diabetes and hypertension in role-plays. 		


Notes and references
1

2
3
4
5

The population is highly ethnically and religiously diverse, consisting of Hindustani (27.4%), Maroons (“Bush negroes”, 21.7%), Creoles (16%), Javanese (14%), mixed (13%), Indigenous peoples (“Amerindians”, 3.8%) and Chinese (1.5%) (census 2012). At least 15 different languages
are spoken on a daily basis in Suriname but the only official language is Dutch, while the lingua
franca used in less formal conversations is Sranan Tongo (Surinamese).
http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/2013/SUAD1621-09ES.doc
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_172_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf

Max Ooft is Policy Officer at the Bureau of the Association of Indigenous Village
Leaders in Suriname (Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname,
VIDS). He holds a doctorandus (drs) in medical sciences and a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA) and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.).

203

ECUADORThe indigenous population of Ecuador numbers some 1.1 million out of a
total country population of 16,464,448 inhabitants. There are 14 indigenous nationalities living in the country, grouped into local, regional andnational organisations.1 24.1% of the indigenous population live in the
Amazon, divided into 10 nationalities. Of the Andean Kichwa population,
7.3% live in the Southern Mountains and 8.3% live in the Coastal regionand on the Galapagos Islands. The majority of them, however, 60.3%, livein the six provinces of the Central-North Mountains. Of these, 87.5% still
live in rural areas and 21.5% in the urban sector. The Shuar, who form anationality of more than 100,000 people, have a strong presence in threeprovinces of the Amazonian Centre-South, where they account for between 8% and 79% of the total population; the rest are spread in small
groups across the country. There are different nationalities with very little
population who are in a highly vulnerable situation: in the Amazon, the A’i
Cofán (1,485 inhabs.); the Shiwiar (1,198 inhabs.); the Siekopai (689 inhabs.); the Siona (611 inhabs.); and the Sapara (559 inhabs.); and on the
coast, the Épera (546 inhabs.) and the Manta (311 inhabs.). After morethan eight years of a new Constitution and 20 years of having ratified ILO
Convention 169, there are still no specific public policies in place to prevent and neutralise the risk of disappearance of these peoples.

E

cuador suffered a serious economic setback in 2016 with the fall in oil prices,
the appreciation of the dollar, the payment to the US oil company Occidental(Oxy) and the coastal earthquake on 16 April. All this added to the forthcoming
presidential elections in February 2017, and has had a decisive impact in shaping
the national political stage, resulting in a new phase in the ongoing tensions anddisagreements between the central government and various factions of the indigenous organisations, led by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE).
On the first point, the international price of oil fell for the second consecutive
year: Ecuadorian crude fell to an average price of around 35 dollars a barrel (as204

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

opposed to 42.2 dollars in 2015, and in contrast with the high prices of 2007 to2013 when it reached an average 80 dollars a barrel). Faced with a consequentdecline in state income, Ecuador chose to finance this deficit not through anequivalent reduction in expenditure but by taking on greater foreign debt.2
With regard to the second point, as a result of the judgement handed down by
the arbitration court of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes, the state was forced to pay off the North American oil company Occidental (Oxy). Back in 2006, Ecuador cancelled the oil company’s contract for Block 15 and the Edén Yuturi and Limoncocha unified fields. The stateargued that Oxy had sold 40% of its shares in this block to the Alberta Energy
Company Ltd (AEC) without the authorisation of the Ministry of Energy, the penalty for which (in the Hydrocarbons Law) was annulment. Ecuador’s vulnerable
foreign policy was unable to prevent the legal ruling handed down in Washington
when the US transnational took the Ecuadorian state to court. According to Diego
Martínez, manager of the Ecuadorian Central Bank, “The US$ 1 billion paid byEcuador to Oxy between November 2015 and June 2016 is one of the reasons forthe delays in our payments to suppliers and other sectors who, at the moment,
are owed some US$ 2 billion”.3
The earthquake on 16 April, which measured 7.8 on the Richter scale, had its
epicentre in the northern part of Manabí and the south of Esmeraldas, on the
country’s central coast. It resulted in more than 670 deaths, 12 disappearancesand 6,274 injuries, while leaving 28,678 people homeless. A further 113 people
were rescued safely from the ruins. The damage to infrastructure is estimated atmore than US$ 3 billion but, due to the affected area’s low participation in aggregate output, it only had a marginal effect on gross domestic product (GDP).4
Given all of these factors, bodies such as the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
indicate that GDP contracted by 2% during the tax year, as a consequence of the
weak domestic demand in both household investment and consumption. This
recession was reflected in a decline in adequate jobs in urban areas and a fall in
inflation, to 1.12% in December.5 Furthermore, between January and September
2016, non-financial public sector revenues contracted by 17.8%. The global deficit consequently reached US$ 3.33 billion by September 2016, a figure that had
stood at only US$ 618 million a year earlier.6
This deficit was financed almost totally from external sources, and public sector external debt increased to 25.5% of GDP in September 2016, 5.2 % points

205

SOUTH AMERICA

1
2

4

1 Sumaco-Napo Galeras National Park
3 Kutucú y Shaimi Protected Forest

2
4

3

Yasuní National Park
Nankints

more than in September 2015 but still far off the limit of 40% imposed by theConstitution.7
All this resulted, in the first half of the year, in a notable reduction in credit andliquidity, which changed in the second half of the year with the slight recovery inpetroleum (1.58%) and non-petroleum (1.39%) exports, according to the Ecuadorian Central Bank.8
This did not, however, have a decisive effect in terms of reversing the main
impacts of the last decade of state policy: between 2007 and 2015, the percentage of income-poor people fell from 36.7% to 23.3% and extreme poverty overthe same period fell from 16.5% to 8.5%, according to the National Institute for
Statistics and Census (INEC).9 Inequality, measured using the Gini coefficient,also fell six points (from 0.55 to 0.49), while for the same period Latin America
overall only saw a two-point reduction (0.52 to 0.50).10 In education, the net enrolment rate increased from 92% to 96% and the total number of pupils enrolled in
the state system increased from 2.6 to 3.5 million. Enrolments among the poorest
population increased from 89% to 95.4%.11 As far as health is concerned, the206

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

World Health Organization (WHO) noted a drop in malnutrition from 1.1% in 2007
to 0.4% in 2014.12
According to the historian and lecturer, Juan Paz y Miño, “The Correa government heralded in a new historical era, turning its back on the business/neoliberalmodel: the state was re-established around the people and the state’s regulatory
powers were reaffirmed over the economy: through the 2008 Constitution, wider
rights were guaranteed; priority was given to the people’s standard of living andwork over and above the interests of capital”.13
Although this progress has resulted in improvements in the living conditionsof a large proportion of the popular sectors, it has not necessarily resulted inpublic policies ensuring automatic or full guarantees of indigenous rights, particularly civil and political, cultural and territorial. Indigenous rights are facing a state
rationale that is effective in terms of redistribution and reducing inequality but
ethnocentric, trapped in multiculturalism and ill-suited to handling difference anddiscrimination. This results in frustration for many indigenous organisations,whose primary expectations revolve around the building of a plurinational state
and another model of development, and thus a consequent unleashing of conflict.

Waorani, Tagaeri and Taromenane under siege
In January, the Waorani Caiga Lincaye Baihua and his companion Tweñeme
were attacked while travelling by canoe along the Shiripuno River, near Bahameno. The man died and the woman was injured. The attack was apparently
carried out by a group of Tagaeri-Taromenane living in voluntary isolation in the
Yasuní intangible (“no go”) area. Nadia Ruiz, Under Secretary for Human Rights
and Religion in the Ministry of Justice, confirmed that the pair, both members of
the Boanamo Waorani community, were ambushed and attacked with spears.
Once the event became known, the security protocols within which the police,
armed forces and prosecution service are able to act were triggered. An army
helicopter flew in and evacuated the injured woman to the El Coca hospital. Doctors noted that she had two wounds, one on her right leg and the other above her
waist, apparently caused by spears. Moi Enomenga, President of the Waorani
Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE), noted that the incident had taken place on theCononaco Chico River, near the Shiripuno bridge, as the pair were travelling by
canoe. On reaching a stretch of low water, the husband had jumped out to cut

SOUTH AMERICA

207

back some vegetation so that they could continue. To do this he took out his
chainsaw to cut back the necessary branches. At that moment, stated the survivor, a number of Taromenane-Tagaeri men, including youths, burst upon them.
The wife shouted at her husband to warn him but he was quickly surrounded andattacked with spears. The woman managed to escape by jumping into the water
when they began to throw spears at her. Hours later, relatives went to the site to
retrieve the body of the man and take it back to the community for burial. Moi
Enomenga indicated, in a press release, that the site where the attack took place
was a protected area, as it was an area frequented by peoples in isolation: “Thisis why we are concerned that such unfortunate events can occur.” The last timesomething similar happened in this area of Ecuador was on 5 March 2013. Then,the Taromenane attacked an elderly Waorani couple, Ompure and Buganey, near
Yarentaro, in Orellana (See The Indigenous World 2014, p.151). The cause of theattack has still not been established.14 The peoples in voluntary isolation (TagaeriTaromenane) are a protected indigenous population in Ecuador. The Comprehensive Criminal Code (COIP) punishes ethnocide with 16 to 19 years in prison and
Article 57 of the Montecristi Constitution states:“The territories of the peoples in voluntary isolation are of untouchable andinalienable ancestral ownership and all kinds of extractive activity are prohibited therein. The state will adopt measures to guarantee their lives, ensure
respect for their self-determination and desire to live in isolation, and makesure that their rights are observed. Violation of these rights will constitute thecrime of ethnocide, which will be classified by law.”
According to Alicia Cahuiya, Vice President of NAWE, “If the Ecuadorian state
does not resolve the conflict this has caused, the Waorani nation may end up attacking the Taromenane. This is not the intention of our people, quite the contrary;
we want to share the forest with them peacefully, so that families from both populations can grow up in peace.”
The key problem for the Waorani, however, revolves around the state’s persistent promotion of the (over) exploitation of oil on their territory. Such is the caseof Block 21, which affects an area of 27,831 hectares, in addition to another six
blocks existing in what is known as the Waorani Reserve and the Yasuní National
Park. This oil block was originally awarded to the US company Oryx during Sixto
Durán Ballén’s government, in the VII Round of Oil Tenders.15

208

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

This block is currently being operated by a company called Sinopec, part of
the China National Petroleum Corp., in cooperation with Andes Petroleum. At theend of 2015, they signed an agreement with NAWE for nearly US$ 500,000 in
exchange for their facilitation of exploratory work. According to Moi Enomenga,
NAWE bought engines, canoes and chainsaws for 48 communities with this money. The five communities had been opposing the arrival of the oil companies for
22 years, focusing instead on tourism. Enomenga himself was an icon of conservation through a community ecotourism project entitled “Huaorani Ecolodge”,
founded by the Tropic tour company and the Quehueriono Association. This waseven recognised by National Geographic in 2015.16 Two decades later, representatives of the association and NAWE have signed an agreement to facilitate
incoming exploration projects. Paradoxically, Huaorani Ecolodge has now closed
for lack of tourists, driven off by the exploratory work of the Chinese oil companies.

The aggressive presence of large-scale mining on Shuar territory
On 11 August, police officers and soldiers arrived in the hamlet of Nankints (parishes of San Miguel de Conchay and Santiago de Panantza, San Juan Bosco y
Limón Indaza canton, Morona Santiago province) in the south-east of Amazonia,
on the border with Peru. According to Luis Tiwiram, a union leader in the area,“They arrived at around 10.00 and evicted them from the land. Eight families and
32 Shuar individuals, adults and children, had to leave this area and were taken
in by ‘friendly mestizos’ in Panantza parish.” Tiwiram recounted how they had notime to collect their belongings or animals and that their whereabouts was now
unknown.17
Nankints is a hamlet under dispute, in which the mining company China Explorcobres S.A. (EXSA) is implementing the project known as San Carlos Panantza. This project covers an area of 41,760 has, has a lifespan of 25 years, and iscurrently at the advanced stages of exploration.
In the middle of December, according to Domingo Ankuash, former Presidentof the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon(CONFENIAE), community members from the area and grassroots members of
the Interprovincial Federation of Shuar Centres (FICSH) “occupied the site
peacefully without encountering any resistance from the company employees”.18

SOUTH AMERICA

209

In the afternoon of 14 December, however, violent clashes occurred, resulting
in the death of one police officer, José Luis Mejía, and injuries to another five plus
two soldiers. The government accused the Shuar groups of using firearms anddynamite with which to, allegedly, “cause the death of the police office (...) There
were approximately 60 citizens belonging to illegal armed groups of the Shuar
indigenous nationality who attacked the La Esperanza mining camp”.19
Following the incidents, the government declared a 30-day state of emergency across the whole of Morona Santiago province, involving the presence of
the army, police and prosecution service.20 It was in this context that the Shuarleader, Agustín Wachapá, President of the FICSH, was detained in the earlyhours of Wednesday 21 December. Jorge Herrera, President of CONAIE, calledon the government to release Wachapá and another five people detained in Morona Santiago. In addition, he insisted on an immediate end to the state of emergency in the province, which they considered a “provocation”. According to
CONAIE, Wachapá was arrested in fulfilment of an order issued by Angie Mercy
Troya, judge of the Multipurpose Police Unit of Sucúa. In addition, the Confederation stated that the central offices of the FICHS had also been raided in that city,by judicial warrant.
Jorge Acacho, Shuar assembly member, said that the Shuar’s demands were
aimed at bringing about dialogue and insisted on the “peaceful and immediate”
withdrawal of the forces of law and order. On behalf of CONAIE, Herrera called
for dialogue between the authorities and the Nankints community involved in theevents: “We are calling on the government and the Ministry of the Interior to seek
peaceful mechanisms by which to respect the rights of our nations on this territory, as there was no prior consultation and international treaties were not respected”.21 			

Notes and references123

National Institute for Statistics and Census, INEC, http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/
ECLAC, Balance Preliminar de las Economías de América Latina y el Caribe 2016,
http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/40825/66/1601260BP_Ecuador_es.pdf
Para pago a Oxy, Gobierno debió incurrir en atrasos, El Universo, 23.07.2016, http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2016/07/23/nota/5703861/pago-oxy-gobierno-debio-incurrir-atrasos. Also in
Unos 740 millones se ha pagado a la Oxy, El Comercio, 07.05.2016, http://www.elcomercio.com/
actualidad/oxy-pagos-deuda-ecuador.html. For more information see the PGE book, Caso Oxy:Defensa Jurídica de una decisión soberana y en derecho del Estado ecuatoriano, Quito: Pro-

210

4

5
6
7

8

9

10

11
12

13

14

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

curaduría General del Estado, 2015. Also in Suárez, V., & Bolívar, L. (2016). “Análisis del Laudo
Arbitral emitido por el CIADI sobre el caso Oxy, relacionado con el Arbitraje Internacional establecido en la Constitución de la República del Ecuador y sus Consecuencias Jurídicas”, Quito:
Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Ecuador Earthquake Kills at Least 77, The New York Times, 16.04.16, https://www.nytimes.
com/2016/04/17/world/americas/ecuador-earthquake.html?_r=0; Dozens killed as 7.8-magnitude earthquake hits Ecuador, The Guardian, 23.04.16 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/17/more-than-20-people-killed-in-huge-earthquake-off-ecuador; Informe Situación Generaldesde Crisis Sísmica 16 April. Secretaría de Gestión de Riesgos 19.05.16, http://www.gestionderiesgos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/05/INFORME-n71-SISMO-78-20302.
pdf. Also CNN Español 16.04.16: http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2016/04/16/sismo-de-magnitud74-sacude-ecuador/.
INEC Ecuador cierra el 2016 con una inflación de 1,12%, Quito, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos INEC. Available at: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/inflacion-diciembre-2016/.
CEPAL Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe 2016, http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/40972/4/S1601037_mu.pdf
It should be recalled that, in 2007, the level of external debt was 28.8% of GDP and, following aprocess to reduce this promoted by the regime in the first four years of its administration, it fell to
16.4%. For more information, see the report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Ecuador
Purchase under the Rapid Financing Instrument—Press Release; Staff Report; and Statementby the Executive Director For Ecuador. IMF Country Report No. 16/288 September 2016, http://
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16288.pdf. Also in Ecuador Ministry of Finances, Public
Debt at http://www.finanzas.gob.ec/deuda-publica/.
Banco Central del Ecuador prevé un crecimiento económico de 1,42% para 2017, Agencia Andes, 29.12.2016, http://www.andes.info.ec/es/noticias/banco-central-ecuador-preve-crecimiento-economico-142-2017.html
INEC Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares Urbano y Rurales 2015, http://
www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/encuesta-nacional-de-ingresos-y-gastos-de-los-hogares-urbanosy-rurales/
INEC Reporte de Pobreza y desigualdad. June 2016, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos
INEC, http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/POBREZA/2016/Junio_2016/
Reporte-Pobreza%20y%20desigualdad-Junio-2016.pdf Also at UNDP, http://www.ec.undp.org/
content/ecuador/es/home/countryinfo.html.
Ecuador Ministry of Education, Educational Statistics, https://educacion.gob.ec/estadisticas-educativas/.
World Health Organization WHO, Child malnutrition estimates by WHO Child Growth Standards,
http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/ecu/en/; Niñez y Adolescencia desde la Intergeneracionalidad. Ecuador 2016, UNICEF,
https://www.unicef.org/ecuador/Ninez_Adolescencia_Intergeneracionalidad_Ecuador_2016_
WEB2.pdf. Also in Los 10 años de Rafael Correa en Ecuador: ¿El más exitoso de los Gobiernos
bolivarianos?, El Mercurio, 16.02.2017, http://www.emol.com/noticias/Internacional/2017­/02/16­/845166/­Como-fueron-los-10-anos-de-Rafael-Correa-al-poder.html.
In Zibel, Matías BBC Mundo, Ecuador Tras 10 años de gobierno, además de un Ecuador dividido, ¿qué más deja Rafael Correa? 20.02.2017, http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-americalatina-38980926
Un Waorani murió y una mujer quedó herida en presunto ataque taromenane en la zona intangible del Yasuní, El Comercio, 26.01.2016, http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/crimen-mujer-

SOUTH AMERICA

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

211

waorani-herida-fiscalia-yasuni.html. Mujer Waorani herida por Taromenanes fue operada, El
Telégrafo 28.01.2016, http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/judicial/13/mujer-waorani-heridapor-taromenanes-fue-operada
Sabin, P. (1998). Searching for middle ground: Native communities and oil extraction in the
Northern and Central Ecuadorian Amazon, 1967-1993. Environmental History, 144-168; Bozigar,
M., Gray, C. L., & Bilsborrow, R. E. (2016). Oil extraction and indigenous livelihoods in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon. World development, 78, 125-135.
Cf. National Geographic Traveller Ecuador: Tribal Tales http://www.natgeotraveller.co.uk/destinations/south-central-america/ecuador/ecuador-tribal-tales/ Also in Moi Enomenga: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/bios/moi-enomenga/
For more information see: Producción ORN-Sacha. Reporte Ejecutivo 19.07.2016. At http://rionapocem.com.ec/contenido/produccion/2016-07-19.pdf; Environment News Service (ENS) http://
ens-newswire.com/2016/05/25/chinese-oil-search-shuts-ecolodge-at-amazon-headwaters/
OCMAL Ecuador: Pueblo Shuar expulsa a minera China y recupera territorio en Nankints. Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros en América Latina at http://www.conflictosmineros.net/
noticias/12-ecuador/19836-ecuador-pueblo-shuar-expulsa-a-minera-china-y-recupera-territorioen-nankints
Fiscalía de Ecuador investigará la muerte de un policía en protesta indígena antiminera., Sputnik
News 15.12.2016, https://mundo.sputniknews.com/americalatina/201612151065590382-ecuador-investigacion-violencia/
Estado de excepción en Morona Santiago tras enfrentamiento en campamento minero, El Comercio 14.12.2016, http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/gobierno-decretara-excepcion-moronasantiago-policia.html; Gobierno anuncia estado de excepción en Morona Santiago tras ataqueen el que murió policía, El Universo 14.12.2016, http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2016/12/14/
nota/5954851/gobierno-anuncia-estado-excepcion-tras-ataque-morona-santiago-que. For more
information see Executive Decree No. 1276 of 14.12.2016 at: http://decretazo.ec/portal/decretos/
decreto/decreto-ejecutivo-no1294/
Jorge Herrera on the call on the Church: Queremos que se desmilitarice Nankits y se liberen adetenidos, Ecuadorinmediato.com, 05.01.2017,
http://www.ecuadorinmediato.com/index.php?module=Noticias&func=news_user_
view&id=2818813723

Pablo Ortiz-T has a Master’s and a PhD in Political Sciences and Sociology. He
is currently a lecturer at the UPS Salesian Polytechnic University in Quito and
Coordinator of the “State and Development” Research Group (GIEDE).

212

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

PERU
According to the 2007 census, Peru has 28.2 million inhabitants. The indigenous population accounts for 14% of the national population, meaning there are more than 4 million indigenous persons in Peru, divided
between some 55 peoples: 83.11% are Quechua, 10.92% Aymara and1.67% Asháninka, with other Amazonian indigenous peoples making up
the final 4.31%. This remaining 4.31% comprises 51 or more different
ethnic groups living in the Amazon forest across 1,786 communities.
However, “given that some ethnic groups no longer form communities as
they have been absorbed by other peoples and, although others exist,
they are, due to their isolation, very difficult to reach”, the census did notinclude a further nine ethnic groups.
Art. 48 of Peru’s Constitution stipulates that “the official languages are
Spanish and, in areas where they are predominant, also Quechua, Aymara and other aboriginal languages, in line with the law”. According to
the Ministry of Culture, there are 47 indigenous and native languages in
the country. Almost 3.4 million people speak Quechua and 0.5 million
Aymara. Both languages are predominant in the Coastal Andes area. The
country’s continental area is 1,285,215 km2, broken down into coastal
region (10.6%), Andean region (31.5%) and Amazonian region (57.9%).
This means it is home to a huge variety of ecosystems and a great wealthof natural resources. Currently, however, 21% of the national territory iscovered by mining concessions, and these overlap with 47.8% of the territory of peasant communities. Hydrocarbon concessions cover some
75% of the Peruvian Amazon.
This overlapping of rights to communal territories, the enormous pressure being exerted by the extractive industries, the lack of territorial cohesion and absence of effective prior consultation are all exacerbating territorial and socioenvironmental conflicts in Peru, a country which hassigned and ratified ILO Convention No 169 and which voted in favour of
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

SOUTH AMERICA

T

213

he most significant event on the Peruvian agenda for 2016 was the electoral
campaign, which ended with the election of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski as thecountry’s new president. Although his career has been characterised by a detachment from environmental issues, the population decided to support him over his
opponent in the second round, Keiko Fujimori, current leader of Fujimorismo anddaughter of former dictator Alberto Fujimori. Kuczynski’s background is not themost inspiring in environmental terms. One only has to recall Law No 23231,
known as the “Kuczynski Law”,1 enacted when he was Minister of Energy and214

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Mines in the early 1980s and which exempted foreign oil companies operating in
Peru from paying taxes. And although, come 2016, now as the country’s Head ofState, he devoted several lines of his government’s plan2 to issues such as theavailability of water, solid waste management and forestry potential, these threeareas presented significant difficulties during his first six months in office.
A few days prior to assuming the presidency, Kuczynski spoke to the international press about the two most complex socioenvironmental conflicts he had inherited from Ollanta Humala’s presidency. These are the Conga (Cajamarca) and
Tía María (Arequipa) mining projects. “The latter can be resolved by increasing
the Cocachacra irrigation water so that the Tambo Valley can be agricultural
throughout the year. And the Conga project is on ice,”3 indicated the president inwhat was a declaration of intent in relation to both mining initiatives. In this regard,
Kuczynski’s administration requested legislative powers to “unlock the investment
projects”. This was offered as an alternative way of resolving the environmental
conflicts although, in reality, this has ended up speeding up the capital flows fromthe large extractive companies. One of the first measures announced by the administration was the elimination of the National Public Investment System (SNIP)
by means of Legislative Decree No 1252.4

Drought, fires and deforestation
2016 was marked by the presence of a climatic phenomenon that damaged thewhole country, and which is anticipated to continue to do harm in 2017: drought.
Although the National Drought Observatory5 had warned of serious consequences at the start of the year, 2016 showed how unprepared the country was. Fortythree forest fires were recorded in the last quarter of the year, highlighting theauthorities’ lack of preventive action in relation to this kind of environmental disaster. In all, 10 regions were affected by forest fires, Cajamarca suffering themost. The final balance, according to the National Forestry and Wildlife Service(Serfor) was more than 50,000 hectares burned throughout the country.6
The lack of political will remained clear in the Law on Public Sector Budget
2017 – No 30518.7 This document, approved by the Congress of the Republic,
sets aside S/ 2 million sols for the remediation of environmental mining liabilities
and S/ 56 million to prevent and deal with fires and disasters, while other activities

SOUTH AMERICA

215

such as public security gobbles up S/ 4,120 million and S/ 4,844 million goes toconsolidating the country’s military capacity.

Political context
Pedro Pablo Kuczynski had made it clear that economic growth was one of his
main concerns even before assuming the presidency in July 2016. His lack ofattention to the environmental sector does, however, result in some economic
losses. This was demonstrated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation when
it published a report in November entitled “Production Trends in the Forestry Sector”, confirming that Peru had lost 120,782 hectares of forest every year for thelast five years. The government’s apathy in 2016 was in contradiction even withthe recommendations of the OECD, an international body that Peru has been
seeking to join for several years.
Another outstanding issue during 2016 was the crisis in PetroPerú caused by
the various spills that have occurred in the forest and by its uninspiring restructuring plan. Since taking office, Kuczynski has stated his interest in restructuring thestate oil company. This latter has, however, become gradually enveloped in an
institutional crisis as the Nor Peruana pipeline, operated by the company, suffered
three oil spills during 2016. In all, some 6,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Peruvian forest, primarily the Loreto and Amazonas regions.

Coastal Andes Area
Hydraulic stress
Forest fires are not the only consequence of a lack of rain. This can clearly beseen in the clashes that have occurred in the Arequipa and Moquegua regions
over the use of the water stored in the Pasto Grande dam.8 The lack of rain has
also affected the farmers in these regions, concentrated largely in the Tambo Valley. Because of the scarcity of water, the dam level fell to 64 million cubic metres
during 2016, an amount that would cover no more than the Moquegua region,
and a water deficit emergency was thus declared at the end of the year. It should
be noted that the Pasto Grande dam has the capacity to hold 180 cubic metresso, in other words, the drought meant that it was at little more than 35% capacity.

216

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

As can be appreciated, climate change in Peru has already resulted in local
conflicts. Given the refusal of members of the Pasto Grande Region Special Project (PERPG)9 to share water with the farmers in the Tambo Valley, the situation
became tense when the Arequipa Regional Governor, Yamila Osorio, intervened
to demand that the National Water Authority (ANA) rule in favour of their region.
After a brief period of rains, drought reappeared in the south of the country. The
Moquegua Regional Governor, Jaime Rodríguez Villanueva, has stated that thewater level in the reservoir remains low and, that by the end of 2017, there will beinsufficient capacity to supply the Arequipa farmers.

Las Bambas in conflict
Since the transnational mining company Xstrata sold the assets of the Las Bambas mining project, in the provinces of Grau and Cotabambas, Apurímac region,a long tale of conflicts, abortive discussions, paralysis and repression has occurred around this mine. The most dramatic episode was on 14 October 2016
when a clash between local residents who had established a road block and thepolice ended with one demonstrator dead: Quintino Cerceda Huilca, 42 years ofage, from the Choquecca community, who died following a shot to the head firedby one of the police officers. This was the first death in a social conflict under
Kuczynski’s administration.
Unlike most of the social conflicts around mining projects in Peru, the population in the area of influence are not opposed to the Las Bambas project. It consists of a deposit of some 6.9 million tonnes of copper and the previous operator,
Xstrata, had undertaken to make significant investments in infrastructure for the
population. However, following the change in operator and the arrival of the Chinese consortium, MMG Limited10 -which holds some 62.5% of the project-, conflicts have reappeared due to a series of decisions taken by the new concession
holder.
The first point relates to the changes made to the environmental impact study.
The local population are demanding that this document be submitted for priorconsultation given the changes it has gone through. Along the same lines, thenew operator has refused a series of investments that were agreed initially between the mining company and the local population. One of these relates to therefusal to build a pipeline, which will lead to increased risk from the overlandtransportation of minerals.

SOUTH AMERICA217

The return of Río Blanco
Behind the Río Blanco mining project lies a controversial history of disappearances, abductions, torture and murder, as well as constant conflict with the peasant communities of Huancabamba and Ayabaca, both provinces in the upper
heights of the Piura region. Despite this background, the current government
administration, through the Minister for Energy and Mines, Gonzalo Tamayo, hassigned a promotional agreement with the Chinese consortium, Xiamen Zijin Tongguan Investment Development Corporation. Yet again, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski’s
government is supporting Chinese investment despite the clear environmental
and social risks that this project implies. In environmental terms, giving the project
the go ahead would endanger two important headwaters in the north of Peru that
support fragile ecosystems and cloud forest in Piura.

Amazonian Area
Indigenous autonomy
Despite the fact that indigenous peoples were not at the heart of the broader issues of public debate in 2016, some encouraging news came in the form of theconsolidation of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampis Nation(GTANW). This project first saw the light of day in November 2015 with a collective demonstration for autonomy from the Peruvian state on the part of the Wampis people. Having consolidated their structure throughout the year, the Wampis
nation achieved jurisdictional sovereignty over their territory of 1,300,000 hectares of land located in the Loreto and Amazonas regions. This area, which they
are protecting from outside interest in their natural resources, is equivalent to
one-third the size of Switzerland. Until the middle of 2016, it was estimated thatsome 11,000 people were living in the Wampis territory. This case formed a milestone in indigenous sovereignty as the constitution of this autonomous government forces the Peruvian state to recognise their independence within their own
territorial boundaries.
Without expressly intending to do so, the Wampis nation has inspired otherindigenous peoples such as the Kandozi and Chapra, who have announced similar plans. The Wampis government model is being applied through the so-called
Wampis Nation Strategic Plan, which handles internal social, cultural, economic

218

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

and educational affairs, as well as external affairs in terms of their relationshipwith the Peruvian state and the different levels of government. The consolidationof the Wampis project is largely a result of their collaboration with the Regional
Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples of San Lorenzo Region (CORPI SL),the regional organising body of the Inter-ethnic Association for the Developmentof the Peruvian Forest (AIDESEP). CORPI SL helped them establish the initialtechnical files11 that formed the legal and anthropological basis for the constitutionof the autonomous government. This does not imply any threat to the indivisibilityof the Peruvian territory but rather gives this indigenous nation territorial autonomy and historical recognition of their presence in the Amazon.
In terms of defending and protecting indigenous peoples in isolation, 2016
was a year of serious contradictions. During the period of transition from Ollanta
Humala’s administration to that of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Supreme Decree No.
008-2016-MC was published, creating the first three indigenous reserves for peoples in isolation and establishing the inviolability of 1.5 million hectares of the
Ucayali region in which they and people in initial contact live. However, an analysis produced by the Legal Defence Institute (IDL) and the Law, Environment andNatural Resources Association (DAR) highlighted the fact that this decree waslimiting the Vice Ministry of Interculturality’s ability to issue technical opinions onenvironmental impact assessments in these reserves.

Oil spills and protests in Loreto
Oil spills were a constant problem in the Peruvian Amazon in 2016, and occurred
the length of the Nor Peruano pipeline (operated by the state company, PetroPerú). One consequence of these incidents – apart from the environmental impact
on the forest ecosystems – was the insurgency of more than 50 indigenous communities from Saramuro and Saramurillo. At the end of September, they announced a blockade of the Marañón River. This measure lasted for more than twomonths, during which time a long-drawn-out and tense dialogue process wasestablished between the indigenous authorities and the central government.
With the Marañón River blocked, the apus or community leaders travelled toLima to make their demands known to the government. They were demanding asolution to the technical problems that were causing the spills, as well as reparation for the environmental damage and compensation for the villages affected by
the oil contamination. They were also demanding reparation for the historic Lot

SOUTH AMERICA

219

192, located in Loreto region. During the first week of December, when it appeared that there was at last an understanding being reached with the central
government, an impasse emerged with the Minister of Energy and Mines, Gonzalo Tamayo, which seemed on the point of derailing the negotiations. After tense
negotiations, a consensus was reached in mid-December following the signing ofa memorandum of understanding between the indigenous communities and thePresidency of the Council of Ministers.
The problem of the oil spills harks back to one of the state’s historic debts in
the Peruvian forest: Lot 192, the largest oil deposit in the country. Since the withdrawal of the controversial Pluspetrol Norte, which left the plant after 15 years of
exploitation without establishing any reparation measures for the communities ofthe four basins (Corrientes, Tigre, Pastaza and Marañón), the uncertainty has
rumbled on. Ollanta Humala’s term in office ended with an intense political dispute with Congress over the fate of the Lot, despite having approved Law No.
3035712 requiring PetroPerú to operate it. What is clear is that this deposit remains in the hands of foreign private capital.

Energy and deforestation
One of the energy mega projects most promoted by the government in the forestis the construction of the Moyobamba-Iquitos Transmission Line (LTMI).13 This isintended to provide the urban areas of Loreto with the necessary infrastructure toform part of the National Electricity Grid (SEIN). However, the nature of this work,
the first two environmental impact studies for which were rejected, will involve
unprecedented deforestation in order to build the line through the Peruvian forest.
The LTMI will be 600 km long and have a width of 50 metres. Its construction will
result in the removal of at least a million tonnes of Amazonian timber. To this must
be added the negative impacts once it is actually up and running. In the first place,it will cause 424,000 tonnes of carbon to be emitted in the middle of the forest.
Moreover, the project’s estimated cost is US$ 1 billion, which will be added to theaccounts of electricity consumers in Loreto over an estimated 30-year period.
Bearing in mind that it still does not have an approved environmental impact
study, the request of the Regional Organisation of Indigenous Peoples of the East
(ORPIO) for prior consultation remains unanswered.
One of the greatest threats facing the Peruvian Amazon is increased oil palm
cultivation. The large-scale cultivation of this tropical plant causes deforestation

220

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

and the destruction of natural habitats. As of the middle of 2016, according to
Oxfam, 60,000 hectares of tropical forest had been devastated by oil palm plantations in Peru. And there is a long list of agroindustrial projects in the pipeline, including oil palm cultivation, putting more than 150,000 hectares at risk.
The local investor with the greatest interest in growing oil palm is the Romero
Group, which already has 22,500 hectares of oil palm and is negotiating the allocation of 34,000 hectares more. Although oil palm plantations are a global phenomenon, Peru has become the target of different foreign investors interested in
producing this product. A clear example of this situation was the Melka Group’s
venture into the Ucayali region, where it has purchased a series of plots from thestate in order to grow oil palm. In October 2016, the Ministry of Agriculture estimated that this group had deforested 99% of the plots allocated to it, covering an
area of nearly 7,000 hectares.

Outlook for 2017
Extractive activities and climate change were the main threats to native communities and the environment in 2016. The outlook for 2017 seems little different given
the recent announcement of the Kuczynski government aimed at reopening thecontroversial Tía María mining project in Arequipa. Operation of this mine would
endanger the livelihoods of the Tambo Valley farmers, already suffering from acomplicated situation caused by an historic drought. To this must be added thegrowing Chinese investment in Peru, which is being promoted directly by the current administration. Chinese capital in Peru now exceeds US$14 billion and isconcentrated primarily in mineral extraction, forestry resources and energy resources.
On the other hand, civil society remains alert to the possible impacts of thelegislative decrees being issued by the current administration. These include removing the procedures for expropriating lands, to the benefit of energy projects or
public/private investment. Significant changes have also been made, without prior consultation, to laws that were the product of a long-drawn-out period of negotiation, such as the Forestry and Wildlife Law, and these amendments have paved
the way for future deforestation. Kuczynski’s growing interest in simplifying procedures and speeding up work is endangering the communities’ right to private

SOUTH AMERICA

221

property as well as the environmental protection of different areas, and even compromising protected natural areas. 				Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

http://docs.peru.justia.com/federales/leyes/23231-dec-26-1980.pdf
http://ppk.pe/documentos/plandegobierno.pdf
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/07/26/america/1469569786_804336.html
http://busquedas.elperuano.com.pe/normaslegales/decreto-legislativo-que-crea-el-sistema-nacional-de- programa-decreto-legislativo-n-1252-1459453-1/
http://ons.snirh.gob.pe/Peru/maproom/Riesgo/index.html
https://www.servindi.org/actualidad-noticias/06/12/2016/incendios-forestales-superaron-deforestacion-causada-por-mineria
https://www.mef.gob.pe/contenidos/presu_publ/sectr_publ/proye_2017/EM_PL_Presupuesto_2017.pdf
https://www.servindi.org/actualidad-noticias/15/12/2016/guerra-del-agua-arequipa-y-moqueguaenfrentados-por-represa
http://www.pastogrande.gob.pe/
http://www.lasbambas.com/acerca-de-las-bambas/consorcio/acerca-de-mmg-limited.html
https://ia601508.us.archive.org/22/items/TerritoriosIntegralesparaTarimatPujut/GTANW130217.
pdf
http://busquedas.elperuano.com.pe/normaslegales/ley-que-incorpora-una-cuarta-disposicioncomplementaria-fina-ley-n-30357-1308828-1/
http://www.proyectosapp.pe/modulos/JER/PlantillaProyecto.aspx?ARE=0&PFL=2&JER=5583

José Carlos Díaz Zanelli is a journalist with a Master’s in Latin American literature from Complutense University in Madrid. He is currently working for Servindi,
Servicios en Comunicación Intercultural.

222

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

BOLIVIA
According to the data from the most recent National Census of 2012, 2.8
million people over the age of 15 (41% of the total) are of indigenous origin. There are 36 recognized peoples, with the Quechua and the Aymara
comprising the majority in the western Andes. The Chiquitano, Guaraní,and Moxeño are the next most numerous, forming a part of the 34 indigenous peoples living in the lowlands of the country’s Eastern region. To
date, they have consolidated collective ownership of almost 20 million
hectares as Community Lands of Origin (Tierras Comunitarias de Origen;TCO). With the enactment of Decree No. 727/10, the TCOs were constitutionally given the name of Native Indigenous and Peasant Territory (Territorio Indígena Originario Campesino; TIOC). Since 1991 Bolivia is asignatory of ILO Convention 169. The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was approved through Law 3760 on
November 7, 2007. With the entrance into force of the new Constitution,
Bolivia took adopted the name of Plurinational State.

Referendum for a new opportunity to run for the presidencyOn February 21 the Constitutional Approval Referendum was held to amend
Article 168 of the Constitution.1 If the referendum had won, it would have allowed the presidential slate in office since 2005, Evo Morales Ayma and Álvaro
García Linera, to run once again in the elections for the period of 2020-2025.2 Law
No 757/15 3 allowed the referendum to be voted upon. Yet that election was not exempt from criticism by several different sectors of civil society, who questioned its
legality and timing, since the administration had then been in office for slightly lessthan one year. In the referendum, NO won 51.3% of the votes, and YES won 48.7%.
The political opposition to Evo Morales’s administration characterized the attempt to seek another term as a dictatorial attempt to continue holding the Presidency and as an attack on democracy and the Republic’s institutions. The party
in office, on the other hand, argued that continuity of the successful cycle of what

SOUTH AMERICA

223

was called the “Democratic and Cultural Revolution” indispensably depended upon
the current president remaining in office. Nonetheless, the controversy radicallyshifted its focus when Evo Morales’s affair with a young woman named Gabriela
Zapata Montaño and the birth of a baby boy he fathered with her became public. Asa mere sex scandal, that wouldn’t have had major repercussions. But it turns outthat Zapata was the business manager of the Chinese company named CAMC,4and CAMC, along with three of its subsidiaries, had allegedly benefited by being
awarded public works contracts in an amount of nearly 570 million USD.5 If thatwere true, it potentially meant that a crime had been committed of undue use of influence and unlawful enrichment on the part of President Morales, among others.

224

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The hotly debated scenario played out in the media, congress,6 and the judiciary, and concluded with the arrest of Miss Zapata, accused of several crimes ofcorruption. Also arrested were certain low-ranking officials of the Ministry of the
Presidency. Zapata’s attorney, Eduardo León, was taken into custody as well,7
and was barred from practicing law, accused of having colluded with his client in
attempting to falsely pass a minor off as the president’s son.
In addition to this much talked about and widely reported case, other causes
can be noted that led to the demise of the party’s attempt to run its official leader
for another term. One of them was the case of the Indigenous Fund, in which
several leaders of the administration’s party were involved, as well as the prosecution of indigenous leaders, who in some cases were irregularly detained.8 In
said case the irregular use was investigated of more than 50 million dollars inhydrocarbons revenues allocated to the Fund. Another factor was the estrangement of several social and intellectual leaders from the left who had once been
political allies of the government, but who severely questioned the energy development policy’s increasing prioritization of development and extraction of natural
resources, and alleged that the Constitution was being violated in order to remain
in office.9 The referendum polarized positions and -at least for the meantimebrought together an opposition that was not ideologically or politically unified.
At one point Evo Morales agreed to respect the referendum’s result.10 But
several leading members of the allied social movements challenged the process,arguing that it was taking place in a context where the public was being deceived
and the news was being manipulated, above all with respect to the Zapata scandal.11 At events held that year, they proposed a legal strategy to qualify the presidential slate of Evo Morales and Álvaro García.12 In their opinion, at present noone was capable of uniting the opposition’s ranks; the opposition’s political andideological differences were too great and it lacked the structure and resources tochallenge a government that generally makes all its resources available in eachelection process. Nonetheless, it is practically impossible to overcome the legal
obstacles for the current presidential slate to seek reelection.

Progress and setbacks in the process for indigenous autonomy
According to the Bolivian Constitution there are three ways for indigenous peoples to attain autonomy. One is to demand self-governance within the collective

SOUTH AMERICA

225

lands granted title as territorial property by the State. When that approach is used,
the jurisdictions tend to be spread out over one or more municipalities or departments, and special procedures are required to consolidate the territory throughout its extension and surpass those boundaries. A second form consists of declaring self-governance in municipalities. There, even though the territorial jurisdiction does not change, the institutional structure and public management system
adapts to the eventually approved charter. A third option is an Indigenous Region,
which brings together indigenous autonomous units (municipalities or territories).
The general procedure for access to autonomy, according to the Constitution and
the Autonomy Act, consists of the following stages: referendum for access;13 certification of ancestry and viable governance;14 participatory development of theCharter and control of its constitutionality before the Constitutionality Court; definitive approval of the Charter by referendum; and the forming of the autonomous
government.

Charagua-Iyambae: First indigenous government
On September 20, 2015 the Guaraní Charagua-Iyambae (EAGCH-I) Autonomy
Charter was finally approved by referendum. This approval opened the final stage
for full access to self-governance: the election, using their own rules and procedures, of representatives to the various governmental bodies.
In keeping with the Charter, the three bodies of the Guaraní government were
elected, applying what is called community democracy, recognized in the National
Constitution (Article 11(II)(3): The Ñemboati Reta (Collective Decision-MakingBody); the Mborokuai Sibika Iyapoa Reta (Legislative Body); and the Tëtarembiokuai Reta (Executive Body). In each of the six zones that territorially comprise theCharagua-Iyambae Autonomous Unit,15 representatives were elected to each ofthese bodies. In January 2017 Bolivia’s first indigenous autonomous government in
the country’s nearly 200 years of existence is expected to definitively take office.

Other referendum processes in the Chaco and the Andes
On November 20 referendums were held to approve the indigenous charters in
the Andean zone and the Chaco. In the Andes, the Uru and Chipaya peoples (in226

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017the high plateau department of Oruro) obtained a 77.4% vote of approval for theirAutonomous Charter, with which they qualified to form an indigenous government
replacing the current municipal government.
In the Upper Cochabamba Valley, the peasants of Raqaypampa also obtained a solid 91.5% in the referendum that approved their Charter. Raqaypampa
is the first collective territory that won access to autonomy under the territorial
basis mode (rather than conversion of a municipality, as occurred in CharaguaIyambae, Mojocoya, and Gutiérrez, among others). The territory of Raqaypampa
is located in the province of Mizque, in the southeast of the department of Cochabamba, and it is organized through the Unified Regional Labor Confederation ofIndigenous Peasants of Raqaypampa (Central Regional Sindical Única de Campesinos Indígenas de Raqaypampa; CRSUCIR).
In the case of Mojocoya, located in the province of Zudáñez in the departmentof Chuquisaca, the referendum for final approval of its charter resulted in a rejection, with a 59% NO vote, thus halting the advance of the process. According to
the Framework Law on Autonomy, a new referendum may be convened after 120
days. Changes in leadership and the stance taken against giving up the seats of
the new municipal authorities who had taken office in June 2015 are some of thefactors explaining the defeat of the indigenous autonomy effort, even though it
had strong backing from the government.
On November 20 a referendum was also held to consult with the populationof the municipality of Gutiérrez, located in the south of the department of Santa
Cruz, over whether they wished their municipality to become an Indigenous Autonomous Unit. The vote in favor by the Guaraní people —of the Ava jurisdiction— was
63.12%.16 Now the Autonomous Charter needs to be drawn up through a participatory process and revalidated in a referendum, as was done in Charagua.

Indigenous autonomous units in the northern and southern Amazon
One of the pioneer peoples in the demand for autonomy are the Chiquitano people of Lomerío, who in 2009 submitted the first autonomous charter, prior to theenactment of the Framework Law on Autonomy of 2010. Nonetheless, they ran
up against a procedural hurdle with the Electoral Agency and the Constitutionality
Court, given that that they had to perform a time consuming task of adapting to
the new law.17 This year, their process was completely re-channeled, and it isSOUTH AMERICA

227

expected that the Charter will be declared constitutional in 2017 in order to moveahead with the long awaited final-approval referendum.
Multiethnic Indigenous Territory I (Territorio Indígena Multiétnico I; TIM I) is
inhabited by the Mojeño-Ignaciano, Yuracaré, and Movima peoples, who share
more than 400,000 hectares in what is called the Chimanes Forest in Bolivia’s
southern Amazon. TIM I is represented by the Sub-central TIM, and since 2010
these peoples have gradually been fulfilling the long list of requirements under the
Framework Law on Autonomy to constitute self-governance in their territory. At
the 5th session of the Territorial Legislative Assembly (deliberative body) held in
San Ignacio de Mojos on December 10, 11, and 12, they approved their Autonomous Charter under the supervision of the Electoral Body. They now have theCertificate of Ancestry, the Certificate of Viable Governance, and the populationbase required by law. All that remains is to submit the Charter to the Constitutionality Court for its constitutionality control.18

Isolated indigenous peoples in danger of forced contact 19
In October 2013, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos Corporation(YPFB) signed hydrocarbons services contracts with the Chinese companies
BGP and Sinopec to conduct seismic work in search of new oil and gas reservesin the Río Madre de Dios river basin of the Northern Amazon in the department of
La Paz.
The directly impacted territory of this project is Tacana II, title to which is heldby the Indigenous Tacana II-Madre de Dios Confederation (Central Indígena Tacana II-Madre de Dios; CITMRD), which is the counterpart organization in theEnvironmental Impact, Analytical, and Strategic Assessment Study for this project. Its leaders were those who expressly made the respective Environmental
Authority include the issue of the presence, in the area of operations, of peoples
in voluntary isolation (who are probably segments or families of the Toromonapeople in voluntary isolation).20
Almost immediately after the BGP company started moving its equipment andpersonnel into the forest, and especially once it set up its advance camps along
the lines outside the area of the Tacana II Territory, indications started appearingof the presence of isolated peoples. The data were quickly provided, thanks totimely follow-up by the Social and Environmental Indigenous Monitoring Unit bri-

228

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

gades of the CITRMD. As the work progressed, these brigades interpreted therepeated indications found, which the non-indigenous technicians could not makesense of.
The first indications, recorded between August 20 and 23, 2016, consisted offootprints, cut branches, and crossings along Seismic Line 19.21 Then, on September 18, 2016, the workers at camp Cvw-1 reported shouting and a series ofnoises made by a group of people who, according to them, surrounded the camp
at a very close distance and who were probably indigenous peoples in isolation.
The noises were made by banging the helicopter port’s water drums. In responseto this incident, the workers requested authorization to keep the electricity generators on all night, and the following day they were evacuated by the company.
On September 19 the BGP company abandoned camp. On October 27 a similar
incident occurred, which was reported by the line crews near the same lines as
those reported during the month of September. Despite all these events, the BGP
company authorized the advance of 7 crews for drilling, topography, and advance
activities on a number of lines heading towards the zones where, in the project’s
Integral, Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Evaluation, the presence
had been reported of indigenous peoples in isolation.22
Finally, the Social and Environmental Monitoring Unit of the Tacana II TCO
denounced that the BGP company was making flights over areas with a possible
presence of peoples in isolation, leaving provisions and food with the intention offorcing contact with those populations.
The BGP Company, in coordination with YPFB, reassigned the workers involved, withdrew the camps, and proposed several new activities in the areas
where contacts with the segments of the Toromona people had occurred. As
such, the company admitted the situation resulting from the presence of peoples
in voluntary isolation. But publicly, the government-owned YPFB denied the situation. In fact, YPFB’s president, Guillermo Achá, in his public statements on October 17, denied that any indications of peoples in isolation were involved.
In an event held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra on October 31, 2016 at the urging
of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and thePeople’s Ombudsman’s Office, a commitment was undertaken by the AssistantMinister of Native Indigenous Peasant Justice and IWGIA to conduct a detailed
investigation on the incidents denounced by the leaders of the Tacana people.
Likewise, the Ombudsman’s Office undertook a commitment to conduct a study

SOUTH AMERICA

229

in said regard prior to taking any decision, thus leaving families of the Toromonapeople defenseless and subject to new contacts.
The BGP company responded as well to the actions of the Tacana people indefense of their territory and of their Toromona brothers and sisters in voluntary
isolation. In December 2016, BGP’s Operations Manager, Alfredo Emilio Salvador Aban, filed a denunciation with the Prosecutor’s Office of Puerto Rico (Pando)
against the coordinator of the Indigenous Monitoring Unit, Adamo Américo DiegoCusi, accusing him of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and other crimes. The
Prosecutor then issued an arrest warrant against that indigenous leader. The
case was in the process of being rejected by the Prosecutor’s Office for such matters in Puerto Rico.23
Even though the attempts at contact were known, the company’s strategy - approved of by the respective authorities - is to move forward with the operations
without any significant changes.

Resistance to the Chepete and El Bala dams
Bolivia has commenced preliminary studies for construction of the Angosto
Chepete and Angosto Bala dams (phases 1 and 2), as a part of the La Bala hydroelectric project on the Bala River. This project will impact Madidi National Parkand the Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Indigenous Territory in the northwestof the department of La Paz. It is a megaproject that would flood more than
600,000 km2, affecting nearly 4,000 local inhabitants residing in the surrounding
areas, most of whom are indigenous peoples and peasants.24 The project is expected to generate approximately 3,600 MW between the two dams, to be injected into the National Interconnected Grid, at a cost of approximately 9.0 billion
dollars.25 Decisive environmental, social, economic, archeological, and cultural
impacts are expected in the lives of these populations, which, according to theState, will be addressed through relocation of the affected communities, indemnifications, development of plans and projects for the release and rescue of archeological heritage, the construction of new infrastructure, etc.26
These aspects were going to be supplemented with geological studies conducted by Geodata, an Italian company contracted by Empresa Nacional de Energía (ENDE), which was in charge of the technical pre-investment design.27 In
November, a group of inhabitants of Rurrenabaque and activists organized for

230

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

defense of the environment held a protest, impeding the work. On November 12,
one of the companies subcontracted by Geodata (Servicoms) was forced toabandon the zone when surrounded by protesters in the river and on land in agreat popular mobilization, bringing the activities to a halt that day.28 To date thecompany’s activities have not been resumed. 			


Notes and references
1
2

3

4

5

6

“Article 168. The term in office of the President and Vice President of Bolivia is five years, andthey may be reelected for an additional continual term one time only.”
Evo Morales and Álvaro García won for the first time in the elections of 2005-2010. However, withthe entry into force of the new Constitution in 2009 and a call for new general elections, this firstuncompleted term was not taken into account in computing how many times they could run for
office. In 2010 a new term in office commenced, which concluded in 2015. In actuality, it would
be their second term, but as of now it is considered their first.
The question submitted to the electorate for consideration on the ballot ordered by Law No.
757/15 was: “Article 4. (Question) The question to be asked in the Constitutional Approval Referendum shall be the following: ‘Are you in agreement with the reform of Article 168 of the Constitution of Bolivia so that the President and the Vice President of Bolivia may be reelected for continuous terms two times?’ By an Interim Provision of the Law on Partial Reform of the Constitutionof Bolivia, a first reelection is considered to be the period of 2015 – 2020 and a second reelection
is considered to be 2020 – 2025. YES / NO.”
According to its webpage, http://www.camce.com.cn/sp/spAC/spCO/ China CAMC Engineering
Co., Ltd. (CAMCE), is a corporation that is an affiliate of China National Machinery Industry
Corporation, founded in 2001. The company’s principal activities are the contracting of international projects, commerce, and national and international investment. It specializes in “turnkey”
projects, that is, on direct invitation from the contracting parties and without a bidding competition. This aspect was one of those that most aroused suspicions among public opinion, given thatthe projects carried out by the company in Bolivia were contracted by the State under that mode,
according to denunciations that were made public.
Among other projects, the companies were reportedly awarded the construction of the San Buenaventura (La Paz) Sugar Refinery; the construction of the Montero-Bulo Bulo (Santa Cruz –Cochabamba) railroad, rescinded by the State; and the purchase of oil drilling equipment for the
YPFB government-owned company. Of the three companies awarded, only one reportedly has abusiness registration. http://correodelsur.com/economia/20160314_caso-camc-de-las-tres-empresas-chinas-solo-una-cuenta-con-registro-de-comercio.html
A mixed commission, created in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, conducted an investigation of the loans taken out as well as projects over which the CAMC Company was in charge. The
commission, comprised in its majority by legislators from the party in office, exonerated the Bolivian President from any liability involving the contracted projects and determined that they had
been awarded through transparent public tender processes. The commission took 80 days toevaluate all the documentation, visit the projects, and inspect the equipment acquired. The reportSOUTH AMERICA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15

16
17

18
19

20

21

231

of the legislators of the opposition party, contrary to these conclusions, was not addressed orconsidered.
http://www.la-razon.com/nacional/Comision-legislativa-influencias-contratosCAMC_0_2484951532.html
http://www.la-razon.com/index.php?_url=/nacional/Aprehenden-tia-abogados-Gabriela-Zapata_0_2492150821.html
See Mundo Indígena 2016, pages 171 -179.
http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2016/02/160222_significado_derrota_evo_morales_referendo_reeleccion_bolivia_bm
http://elpotosi.net/nacional/20160219_evo-se-compromete-a-respetar-los-resultados-del-referendum.html
Which concluded with the inexistence of the President’s son being demonstrated in court andpublicly admitted by the supposed mother.
http://www.eldeber.com.bo/bolivia/Evo-dice-que-el-21F-gano-la-mentira-y-justifica-pedido-deanular-referendum-20161222-0105.html
Only for the case of a municipality or region. In the case of autonomy by reason of territory, theonly thing required is the consultation through one’s own rules and procedures.
This is a requirement of Framework Law on Autonomy 031/10, under which the indigenous peoples must demonstrate, using certain procedures considered highly questionable by their organizations, that the territory they ancestrally inhabit for which title is granted by the State just a
few years ago is ancestrally theirs.
According to Article 16 I. of the Guaraní Charagua Iyambae Autonomy Charter, its territorial organization is as follows: 1. Charagua North Zone; 2. Parapituguasu Zone; 3. Upper Isoso Zone;
4. Lower Isoso Zone; (these 4 zones are rural zones, comprised by indigenous territories; 5.
Charagua Station Zone; and 6. Charagua Pueblo Zone, in the urban zone of the city of Benemérita de Charagua and its area of influence.
http://www.cipca.org.bo/index.php/noticias/noticias-2016/3853-el-municipio-de-gutierrez-decidio-ir-a-la-autonomia-indigena
At the International Seminar on Indigenous Autonomy held in Charagua-Iyambae on October 28
and 29, authorities of the State who were present indicated that the file on the autonomy process
for Lomerío had been intentionally “lost” during the 2010-2015 term of government, and was recently recovered through the action of the new officials, who have taken charge of reactivating it.
http://cejis.org/el-territorio-indigena-multietnico-aprueba-su-estatuto-autonomico-para-la-autonomia-indigena-de-base-territorial/
Part of this document has been cited in the Report on the Human Rights Situation of Indigenous
Peoples (Informe de la Situación de los Derechos Humanos de los Pueblos Indígenas; ISDHPI)
2016, publication pending.
According to studies, the Toromona have a presence in the Madidi National Park and in government-owned lands in the basin of the Colorado and Heath Rivers. The Madidi park rangers andPeruvian investigators also so attest, and have gathered testimony of indigenous trackers andhunters who also have reportedly run into clear indications of the presence of peoples in isolation. Camacho N. Carlos, Entre el etnocidio y la extinción. Pueblos indígenas aislados, en contacto inicial e intermitente en las Tierras Bajas de Bolivia. IWGIA Report 6. Copenhagen, July
2010. Page 19
Amazonía Amenazada: Extractivismo petrolero en Amazonía boliviana invade territorio que
ocupa pueblo en aislamiento voluntario y amenaza su existencia. CEDIB TEAM 2016. Ppt.

232

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 201722 Tacana II TCO, maps and reports of the Social and Environmental Indigenous Monitoring Unit,
2016.
23 Case No. 1602636
24 This dam was the subject of a long conflict during the 1990s involving environmentalist organizations, indigenous peoples, and social sectors of what is now the MAS party, which strongly promoted its construction.
25 https://fundacionsolon.org/?s=El+Bala
26 http://www.lostiempos.com/actualidad/economia/20160805/estudio-represa-chepete-bala-afectara-4-mil-habitantes
27 These studies reportedly have a cost of approximately 14 million USD, https://fundacionsolon.
org/2016/10/25/fichas-ambientales-completas-de-el-bala-y-chepete/
28 https://fundacionsolon.org/2016/11/24/primera-victoria-en-el-bala-chepete/

Leonardo Tamburini is an attorney and independent consultant, specializing in
indigenous rights.

233

BRAZIL
According to the 2010 census of the Brazilian Institute for Geography andStatistics (IBGE), Brazil is home to 240 indigenous peoples, accounting
for 0.47% of the country’s total population (i.e. 896,917 individuals). Of
these, 324,834 live in the cities and 572,083 in rural areas, of which
433,363 in the Amazon. There are 274 different recorded languages spoken among the indigenous population.
Indigenous peoples are found throughout the whole country but mostof them live on 704 collective lands known as Indigenous Lands (TIs) in
the Amazon region.
Brazil has the largest known number of indigenous peoples living in
isolation in South America, primarily in the states of Amapá, Acre, Amazonas, Goiás, Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima andTocantins. There are currently some 107 records of the presence of isolated indigenous groups in the Amazon region.
The 1988 Constitution recognises indigenous peoples as the first andnatural owners of the land and guarantees their rights in this regard. The
search for and extraction of mineral wealth on indigenous lands can only
be done with the authorisation of the National Congress after having firstheard the communities involved, who must be guaranteed a share of thebenefits from such activity. The eviction of indigenous groups from theirlands is prohibited.Brazil has signed the main indigenous rights protection
mechanisms, including ILO Convention 169, the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the American Declaration on
Indigenous Peoples (2016).

2016 was a year of great political instability as a result of the impeachment of
President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party (PT) on 31 August 2016. The legitimacy of the accusations was contentious. A charge of crimes of fiscal responsibility marked the end of her term in office and she was replaced by her Vice
President, Michel Temer, from the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB).

234

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The current situation of Brazil’s indigenous peoples has to be seen against thisbackdrop of transition and political instability.
Dilma Rousseff’s government, like that of her predecessor, Luis Ignacio Lulada Silva, was not a great defender of indigenous rights nor of the demarcation of
their territories, as reports from the visits of the UN Special Rapporteur on therights of indigenous peoples testify (James Anaya in 20081 and Victoria TauliCorpuz in 20162). Among other things, the reports expressed concern at the lackof progress being made in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and theinstitutional backsliding that was occurring in Brazil.

Territorial demarcation and legislative change
During the visit of Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz in March 2016, a
proposed constitutional amendment, PEC 215, was high on the national agenda.
This proposal recommended that it should be the National Congress and not the
Ministry of Justice that has final responsibility for the demarcation of indigenous
lands (TIs). This would mean placing the final decision on these matters in thehands of the hegemonic rural and evangelical sectors, who are openly opposed
to indigenous demands, especially with regard to the demarcation of Tis.
In spite of all this, neither of the two previous governments ever dared toamend the constitution or issue ordinances against the demarcation of indigenous lands without going through the democratic mechanisms.
The national institution responsible for indigenous policy, the National IndianFoundation (FUNAI) has gradually been losing power and, during 2016, suffereda budget cut of R$ 110 million (US$ 34 million).3 A succession of budget cuts has
had a direct impact on the process of demarcating TIs. It has resulted in theseprocesses taking longer and longer, culminating in violent eruptions between theindigenous and non-indigenous populations. According to the Indigenous Missionary Council (Cimi) some 900 indigenous persons have been murdered acrossthe country in the last 13 years, a figure that is growing as communities wait for
their land to be demarcated.4
In 1996, during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, FUNAI was
restructured, making it responsible for anthropological analysis of the TIs demarcation process. This included the submission of records and witnesses by parties
interested in claiming ownership of these lands. To this day, FUNAI remains re-SOUTH AMERICA

235

sponsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the Minister ofJustice, who then delivers the documents to the Presidency for promulgation of
the indigenous lands.
With Ordinance 80/2017, the Ministry of Justice now has the power to review
the whole process undertaken by FUNAI, which will weaken the organisation yet
further. Even the Minister of Justice himself will thus have the power to call a
public hearing to debate the processes in each case. Moreover, this ordinanceleaves space open for parties interested in territorial disputes to act, by establish-

236

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ing other methods of participation. This enables greater pressure to be exerted ondemarcation processes by the ruralist sectors.
In terms of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice isalso opening a space for adoption of the principle known as the “temporal framework”. This means that indigenous peoples only acquire right to a territory if theyheld its property title in October 1988, the date of entry into force of the National
Constitution. This approach completely ignores the nomadic lifestyle of most of
Brazil’s indigenous peoples, as well as the forced displacements they have suffered when being violently evicted from their ancestral territories.
Brazil’s indigenous organisations rejected Ordinance 80/2017 outright.5 They
described it as a measure aimed at weakening the federal indigenous organisation and giving greater power to sectors that publicly and historically have beenrecognised as enemies of the indigenous peoples and their demands. They also
underlined the lack of dialogue with the National Indigenist Policy Council (CNPI)
and the violation of the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
“We also reject the lack of dialogue with the National Indigenist Policy Council(CNPI) -linked to the Ministry of Justice itself-, the non-compliance with our right tofree, prior and informed consent and the attempts to seriously roll back legislation thathas regulated the process of indigenous land demarcation for more than 20 years. All
these measures have the clear objective of delaying and preventing the completion of
the demarcation process, and reveal the current government’s aim of burying indigenous land demarcation policies and other patterns of land holding, a policy that will
only contribute to the expansion and perpetuation of existing conflicts.” 6
In addition to this ordinance, major strategic changes took place within FUNAI itself over the year. After attempting to appoint two military officials as presidents of
FUNAI, President Temer appointed the evangelical pastor Antonio Toninho da Costa
from the Social Christian Party (PSC) to run the organisation. The replacements andappointments he is making, under the Temer government are marking out a highly
conservative position, linked to the interests of rural and evangelical groups.

Clear backtracking in legislation for indigenous peoples
The measures taken by the Brazilian government are distorting and denying thespirit of the constitution (Articles 231 and 232), infraconstitutional laws and theinternational treaties signed by Brazil – ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declara-

SOUTH AMERICA

237

tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - particularly the obligatory nature of theright to free, prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples on any initiatives that involve them and affect their territories.
The state’s initiatives demonstrate an authoritarian attitude and a lack of respect for the rights acquired by indigenous peoples. It is for indigenous movements, national and international non-governmental organisations and civil society to expose these authoritarian acts and demand respect for and compliancewith their acquired rights. 					Notes and references
1
2

3

4

5
6

Report on the situation of human rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil, James Anaya, 2009,http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/countries/2009_report_brazil_en.pdf
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on her mission to Brazil,
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, August 2016, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/17­
4/­05/PDF/G1617405.pdf?OpenElement
La Fundación Brasileña del Indio recibirá el menor presupuesto de los últimos 10 años, Brasil deFato, 6.10.2016, https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2016/10/06/la-fundacion-nacional-del-indio-recibira-el-menor-presupuesto-de-los-ultimos-10-anos/
Informe indica que 137 indígenas fueron asesinados en Brasil durante 2015, Brasil de Fato,
16.9.2016, https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2016/09/16/informe-indica-que-137-indigenas-fueron-asesinados-en-brasil-durante-el-2015/
https://mobilizacaonacionalindigena.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/em-nota-coletiva-organizacoes-repudiam-portaria-que-altera-demarcacoes-de-terras-indigenas/
Organizaciones repudian ordenanza que modifica la demarcación de tierras indígenas, Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (Apib), 23.1.2017, https://mobilizacaonacionalindigena.
wordpress.com/.

Maria de Lourdes Beldi de Alcantara is an anthropologist working as a visiting
professor of Medical Anthropology in the San Pablo Faculty of Medicine. She isalso coordinator of the Support Group for the Guaraní Youth of Mato Grosso delSur (GAPK/AJI).

238

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

PARAGUAY
Paraguay’s indigenous population is estimated at 112,848 inhabitants,
comprised by 19 indigenous peoples. These are: Mbya, Ava Guaraní,
Nivaclé, Paĩ Tavyterã, Northern Enlhet, Angaité, Southern Enxet, Sanapaná, Toba Maskoy, Ayoreo, Guaraní Ñandéva, Western Guaraní, Qom,
Aché, Maká, Ybytoso, Manjui, Tomárãho, and Guaná. These peoples
represent a total of 531 communities, 241 villages, and 54 nuclear families. According to preliminary data from the National Indigenous Census
on Population and Housing 2012, published in 2013, the largest portion of
the indigenous population (52.3%) inhabits the Eastern region, while the
Chaco region contains the greatest diversity of peoples. Although Paraguay’s indigenous peoples form a part of the country’s great diversity andcultural wealth, they are also victims of systematic, structural discrimination by the State and by non-indigenous society. In this regard, they represent the country’s poorest, most excluded, most marginalized population, and all human rights of the indigenous peoples —civil, cultural, economic, social, and political— are violated and undermined on a constantbasis. This situation principally plays out through the invasion, destruction, and expulsion from their traditional lands and ancestral territories,
where they live their lives and where their worldview, survival, and cultural practices are deeply rooted. Paraguay has ratified the major instruments of International Human Rights law, such as International Labour
Organization Convention 169 (Law 234/93). Nonetheless, the State does
not promote, interpret, or apply it, or does so deficiently, and thus thefundamental rights of the indigenous peoples are constantly violated. This
deficiency is seen in all three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.’During the past year, the State, under the current administration of Horacio
Cartes, has intensified the structural discrimination faced by Paraguay’s indigenous peoples, as has been expressly observed by the United Nations Special

SOUTH AMERICA

239

Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Special Rapporteur), theCommittee on the Elimination of Racial (CERD), non-treaty bodies, and treaty
bodies of the United Nations, as well as other international monitoring bodies.
This discrimination translates into violations of the rights of the indigenous
peoples both by acts and omissions of the State. On the one hand, there is anotably intensified liberalization of commerce, promoting, expanding, and protecting the agro-export system based on agricultural, forestry, and livestock activity,
all of which go hand-in-hand with concentration of land and the historic model ofthe latifundio. On the other, the intensification of this model violates the indigenous peoples’ right to participation, consultation, and consent when projects are

240

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

involved that affect their territory. An example of the violation of these rights has
been the forced removal of communities from their ancestral territories.

Structural discrimination
Paraguay’s economic structure, which revolves around the agro-export model,
generates profound inequality, poverty, and extreme poverty, principally affecting
the indigenous peoples.1 In said regard, the Report of the Special Rapporteur of2015 establishes that “there are a series of structural factors in Paraguay, including corruption, vast inequality, a regressive tax structure, the concentration of
landownership and environmental degradation, which, combined with institutional
weaknesses, hinder progress in alleviating poverty”.2 All these aspects create
obstacles for the indigenous population’s dignified access to fundamental rights,
such as water, education, and health, among others.
The report also points out that “the rates of poverty and extreme poverty
among indigenous peoples are 75% and 60% respectively, far exceeding thenational average”.3 As for the situation of young children - under the age of five -,the rate of extreme poverty is 63% (as compared to a 26% national average) andthe rate of chronic malnutrition is 41.7% (as compared to a 17.5% national average).4 These figures demonstrate the profound gap of inequality separating theindigenous peoples from the rest of the population.

Lands, dispossession, and violence
Paraguay continues to be marked by severe illegality and informality due to thelack of a technical, objective, true verification of land tenancy and ownership,especially with respect to indigenous lands. In that regard, the Special Rapporteur explained that “the privatization of large amounts of land and the lack of aproper land registry have given rise to the existence of overlapping ownershipdeeds that serve as a basis for multiple claims to the same parcels. Conflicting
claims are often settled in favor of business enterprises, thus depriving indigenous peoples of their lands”.5 Several cases illustrate this situation.
A clear example of lack of formal title to lands is seen in the case of the Puerto Pollo community of the Yshir people, located in Bahía Negra, Department of

SOUTH AMERICA

241

Alto Paraguay. Their lands, despite forming a part of their ancestral territory andbeing inhabited by indigenous families, were awarded and titled in the name of arancher by the National Institute of Rural Development and Land (Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Rural y de la Tierra; INDERT). Despite the denunciation to the
Economic and Anticorruption Unit of the Government Attorney’s Office, the casecontinues in impunity. Similarly, the ranching company still holds an environmental license from the Secretariat of the Environment (SEAM), and intends to bringcattle in where the families reside.
Another case is that of the Sauce indigenous community of the Avá Guaranípeople, where, on September 30, 2016, police forces and state agents of various
government agencies carried out a forced removal. In an absolutely disproportionate display of force, prosecutors, several patrol members, buses with agentsfrom the Special Operations Group (Grupo Especial de Operaciones; GEO),
mounted police, and the leading officials of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute(Instituto Paraguayo del Indígena; INDI) went to the zone to conduct the removal.
This community is one of many that was expelled during construction of the Itaipúhydroelectric project and was never indemnified. In addition, the State is liable for
failing to protect indigenous rights from the acts of private parties, despite being
aware of them.

Economic, social, and cultural rights
In the Paraguayan Chaco the cases of labor exploitation and violations against
the rights of indigenous workers, who labor in a situation of subordination or
piecework for persons and companies in the agro-business sector, persist. Thissituation was confirmed by the CERD in 2016.
In terms of wages of indigenous workers, the payments are generally below
minimum wage or the sums are not in keeping with the services rendered. All thisis accompanied by an almost universal violation of their right to enrollment in theSocial Benefits Institute (Instituto de Previsión Social; IPS), which not only violates their right to health, but also to retirement. Another major grievance of indigenous workers is that, in the majority of cases, the contracts are not made in writing, and are thus difficult to enforce, even though oral contracts have the sameobligatory force and effect. For their part, Indigenous farmworkers often live with
their spouses on the agricultural estates. Even though the women cook for the242

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

establishment, their labor is neither recognized nor paid. There are also several
cases of delayed payment of what is due, with the excuse that the administrators
only come to the agricultural estates at irregular intervals.
The violation of these rights and the situation of discrimination are indeed dueto the asymmetry of economic power of agro-business in comparison with theindigenous peoples. Yet another fundamental factor is that the State is conspicuously absent in applying the control that ought to be provided by the Ministry ofJustice and Labor.

Consultation and participation
Structural discrimination is also rooted in a blatant public failure by the Paraguayan State to recognize consultation, established in International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, ratified by Paraguayan Law No. 234/93. Not
only is there is no law regulating consultation, but the government authorities,
whenever they refer to it, do so in a manner that violates the principles that should
prevail of international human rights law: Good Faith, Representativity, and Adequate Procedure.
The Special Rapporteur also describes this situation when she states that
“There is a widespread problem in Paraguay in terms of non-compliance with theState’s obligation to engage in consultation before it adopts legislative, political,
and/or administrative measures that directly affect the indigenous peoples andtheir lands, territories, and natural resources.” 6International Cases
The Paraguayan State has the region’s largest number of judgments handed
down against it in territorial matters involving indigenous peoples by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (IACHR). These judgments are on the cases
brought by the Yakye Axa (2005), Sawhoyamaxa (2006), and Xákmok Kásek(2010) communities. There were also two case settlements that have yet to be
fully complied with in relation to the Kelyenmagategma community (2011) and theY’aka Marangatu indigenous community.7 Even though eleven years have now
transpired since the first decision was handed down and six years have tran-

SOUTH AMERICA

243

spired since the last of them, neither has been fully complied with as regards thereturn and titling of lands.
The Yakye Axa community remains on the same route, next to their ancestral
lands, as more than two decades ago, when they started their journey to reclaim
their territory. The community is in the same conditions, waiting for the State tofulfill the point on restitution that was finalized 8 years ago. The 12,312 hectares,
acquired in 2012 by the State for the community, have not yet been granted title.
In addition, the acceptance of lands other than those originally claimed was conditioned upon the construction of an access road. With respect to the Sawhoyamaxa community, more than two years after enactment of the law on expropriation (forced expropriation with the re-occupation of the lands by the community),
the excessive delay to proceed with the granting of title is inexplicable. The process is tied up in litigations, whose resolution depends upon government officials.
The Xákmok Kásek community has made progress. The second of the three
payments owed has been made for acquisition of 7,701 hectares out of the
10,700 that the State must restore to the community. That final payment is expected to be made in early 2017. No progress whatsoever has been seen with respect to the other hectares.
In relation to the settled cases, declarative progress has been made, such as
talks over the construction of housing and finalization of the work at the site for thesurveying in the Kelyenmagategma case. There has also been joint work for submission of a legislative bill on expropriation in the case of the Y’aka Marangatu
community. Furthermore, the petitioners in this final case indicate that the settlement reached is being complied with as regards food and healthcare.

Human rights defenders
In early 2016, the attorney of the Sawhoyamaxa community, Julia Cabello Alonso,(a member of Tierraviva) received a warning in the summary proceedings brought
against her due to having criticized a delay tactic on the part of the court with respect to fulfillment of the community’s territorial right. The warning includes anadmonition: “if you engage in similar conduct, more severe penalties shall beapplied” by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay. It is important to add that the attorney was placed in a position where she could not exert a244

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

defense, inasmuch as she received that judicial warning from the same court thatdenounced her, and against which her criticism was directed.
Another part of that decision indicates that the law (but without stating whichlaw) in such cases contemplates “corrections such as a fine and even arrest.”
This process, which is unacceptable in any State under the rule of law, is an assault upon free criticism of judicial rulings, upon freedom of speech, and upon thework of this attorney, who has been defending the rights of the indigenous peoples
in Paraguay for more than a decade.
Such persecution of human rights defenders is not isolated. In fact, it is asystematic practice Paraguay. And it especially affects those who defend rights toland and territory, as was the case of Carlos Mareco, a human rights defenderand indigenous leader of the Sawhoyamaxa community. Mareco was a victim ofa death threat in 2015 made by the administrator of the former agricultural estate.
That incident, despite being reported to the prosecutor’s office, as well as others,remains in impunity.
The impunity endured by indigenous peoples in Paraguay is not isolated.
Rather, it is a pattern rooted in a discriminatory system. In this regard, the Special
Rapporteur describes “the justice system’s failure to fully apply existing constitutional and international standards, which gives rise to a climate of impunity.”8

The Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) falls far short in fulfilling
its function
The principle of equality and nondiscrimination established in Article 46 of thenational Constitution is far from being fulfilled, as is reflected in the fact that the
INDI (Instituto Paraguayo del Indígena, the official body for public policy in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples) continues to be the Paraguayan State’s
weakest institution. The institute is lacking in sufficient infrastructure and humanresources.
As mentioned in the Report of the Human Rights Coordinating Body of Paraguay (Coordinadora de Derechos Humanos del Paraguay; CODEHUPY) in
2015,9 the Congress of the Nation cut the INDI budget 10 by 43% for fiscal year
2016. This budget-cutting policy is expected to worsen in the coming year, bearing in mind that its allocations since 2015 have been drastically reduced.11 

SOUTH AMERICA

245

Notes and references
1

In said regard, 40.7% of the population is impoverished; 19% of the population is indigent. 77.8%of the population perceives the State as corrupt, and 90% of the population considers that there
is an unjust distribution of wealth, according to Privileges that Deny Rights. Extreme Inequality
and the Hijacking of Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Oxfam, 2015, page 183.
2 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz,
Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Paraguay, Human Right Council, 30th session, Agenda
Point 3, 13 July 2015, paragraph 48.
3 Ibid. Paragraph 49.
4 Ibid. Paragraph 49.
5 Ibid. Paragraph 20.
6 Report of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Paraguay, Human Right Council, 30th session, Agenda Point 3, 13
July 2015, paragraphs 27 and 28.
7 The issue of the injunction against the Totobiegosodoe will be discussed in a special article of the
Codehupy Report.
8 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz,
Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Paraguay, Human Right Council, 30th session, Agenda
Point 3, 13 July 2015, paragraph 22.
9 Ayala, Oscar “Recuento de un año con reminiscencias autoritarias, donde lo indígena parece nocontar” in Codehupy (2015), Yvypóra Derécho Paraguáipe - Derechos Humanos en Paraguay.
Asunción, Codehupy, 55 – 62.
10 INDI is an self-governing entity with its own legal personality and assets, whose relations with the
Executive Branch ought to be maintained through the Ministry of Education and Culture with themandates of fulfilling, ensuring, and safeguarding by the faithful fulfillment of indigenous rights,
harmonizing the legal mandate with participation by the indigenous peoples, in an articulated,
coordinated manner with other institutions.
11 Gente, Ambiente y Territorio (GAT), September 2016,
http://gat.org.py/boletin/2016/Setiembre/1463.

Article written by Maximiliano Mendierta and Julia Cabello Alonso, attorneys,investigators and human rights defenders at the institution Tierraviva a los Pueblos Indígenas del Chaco, Paraguay.

246

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ARGENTINA
Argentina is a federalized country comprised by 23 provinces with a total
population of nearly 40 million people. According to the results of the Supplementary Survey on Indigenous Populations, published by the National
Statistics and Census Institute, a total of 600,329 persons identify themselves as descendants or members an indigenous people. The most recent national census of 2010 counts a total of 955,032 persons self-identified as descendants or members of an indigenous people. There are 35
different officially recognized indigenous peoples. Legally, they have specific constitutional rights at a federal level as well as in several provinces.
In addition, ILO Convention 169 and other universal human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are in effect, with constitutional stature. Argentina
voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Setbacks in the human rights of indigenous peoples

A

rgentina is currently facing a generalized context of regressive policies onhuman rights. Now, more than one year after the Mauricio Macri administration came into office, the policies of redress and of compliance with human rights
in general are in a phase of setbacks. This particularly applies to indigenous
peoples, even though in their case, the State had previously implemented such
redress policies. The retrogression has been reflected, on the one hand, by a lackof consistent legislation. It has been eleven years since the enactment of Law
26,160,1 yet the congress has yet to pass a law on the granting of title for indigenous territories. On the other hand, it is reflected in a failure to apply laws alreadyin existence. Such is the case of Law 26,160, which, despite all its defects, is thecountry’s only national measure for protection of the indigenous communities’
territorial rights. Added to this dynamic is the passage of certain measures (laws247

SOUTH AMERICA

1

1 Community Chuschagasta

or decrees) that undermine the system for protection of indigenous peoples’ human rights as well as an intensification of persecution, stigmatization, and criminalization of indigenous leaders and community members.
One of the most prodigious signs of regressive measures is Presidential Decree 820/2016, which leaves native communities devoid of protection, further

248

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

exposing them to third-person encroachment on their territories by eliminating thelimits previously imposed under Law No 26,737 2 regarding forced sales of lands
to foreigners.

Increased persecution of indigenous and social movement leaders2016 saw an increase and even a new outbreak of persecution and criminalization in response to indigenous claims. According to a report of the Ministry of
Security,3 the national government does not consider the claims of the indigenous
peoples for their ancestral territories - especially those of the Mapuche people - toconstitute a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Rather, it treats such claims as
a federal crime. Cataloged as “violent and trying to impose their ideas by force”
and turned into “a national security problem,” the Mapuche people have been thevictims of virulent police repression and constant persecution of their leaders by
the Ministry of Security, which ordered the Airport Security Police (PSA) to centralize “investigation tasks.”.4 For the Ministry, the “Mapuche problem” is that“communities are arming” (sic) and “taking lands in gas or oil zones, constantly
impeding normal exploitation of the wells.” This clearly evidences the national
government’s decision to foment the exploitation of indigenous territories and of
their natural resources in favor of the companies and to the detriment of the rights
of indigenous communities. In response, the Mapuche people released a communiqué, joined in by social movement organizations,5 repudiating that governmental decision.
These acts of persecution in response to indigenous claims are justified andlegitimized in discriminatory discourse, as is seen in the statements made by
Mario Das Neves, governor of the province of Chubut. At a press conference on
November 14, Das Neves demanded the resignation of Federal Judge Guido
Otranto6 and stated that “we don’t want federal judges who act in collusion withcriminals”.7
In the province of Jujuy the judiciary and the provincial government of Gerardo Morales have developed a widespread, active governmental strategy of harassment and criminal persecution of leaders from the Tupac Amaru Neighborhood Association (in which there are several indigenous organizations) and fromthe Red de Organizaciones Sociales de Jujuy [Network of Social Organizations ofJujuy], with the aim of preventing the development of social protest among grass-

SOUTH AMERICA

249

roots sectors. Among the acts taken was the arbitrary arrest in January 2016 of
Milagro Sala,8 a Tupac Amaru leader and member of the Mercosur Parliament,along with the political, extortive use of that arrest to vacate the encampment of
the organizations, which encampment is a principal tool for exerting their claim.
The arrest and the order to vacate are a product of a penal prosecution orchestrated to criminalize the protest. These actions restrict democratic liberties bycreating obstacles for and criminalizing the right to protest, thus creating a severe, urgent, irreparable situation. Given this state of affairs, ANDHES (Attorneysof the Argentine Northwest for Human Rights and Social Studies), the CELS(Centers for Legal and Social Studies), and Amnesty International requested aprecautionary measure from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR
Court), which was responded to in February 2016, requesting updated information on the legal situation of Milagro Sala. As of the date of this report, that information is still being awaited.
In October 2016 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
determined that the detention of Milagro Sala was arbitrary and called for her“immediate release.” This decision was then supported by the Secretary Generalof the OAS, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the
IACHR itself.9 Despite the international condemnation, Milagro Sala has now been
incarcerated for more than a year, and in recent months the executive and judicial
branches have intensified persecution against the Tupac Amaru association.

Provincial Law No. 5.915:
Unconstitutional, enacted without consultation, and illegitimate10
In May 2016, the Legislature of the province of Jujuy enacted Law No 5,915,11
created with the purpose of fomenting the production of electric energy throughrenewable resources and contributing to economic development. This law is atool through which the provincial government seeks to develop a “solar farm”
project. The law calls for the creation of easements throughout the province’s
territory for the installation of power lines in order to facilitate all installations necessary to implement renewable energy sources.
Indigenous communities throughout the province denounced that law as unconstitutional, enacted without consultation, and discriminatory. They stated that

250

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

said law facilitates dispossession of the communities’ territory. Through open
assemblies throughout the regions, the communities systematically stated theiropposition, seeking to prevent the formulation of regulations to the law. For
their part, indigenous leaders Carlos Colque (president of the native community of Molulo) and Raúl Sajama (member of the indigenous community of Angosto de Perchel de Tilcara) indicated that this law is detrimental to indigenous
peoples, since it authorizes private companies to make use of their lands without any type of consent or consultation: “We have been left completely defenseless with this law. One of its points establishes that when the State approves a project, the concessionaire can automatically enter into the communities using any route it sees fit, without even consulting the communities as towhich road is best”.12
In December 2016, the Government of the Province of Jujuy convened
representatives of various indigenous communities to address this law in a
false consultation procedure (since the law had already been enacted) to thedetriment of nationally and internationally recognized rights. During the assembly, the communities expressed their opposition and their request to repeal thelaw. Despite overwhelming rejection by the indigenous communities, as of thedate of this report, the law has not been repealed.

United Nations Periodic Review of the Argentine StateIn December 2015 Argentina submitted its periodic report on the application of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and on the recommendations made by the Committee in the prior review,
conducted in 2010. In October 2016 shadow reports were submitted by civilsociety.13 Based on that, the Argentine State was evaluated by the CERD in its
2490th and 2491th meeting, held on November 22 and 23, 2016 in the city ofGeneva.
The shadow reports submitted focus on the situation of territorial rights; thecriminalization of indigenous protest; the right to participation and to free, prior,and informed consultation; access to justice; and the situation of economic,
social, and cultural rights over the past 6 years. Through the use of leading cases,
the shadow reports reflect and place emphasis on the situations of discriminationand violation of rights, as well as certain public policies of the new national con-

SOUTH AMERICA

251

text that, far from complying with ensuring protection of the indigenous peoples,
are intensifying those violations.
In relation to the report submitted by ANDHES, we now provide a summary of
the situation regarding violations of the rights of indigenous peoples.

Situation regarding territorial rights and violent evictions
Argentina in 2006 enacted Emergency Law No. 26,160. This law orders suspension of the execution of judgments and of procedural or administrative acts whose
purpose was the eviction or vacating of lands traditionally occupied by the indigenous and native communities of the country. It also orders the conducting of alegal and technical cadastral survey14 with the aim of systematizing the information of each of the communities, to be followed by the regularization of indigenous
community ownership. Nonetheless, now, more than 10 years since this law’s
enactment, the underlying problem has not been resolved. In most of the provinces, the survey was not finalized and there is no clear government policy ordering instrumentation of indigenous community ownership. In practice, this meansthat there is a constant lack of legal certainty for indigenous peoples in their territories.
What is paradoxical is that even though Law 26,160 orders a stop to the evictions, precisely following its entry into force the number of evictions sharply increased, as did the violence with which the evictions were carried out. This evidences that the absence of a clear mechanism for the granting of title encourages
other players from the business sector to try and appropriate indigenous territories and carry out violent evictions. Far from improving, this situation has gained
new momentum with the coming into office of the new national authorities. In theprovince of Tucumán alone, during December 2015 and April 2016, the justice ofthe peace initiated and ordered the eviction of three indigenous communities of
the Diaguita people: the indigenous communities of Chaquivil, Potrero Rodeo
Grande, and Quilmes (just one of them is pending a decision by the civil justicesystem). All of those evictions took place in a framework of extreme violence,
without applying the standards of protection for the rights of indigenous peoples
ordered by Convention 169. Such acts are repeating in other northern Argentine
provinces.15

252

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Criminalization and impunity
Criminalization of the indigenous struggle has become the predominant responseon the part of the judiciary. Frequently, community members are accused of encroaching upon their own territory and the claims of landlord groups are upheld.
This situation becomes even more alarming, considering that the cases broughtby the community are not obtaining a fitting response or are systematically dismissed.
In the province of Tucumán, it can be seen that out of the 50 court cases of
six indigenous communities ANDHES has filed over the past 8 years, only one
obtained a favorable judgment. This occurred in 2012, but it lost on appeal in
2014. In other words, so far, no effective response has been received from theprovincial judges.16
The Chocobar case. With respect to the tragic chain of events that resulted in
the death of community member Javier Chocobar and in the wounding of two
members of the indigenous community of Chuschagasta of the Diaguita people,
the CERD made recommendations in the year 2010. Continuous claims have also been made by the community, its defense counsel, and various social movement organizations. Yet to date those responsible for his death remain in impunity and the community has not received any redress whatsoever. The oral trial
phase gets put off year after year, and as of today there is no certainty that a trial
will ever be held. Seven years after his death occurred, the courts, even with thecase open and underway, provide no response. Given this lack of action by the
judiciary, the members of the community are left completely devoid of protection
and in a constant state of legal uncertainty. Adding to this situation is the sanction
imposed in November 2016 by the judges of this case upon the attorneys who
filed the criminal charges in a civilian capacity. This irrational and unconstitutionalsanction represents a new obstacle for access to justice on the part of victims,
since it directly affects their counsel, restricts freedom of speech, and limits mobilization and social protest, especially over claims related to the struggle of native
peoples. This limits the participation by defense counsel for the community of
Chuschagasta in those activities.

SOUTH AMERICA

253

Discrimination in access to justice for indigenous peoples
The national government undertook a commitment to ensure access to justice forindigenous communities through the implementation of specific programs. Nonetheless, there is no official information and no indicators evaluating whether implementation of the programs actually resolved the obstacles in form and in substance for access to the justice system by indigenous communities.
In the province of Tucumán, in indigenous territories, there is a clearly increasingly conflictive atmosphere and growing discrimination in access to thejustice system for the communities. With respect to this issue, ANDHES together
with the Union of Peoples of the Diaguita Nation is conducting a study based ondata from the past 8 years, whose preliminary results are as follows: there areapproximately 40 conflicts17 involving 10 indigenous communities (out of the 17
indigenous communities in this province). On an average, that represents 4 conflicts per community. 85% of the conflicts directly involve the interests of third
persons over Community Territory; 22.5% involve interests over natural resources, among them the case involving the murder of Javier Chocobar; 17.5% of theconflicts involve adverse impacts to community cultural heritage, an issue thathas great significance for indigenous communities. Only 50% of those conflicts
have been litigated, amounting to approximately 60 court cases, of which 47.5%
have resulted in an unfavorable result for the community (detention, eviction,
closing of the case, consignment to trial); 49% have seen no type of resolution
and 3.5 % have seen a resolution that in some way favors the community (notnecessarily application of the legislation, but rather a closing of the case due tolack of evidence from the other party). In none of these cases has a protective
measure been applied based on Law 26,160. Neither has there been a judgment,
decision, or motion from the prosecutor’s office classifying the case as a situationof violation of territorial rights of indigenous peoples.
If these quantitative data are compared with the scant number of decisions
where the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has applied the rights of theindigenous peoples,18 and if we also consider that the provincial courts likewise
fail to apply the limited case law of the Court, the evidence of discrimination inaccess to justice is overwhelming.

254

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Systematic failure to comply with the right to participation,
consultation, and free, prior, and informed consent
The reports submitted by civil society to the CERD stated that the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs (INAI) continues to be a centralized entity without direct
outreach to the provinces and without sufficient indigenous representation. Veryfew provinces have government bodies working on indigenous issues, and thosethat do work in an uncoordinated fashion. The INAI is still presided over by anonindigenous person, elected without consultation or representation of the indigenous peoples, who has final decision-making power on matters involving indigenous peoples. Definitively, the participation of the indigenous communities in theentities and decisions involving them is not a public policy of the State.
Following this same logic, the Indigenous Peoples Consultation and Participatory Council was recently created through Decree No. 672/2016. That new
body was superimposed over the Indigenous Participation Council; the peoples
were not consulted and the formerly created body was not recognized. This severs continuity with the isolated policies implemented by the prior administration,in clear opposition to the various indigenous organizations.19 Another emblematiccase where the right to consultation and to free, prior, and informed consent was
violated is the situation being faced by the 33 indigenous communities of the basin of Guayatayoc and Salinas Grandes (Salta and Jujuy), based on the exploitation of lithium in their territory by international companies. The exploitation concessions are authorized by the provincial governments based on environmental
impact studies prepared by the interested companies themselves, in which clearly no prior consultation procedures with the affected indigenous peoples are conducted. Given this situation, the communities denounced the violation of theirrights, but to date have not obtained clear and effective responses from the provincial government.

The situation of economic, social, and cultural rights
With respect to the situation of economic, social, and cultural rights, the Argentine
State has an enormous debt pending with the indigenous communities. The ongoing, systematic situation of malnutrition and poverty in which numerous indig-

SOUTH AMERICA

255

enous peoples of the country live is the vector that describes the State’s responses to its internationally assumed obligations.
One of the principal claims made by indigenous communities involves a lackor shortage of water. The government’s unconstitutional requirement of having to
be holders in ownership20 in order to access public plans for the provision of water
infrastructure impedes effective access to such infrastructure for hundreds of indigenous families. It also violates the right to a life with dignity. In addition, theabsence of public health policies with an intercultural approach21 further aggravates the situation of chronic malnutrition among members of the indigenous
communities and creates a new barrier, making the health system inaccessible ingeographic, economic, and cultural terms.
The lack of access to water and the absence of adequate public health policies has had alarming consequences in the life of the Communities. Its worst
manifestation was reflected in the death of six indigenous children in January andFebruary 2015, according to the investigation carried out by journalist Darío Aranda. The situation of chronic malnutrition is a vicious cycle; it is aggravated in thiscontext of inaccessibility and has not been adequately attended to by the State.

Recommendations and observations of the CERD
to the Argentine State
Based on the reports submitted, the CERD, in November, published its recommendations to the Argentine State. Those recommendations expressed particularconcern over the constant evictions faced by communities; impunity over the murder of Community member Javier Chocobar; the cases of criminalization of indigenous leaders, especially the case of the India Quilmes Community, the case of
Félix Díaz, and the arbitrary arrest of community leader Milagro Sala; the lack ofa clear title-granting policy; the inefficient application of Law 26160; and failure tocomplete the legal and technical cadastral survey ordered by law.
In response to the information provided, the CERD made the following recommendations to Argentina:•

That it take steps to ensure the safety of indigenous peoples who aresubjected to threats, persecution, and other violent acts, and to prevent,investigate, and punish such acts;

256

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

•
•

•

•

•

Early completion of the process for surveying ancestral territories andlands;
That it ensure the full effectiveness of Law 26160; the adoption of legislative and administrative measures; as well as appropriate, effective mechanisms to facilitate the ownership and titling of said lands and territories;
The taking of all necessary steps to protect human rights defenders, including the leaders and members of indigenous communities, against allacts of intimidation and violence or any arbitrary act by public authorities
or private entities as a consequence of a human rights defender’s performance of his or her functions;
It called for ensuring effective access to justice and respect for fundamental rights and due process guarantees in proceedings against humanrights defenders and members of indigenous communities, including thecases of Milagro Sala and Félix Díaz;
In the case of Milagro Sala, it invited the State to implement the measures
requested by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

With respect to the right to participation, it called upon the State to adopt appropriate regulations and mechanisms throughout the country with a view toward obtaining free, prior, and informed consent, so that prior consultation will be carried out
systematically and in good faith, with representative authorities, through appropriate
procedures, and with the provision of sufficient, appropriate information.
Notes and references
1
2
3

Emergency Act regarding Possession and Ownership of Lands Traditionally Occupied by Indigenous Native Communities of the Country.
Law on Protection of National Dominion of Property, Possession, or Tenancy of Rural Lands,
enacted in the year 2011 (known as the law against the foreign control of land).
The report of Minister Patricia Bullrich (08/30/2016) was written eight months after the Supreme
Court of Justice rejected the federal nature as well as application of the antiterrorist act to thecase being prosecuted against Martiniano Jones Huala and other Mapuche representatives. The
Court remitted the case to the provincial justice system. The charges were for crimes of encroachment and cattle rustling and is pending being sent out for trial in the provincial courts of theprovince of Chubut. Another parallel case, where Chile requested the extradition of Mapuche
leader Facundo Jones Huala (Martiniano’s nephew), was quashed by federal judge Guido Otranto. The appeal is now before the Supreme Court of Justice. The judgment that quashed theextradition highlighted the illegal practices used in making the extradition request (one of theSOUTH AMERICA

4

5
6
7

8

9
10
11

12
13

257

witnesses against the Mapuche leader had provided data under torture). Two prosecutors and two
provincial commissioners were questioned, one agent of the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) is being
prosecuted who provided them with intelligence on social mobilizations and marches opposing the
installation of a mine. Jones Huala was prosecuted in Chile for the crimes of arson in an inhabited place
and the carrying of a homemade firearm in January 2013, but he did not appear on the day of the trial,on account of which his detention was ordered. www.pagina12.com.ar
The Report also maintains, making reference to the protest actions and claims of the Mapuche people:“These crimes of encroachment, disturbance of possession and extortion adversely affect a strategic
service of the resources of the State: 200 wells have been stopped (according to what YPF reports),”
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-314093-2016-11-13.html
https://www.facebook.com/XAWVNKO/posts/1171285982952144:0, reproduced by various media
and organizations.
Because the judge quashed the proceedings against the Lonko Facundo Jones Huala, a Mapuche
authority who was facing a request for extradition from the Chilean government.
The participation of federal security and intelligence services in acts of espionage against the Mapuche
people had already been denounced by the Association of Indigenous Law Attorneys (AADI) in a note
addressed in August to President Maurizio Macri and to the governor of Chubut, Mario Das Neves, but
it received no reply. The note objected to the criminal actions as a way of dealing with territorial claimsof the Mapuche people. The note from the AADI points to the existence of “a common thread between
illicit government acts, the State’s own failure to recognize of the rights of the indigenous peoples, thepenal persecution of its leaders, and the stereotype painted by the communications media, which
generates the false idea that the indigenous peoples are a threat, thus exacerbating old conflicts,”
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-314093-2016-11-13.html
Charged originally with the crimes of instigation to commit crimes and sedition. The judge finally ordered her release on January 29, but that same afternoon her arrest was ordered for another casebrought on January 15 (that is, during the judicial holiday, which was also allowed on an exceptional
basis) in which she was accused of fraud to the detriment of the State, extortion, and conspiracy. As
such, in an extremely abusive manner, she was released in the morning and a new arrest was orderedin the afternoon, on account of which she did not even get out of prison.
IACHR Statement (12/2/2016): http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/prensa/comunicados/2016/182.asp
http://www.legislaturajujuy.gov.ar/img/sesiones/ftp/s_2634/Ley_5915_33-PE-16.pdf
Law on Administrative Power Line Easements and Special Regime Establishing Administrative Easements for the Development of Projects for Electric Power Generation based on Renewable Sources
Situated on Communal Property.
http://www.elfederal.com.ar/pueblos-originarios-de-jujuy-se-oponen-a-la-ley-de-servidumbre-electrica/
One written by the non-governmental organization ANDHES in alliance with the Union of Peoples of
the Diaguita Nation of Tucumán (UPNDT), the Parliament of Original Nations, the Indigenous Peoples’
Human Rights Observatory (ODHPI), the Foundation for Social Accompaniment of the Anglican
Church of the Argentine North (ASOCIANA), and another by (in addition to the Parliament of Original
Nations, ODHPI, and ASOCIANA): the Chaco Argentina Agroforest Network (REDAF), the Association of Indigenous Law Attorneys (AADI), the Civil Association for the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (ADEPI-Formosa), the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), the United Board ofMissions (JUM-Chaco), the Permanent Human Rights Assembly (APDH), the National Aboriginal
Pastoral Team (ENDEPA), the Claretian Development Project (OCLADE), the Human Rights
Masters’ Program of the National University of Salta, and the Commission of Indigenous Jurists

258

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

14 There are provinces that have yet to commence this survey, others that have started but notconcluded it, and others where it has already been concluded, but even so there are no clear
intentions for title-granting policies.
15 For example, in the province of Salta, on May 12, 2016, there was a violent eviction of membersof the Diaguita Calchaquí Cóndor Huasi Community, of Quebrada de San Lucas, Department of
San Carlos. It was publicly denounced that a group of police and the Justice of the Peace of thejurisdiction of Cafayate, in execution of a judicial eviction order handed down by Judge María
Virginia Toranzos de Lovaglio, went to the homes of Martina Herrera and Santos Arjona, andwhen those persons were not home, they took out their belongings and destroyed their homes.
Representatives of the Union of the Peoples of the Diaguitas Nation of Salta denounced that said
judicial order was obtained to satisfy the interests of the San Carlos S.R.L. company, which isseeking the lands comprising the community territory.
16 “Acceso a la justicia y los Pueblos Originarios. Un análisis empírico.” XVII Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociología Jurídica & VII Latinoamericano de Sociología Jurídica, 2016.
17 With “conflict” being understood in a broad sense, that is, as all disputes or controversies thatmaterialize through institutional or de facto channels and that violate or have the potential to violate the territorial rights of indigenous peoples. With this criterion a conflict can generate several
court cases.
18 In the month of November 2013, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (CSJN) ruled, putting
a stop to the eviction of the “Las Haytekas” Mapuche community of the province of Río Negro,
thus revoking a ruling of the provincial justice system that ordered the community to vacate theland claimed by a private party. In this ruling, for the first time, the high court applied Law 26,160,
using the concept of “territory” under Convention 169. The ruling establishes that the territorial
survey, already concluded in several provinces of the country, acts as proof to demonstrate traditional indigenous occupation. In the decision, the Court pointed out that Law 26,160 seeks toprevent new situations of dispossession from occurring, in order to respect and guarantee constitutional rights of the indigenous peoples and to comply with international human rights commitments undertaken by the National State. Nonetheless, this court decision was not yet adopted by
the provincial courts.
19 Understanding the conflict in the broad sense, this means any dispute or controversy that materializes through institutional or factual channels, and that infringes or has the potential to violate
the territorial rights of indigenous peoples. Under this criterion a conflict can be translated inseveral judicial causes.
20 Shadow Report submitted to the CERD in 2016,
http://andhes.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Informe-alternativo-CERD-2016.pdf
21 At the public health centers, which serve the majority of indigenous peoples, the presence oftranslators and/or interpreters is not contemplated or guaranteed. This repeatedly creates difficulties for making a correct diagnosis and, moreover, for determining medical treatment.

Report prepared by the ANDHES Foundation (Attorneys of the Argentine Northwest for Human Rights and Social Studies) based on its studies and research.
Belén Leguizamón, Cyntia Jaquilie Ovejero and Victoria Fernández Almeida, members of the Indigenous Peoples team of that foundation.

259

CHILE
According to official statistics from 2013, the indigenous population in
Chile is 1,565,915 persons. With nine indigenous peoples, the Mapuche
people represents 84% of the indigenous population, followed by the Aymara, Diaguita, Lickanantay, and Quechua peoples who, together, represent 15%. Out of the total indigenous population, 74% live in urban zones,
while the remaining 26% live in rural zones.1 Statistics from 2015 demonstrate that 30.8% of the indigenous population lives in a situation of multidimensional poverty (income, housing, education, and health), while forthe nonindigenous population, that figure is 19.9%. The region of Araucanía, which concentrates the largest indigenous population (Mapuche),accounting for 19.8% of the total population, continues to be the country’s
poorest region with 29.2% multidimensional poverty and 23.6% poverty
by income.2

Chile is the only country in Latin America whose constitution does not recognize the indigenous peoples. Despite that, in the framework of the constitutional drafting process for the development of a new constitution convened by thegovernment in 2016 (as a consequence of a social mobilization) the Ministry ofSocial Development convened an indigenous constitutional drafting process togain the perspective of the indigenous peoples on the content of a new constitution. 12,000 indigenous persons participated in this process through 400 gatherings convened by themselves or others.3 Although the conclusions of this process
have not yet been systematized, the process has been questioned by indigenous
peoples’ organizations due to its methodology, which is not in keeping with indigenous tradition and whose timing is late in relation to the constitutional drafting
process that the government convened months prior to gather input from the citizenry for a future constitution.4
Law No 19,253 of 1993 on “indigenous promotion, protection, and development” remains in effect, even though it does not meet the international law standard concerning the rights of indigenous peoples to land, territory, natural resources, participation, and political autonomy. One of the fundamental tools of this law,

260

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

its Indigenous Lands and Waters Fund, utilized for the market acquisition of lands
claimed by indigenous communities and/or persons, was underutilized during
2016. This is evidenced in the use of a mere 29 billion Chilean pesos out of the
83 billion approved in the budget of CONADI (National Indigenous Development
Corporation) at the end of the third quarter of the year.5 This situation allowed forthe acquisition of only 12 properties for indigenous peoples, in contrast with anaverage of 78 properties in the past four years.6 Along the same lines, during theyear, the restriction was applied to land purchases for communities that haveused non-institutional avenues for land claims,7 applying the same restriction for2017 contemplated in 2016.
As for Law No. 20,249 of 2008 on “coastal marine spaces of native peoples,”its implementation continues to be minimal.8 Protection is still lacking against industrial use of those spaces by companies. This is reflected in the case of the
Mapuche Williche communities of the Los Lagos (Isla de Chiloé) region, whose
traditional coastline was contaminated by the red tide, which environmentalists
and the affected communities consider to be a consequence of 4,600 tons ofsalmon in decomposition dumped into the sea by companies present in thosespaces.9 Application of ILO Convention 169, ratified in 2008, is still quite insufficient, in particular with respect to indigenous consultation rights when administrative measures on investment projects affect indigenous peoples.
Other noteworthy legislative activity is the executive branch’s introduction of
two bills, one for creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and another for
creation of a National Indigenous Council and nine Councils of Indigenous Peoples. The National Indigenous Council might lead to an improved status for indigenous public policy, but does not in-and-of-itself ensure a policy consistent withthe rights recognized for these peoples. The Councils of Indigenous Peoples
contemplate one Council for each people, with a total of 69 representatives elected by those peoples, which might constitute an avenue for representation of theirinterests vis-à-vis the State. The bill also considers a National Council of Indigenous Peoples comprised by 15 council members, also elected by the indigenous
peoples, for the approval of national indigenous policy.10 This is a valuable initiative, which in all events must not violate the right of the indigenous peoples toconstitute and define their own representative institutions, as per ILO Convention
169.
Finally, another legislative bill that has raised questions on the part of indigenous peoples creates the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (SBAP) andSOUTH AMERICA

261

the National Protected Areas System (SNAP).11 That bill fails to recognize thecontribution of indigenous peoples to biodiversity; it does not protect indigenous
rights against public and private conservation initiatives; neither does it recognize
or protect indigenous and community conservation initiatives. As a result of theindigenous criticism of the bill and of its impact, the government decided in early

262

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 20172016 to promote a consultation process with the indigenous peoples. While said
process was still underway, in the month of December 2016, the government
submitted its observations on the bill to the Senate Environment Committee,
which reopened its discussion and voting. Many of the observations presented by
the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) to the Congress involved matters addressed in the consultation with indigenous peoples that could directly affectthese peoples. The indigenous organizations have considered the presentation ofthese observations to be a violation of their right to consultation, and they have
objected to the government over the absence of good faith in the consultation
process on this legal initiative.12

The rights of the Mapuche people
2016 has not seen structural advances in the recognition of the Mapuche people’s rights, following a trend in recent years with respect to the lands and territories legally and/or ancestrally belonging to the Mapuche people. In the Region of
the Araucanía and Los Ríos, the rights of the Mapuche people have been gravely threatened by the expansion of extractive, production, and infrastructure projects. The great majority of these initiatives belong to private corporations thatengage in activities such as the salmon industry with production and ovulationfish farming activities for raising young fish that are later transferred to industrial
plants in southern Chile; the forestry industry, in constant expansion with monocrops of exotic species of pine and eucalyptus for producing cellulose; hydroelectric companies, which under the guise of supposedly environmentally friendly“run-of-the-river” projects have proliferated in the foothills and mountainous zonesof the Region; or mining prospections and geothermal exploration.
This situation is due to the norms regulating the use, allocation, and grantingof rights over natural resources, for example the Waters Code, which has its
foundation in the economic theory of free markets and the subsidiary role of theState. The administrative authority’s powers for natural resource management
and planning is therefore minimized, and the use of natural resources is allocatedthrough the market, not through civil management. In addition, legislation for thevarious sectors that regulates the use, allocation, and granting of rights overnatural resources has not been adapted to ILO Convention 169. Such legislation
fails to recognize indigenous peoples’ rights over natural resources that ances-

SOUTH AMERICA

263

trally belong to them and that are located in their territories. It allows rights to be
granted for private parties to utilize those resources without consulting the indigenous peoples over the concession process.
Currently, the legislative bill for reform of the Waters Code13 is undergoing its
second reading.14 Certain improvements are being incorporated in relation to recognizing indigenous peoples’ rights over water resources. A deficiency in said
process has been indigenous participation, which to date has been very marginal,
and the incorporation of such participation into the remainder of the process appears to be a great challenge.
An example of the massive investment projects in Mapuche territory is clearlyseen in the regions of Araucanía and Los Ríos, where 30 hydroelectric projects
have been approved with environmental qualification and 3 with qualification under the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA).15 These projects are
principally located in basin headwaters, that is, where the rivers start in the mountainous zones. The great majority of these projects are located in territories thatform a part of the ancestral and current habitat of Mapuche communities. They
have multiple impacts, such as: alteration of ecosystems; threats to importantsacred sites that have great religious and spiritual meaning for the Mapuche people; severe pollution of waterways and diminished access to waterways; and failure to acknowledge these territories’ own production systems and those of theircommunities. Such projects also violate the Mapuche people’s right to define theirown development priorities, which is consecrated in Article 7.1 of ILO Convention
169. These projects are thus widely rejected by the communities. From this perspective, the case of the Doña Alicia Hydroelectric Power Plant, located in thecommune of Curacautín is emblematic. It was initially rejected by the regional
Environmental Assessment bodies but later approved by the Committee of Ministers in Santiago. Then the project was challenged in court before the Third Environmental Court Number of Valdivia, which voided the Decision of the Committeeof Ministers. Another emblematic case is that of the Osorno Hydroelectric Power
Plant in the Region of Los Ríos. This project threatens to destroy a sacred site of
the Mapuche-Huilliche people, which is the Ngen Mapu Quintuante. It has environmental approval, but currently the concessionaire’s failure to fulfill certain
measures agreed to in the decision approving the project is being administratively challenged.
Another phenomenon that has played a major role over the past year consistsof investment projects that sidestep the Environmental Impact Assessment Sys-

264

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

tem through a procedure named “Environmental Assessment Pertinence Consultation.” Through this procedure, concessionaires of projects whose “impacts” areless than what is defined by quantitative criteria in the environmental regulation16
consult with the environmental authority (SEA) over whether they need to submit
to an environmental assessment. Based on those quantitative criteria —and noton their qualitative impacts— in 90% of the cases the environmental authority
finds that the projects need not be environmentally assessed. That rules out thepossibility of engaging in a consultation process with the indigenous peoples.
Emblematic of this type of project is the Tranguil Hydroelectric Power Plant,
whose concessionaire is the Austrian company RP GLOBAL. The project is located in the commune of Panguipulli in the Los Ríos Region, adjacent to legal
lands of Mapuche communities. Its electricity lines also cross Mapuche communities. Despite that, since it is an electricity generation project of less than 3 MW, it
was not subject to an environmental assessment, and the concessionaire has
been able to advance in its implementation without a need for environmental authorizations. This case received extensive public attention, given that one of its
strongest detractors, Macarena Valdés, was found dead in her home understrange circumstances. Her death is being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Officewith the aim of getting to the truth of the facts.
In addition, criminalization of Mapuche social protest by the State is still constant. Currently, there are a great number of court cases against Mapuche persons, accusing them of participating in criminal acts in connection with claims fortheir territorial rights. Some of these cases are being prosecuted under the Antiterrorist Act.17 One of the court cases that has gained major media coverage isthat of the fire that took the lives of husband and wife Werner Luchsinger andVivianne Mackay. Given that it is being prosecuted by the representatives of the
Ministry of the Interior under the Antiterrorist Act, and given the charges filed by
the Prosecutor’s office, it is being treated as a terrorism case. Ten Mapuche leaders are being charged with participating in the crime, along with the machi (traditional spiritual authority of the Mapuche people) Francisca Linconao, who has along history as a defender of the rights of her people and of her territory. The accusations are based on testimony obtained under torture from a co-defendant. In
this case, the situation of Machi Linconao has been very complex. Her defense
counsel requested house arrest, and that motion was accepted on four occasions
by the Trial Court Judge of Temuco but later revoked by the Temuco Court of Appeals, forcing her to remain incarcerated and, on account of her age, greatly

SOUTH AMERICA

265

harming her health. She continued to be held in custody because, according to
the antiterrorist act under which she is being prosecuted, a release must be unanimously accepted by the division of that Court. Machi Linconao thus commenced
a hunger strike, demanding that the justice system take her circumstances into
account and convert the precautionary measure into a house arrest. The change
was accepted in December 2016 by the Temuco Court of Appeals, following thefiling of a Habeas Corpus Petition.
The context of criminalization has also been used against the criminal defense attorneys who represent the defendants in the case, and they have beenharassed, persecuted, and criminalized by the Police and the Prosecutor’s Office.
Such is the case of attorneys Karina Riquelme and Sebastián Saavedra.18 Suchis also the case of public defense attorney Manuela Royo, who, given her role andclose relationship with the defendants, was fired from the Public Defenders’ Office. Currently these cases of harassment and persecution of human rights defenders are being heard by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights(IACHR).
Another constant feature has been police officers’ excessive use of violencein the context of Mapuche territorial claims. Worth particular mention are the abusive acts of the police in the operations conducted within the Mapuche communities and on their lands of traditional occupation, without regard for the presenceof children, women, and the elderly, whose rights are especially affected. The
case of a 17 year old Mapuche child named Brandon Hernández is emblematic ofsuch violence. He was severely wounded in the back by a round from a shotgun,
fired by a member of the Special Chilean National Police Force known as “Carabineros” during a police operation a few feet away from his home.

The situation of the rights of the Andean peoples in Chile
In The Indigenous World 2016 we noted the backlog in the process of demarcation and granting of title for the ancestral territories of the Andean peoples. According to Law No. 19,253 on indigenous protection, promotion and development,
the State is obligated to recognize and return indigenous lands. To accomplish
that, Law No. 19,253 set a term of three years as of its enactment, which expired
20 years ago. Numerous territories under Chilean State ownership are still being
claimed and have yet to be demarcated and formally granted title according to266

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

what was reported by the National Human Rights Institute in the year 2014. Thissituation has not substantially changed in 2016.
Rather, the Ministry of National Assets, with the acquiescence of the National
Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI), has promoted a policy geared
towards reducing indigenous territories in the country’s north by applying actual
occupation criteria for demarcating and granting title over territorial spaces. This
policy fails to recognize customary practices, among them productive occupation
for pastoral wild livestock activities; spaces with cultural and spiritual meaningsuch as the mallkus, also known as the cerros tutelares or mountains housing thespirit of the ancestors; and spaces of environmental importance such as meadows and high altitude wetlands.19
This policy has impeded advances in the recognition of territorial rights. The
most emblematic case in the year 2016 was that of the Aymara Chusmiza-Usmagama Community,20 who have been the victims of a process of confiscation of
their ancestrally used waters, because the authority —through a procedure notcontemplated in national law— established water rights in favor of a third party
without the consent of the community, even though litigation was pending regarding those same waters between the same interested parties. The community has
expressed its willingness to the IACHR to reach an Amicable Settlement Agreement with the State of Chile, negotiations for which have been underway for six
years. The negotiations have been impeded, however, by the regressive position
taken by the Ministry of National Assets, which refuses to recognize the collective
rights of the Chusmiza-Usmagama Community over their ancestrally occupied
lands as a measure of redress and guarantee of non-repetition.21 It is important tonote that the Ministry of National Assets, applying Decree with Force of Law
1939/79, has argued that it can only recognize individual property, and in theevent that the persons granted title possess other property, free ownership title
cannot be granted. Rather, it would be necessary to proceed by way of a purchase, and the indigenous owners would have to pay the sale price set by thegovernment for lands that belong to them on account of their ancestral ownershipright. This goes against international norms on the rights of indigenous peoples.
With respect to waters, the Congress is debating a reform to the Waters
Code22 that seeks to guarantee water as a human right, protect indigenous rights
to water, and safeguard the environmental functions of this life-giving element.
Such mechanisms are not contemplated in the statutes on waters currently ineffect.23 The reform proposes to recognize the human right to water and sanita-

SOUTH AMERICA

267

tion, which must be guaranteed by the State. In the case of indigenous territories,
it would provide that the State shall safeguard the integrity of land and water andshall protect existing waters for the benefit of indigenous communities in keepingwith law and international treaties ratified by Chile that are in effect. The law
would provide for protection of aquifers and wetlands, as well as environmental
flows in degraded zones and water conservation in protected areas and glaciers.
Just as in 2015, during 2016 a sharp reduction was seen in high-impact extractive projects in the territories of the Andean peoples. This resulted from slower activity in the mining sector due to a drop in international market prices formetals, particularly for copper. Nonetheless, at the judicial level, a green light wasgiven to certain projects that were under litigation for failure to consult the indigenous communities. Such is the situation of the Minera Paguanta Prospecting
Project, where the right to consultation for communities located downstream fromthe project site was denied, reversing a judicial ruling that originally recognized
this right and demanded an Environmental Impact Study.24 The Second Environmental Court25 and, later, the Supreme Court,26 upheld the decision of the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA) that reduced the consultation to one with
the Community of Cultane, which had come out in favor of the project’s execution.
Certain mining companies whose projects came to a halt in 2015 have expressed their interest in reactivating the projects. Such is the case of the El Morromining project (for gold and copper), which belongs to Goldcorp Inc., a Canadiancompany that has partnered with Teck Resources Limited to combine their respective projects, El Morro and Relincho, into a single initiative, forming the
Nuevo Unión project. Under this new formulation, the project has not yet comeunder the Environmental Impact Assessment System.
Barrick Gold, a Canadian company that is the concessionaire of the Pascua
Lama project, is in the process of resuming its operations. It should be remembered that this project was challenged by the Diaguita of the Huasco-Altinos(CADHA) Community before the IACHR through a petition lodged in January
2007.27 This petition was admitted by the IACHR in 200928 and is still awaiting thereport on the merits. The processing of the petition has taken 10 years, and 7
years have gone by awaiting the report on the merits.
One case where progress has been seen is that of G.B.B.,29 a woman of Aymara origin who lost her son D.B.B. while she was grazing her flock in the Chilean
high plateau. She was sentenced to 12 years in prison for abandonment of a minor that resulted in his death in an unpopulated place. In June 2016 during the268

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

158th Session of the IACHR, held in the city of Santiago of Chile, the Amicable
Settlement Agreement (ASA) was signed. That ASA, compliance with which has
advanced satisfactorily, has the following content: to grant an honorary life pension and a residence to ensure the subsistence of the victim; to eliminate her
criminal history in order to ensure her full reinsertion into society; to add the background information from the proceedings to the adoption file of her minor daughter C.B.B. for purposes of making the complete file of her adoption available toher and favor the re-establishment of the bond with the biological mother; and aguarantee of non-repetition.30

The rights of the Rapa Nui people
The Rapa Nui people of Easter Island maintain their demands for recognition of
their territorial and political rights, which are summarized as follows: recognitionof their right to self-determination and of their ancestral ownership rights over the
territory of the entire island. 71.48% of the island’s territory, whose total surface
area is 16,600 hectares, is under government ownership, shared between the
Vaitea Fund (4,597.24 hectares), and the Rapa Nui National Park (6,913.06 hectares).
With respect to the Rapa Nui National Park (PNRN), on August 18, 2016 a
Partnership Agreement was signed between the National Forest Corporation(CONAF) and the Ma’u Henua indigenous community for purposes of co-administering the PNRN. This Agreement transfers the public use areas of the PNRN
as well as limited powers to the community, such as: public use areas for the
management of ecotourism; collection of fees for entry and use of the PNRN;
control and regulated management of visitation; strengthening of participatory
management of the PNRN; strengthening and creation of administrative jurisdiction of the PNRN in the Ma’u Henua Community; development of outreach, educational, and recreational activities. For purposes of carrying out these functions,the CONAF, through Sub-Title 24, Revolving Transfers, will transfer revenues
generated by entrance fees and other uses of the PNRN’s public use areas to theMa’u Henua indigenous community.
With respect to political rights, in 2016, a migration statute was introduced in
the legislature aimed at limiting the demographic burden on the island, with theobjective of safeguarding its ecosystem and ensuring the social, cultural, andSOUTH AMERICA

269

economic sustainability of Rapa Nui.31 The State, during 2016, also proposed thedevelopment of a Special Charter for Easter Island through which a new administrative unit would be created, aimed at de-concentrating political and administrative decisions, under which decisions would be made by a local body with Rapa
Nui participation. The Charter does not guarantee self-determination of the Rapa
Nui people, since it would set up a model of government called Special Territory
Government. The island’s residents would participate on an equal footing withpublic officials, who would represent the interests of the State within that government body. Moreover, the Special Territory Government would be subordinated to
an island governor, who would represent the President of the Republic and report
directly to the Undersecretary of the Interior. Neither would the charter guarantee
the territorial rights of the Rapa Nui people, since it does not contemplate any
mechanism for recognition of their ownership of the island’s territory, which belongs to them as an ancestral right.

Advances and setbacks in Chilean case law: Environmental Courts32
The judicial decisions of the Environmental Courts review administrative acts regarding environmental assessments of investment projects in Chile. When analyzing decisions over cases where indigenous peoples have demanded implementation of prior consultation processes, one notes advances and setbacks withrespect to indigenous rights, in particular, with respect to free, prior, and informed
consultation, depending on whether the cases were decided by the Second or
Third Environmental Court.
The Second Environmental Court has completely validated the indigenous
consultation model,33 setting up a formalistic regime with maximum deference tothe Environmental Authority. That regime accepts the demand that in an environmental assessment process the indigenous peoples themselves must supplement any missing information submitted by an offeror and must provide background information to demonstrate that they are susceptible to being directly affected. This implies maintaining a standard of proof that makes it difficult to access justice and to exercise the right to consultation for communities marginalized
from the environmental assessment procedure. It contradicts the precautionary
principle that inspires the Chilean environmental legal system and abdicates the

270

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

standard of review and broad control that the law grants to the Environmental
Courts.34
The most recent case law from the Third Environmental Court points in the
opposite direction. The Third Environmental Court also fails to question theequating of the concept of susceptibility to being directly affected with that ofsignificant impacts. However, unlike the Second Environmental Court, it has earnestly taken up the broad control and review standard over administrative acts ofan environmental nature. Not only does the Third Environmental Court review
legal and procedural aspects; it also exercises its powers to verify the facts basedon which the administrative-environmental decision is made, and it replaces thatdecision if warranted. As such, the Third Environmental Court has truly functioned
as a specialized judicial body. It has used its technical capacities, evaluating theinformation offered by the concessionaires during the environmental assessmentof their projects, as well as the methodology for collecting and analyzing the datasubmitted as proof for ruling out the generation of significant impacts on the indigenous peoples and determining whether a consultation process is applicable.
Unlike the Second Environmental Court, the Third Court’s decisions haveapplied the founding principles of the Environmental Impact Assessment System(SEIA), such as the precautionary principle, which obligates the Environmental
Authority to technically and impartially analyze the information provided by theconcessionaire during a project’s evaluation, so that such information will be suitable for ruling out or demonstrating the generation of significant impacts to theenvironment of the territories of the indigenous peoples, and thus fulfill the Environmental Authority’s duty to implement a consultation process.35 This contributes
to giving substance to the SEIA, overcoming a procedural, formalist vision, withthe understanding that said administrative procedure’s purpose is to evaluate andthus anticipate the actual and potential impacts that the projects or activities might
have on the environment. Nonetheless, given that to date the appeals have notyet been decided against these decisions of the Third Environmental Court, theChilean Supreme Court has the last word.


Notes and references
1

Ministry of Social Development, CASEN 2013 Indigenous Peoples, Summary of Results, March
2015, http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/documentos/Casen2013_Pueblos_In­
digenas_13mar15_publicacion.pdf

SOUTH ASIA

2

3
4

5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18
19

20
21

271

Ministry of Social Development, CASEN 2015 Situation of Poverty in Chile, 2016, http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/docs/CASEN_2015_Situacion_Pobreza.pdf
http://www.eldesconcierto.cl/2016/12/15/mas-de-400-encuentros-se-han-realizado-en-el-marco-del-proceso-constituyente-indigena/
In this most recent constitutional drafting process 200,000 people participated in the country as
a whole, which included the participation of indigenous peoples. In this process the citizenry
placed a high priority on recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples, and, in the regions ofhigh indigenous demography, similarly prioritized principles such as multiculturalism and plurinationality, https://www.unaconstitucionparachile.cl/
One US dollar is equivalent to 650 Chilean pesos.
CONADI disminuye compras de tierras reclamadas por comunidades indígenas. El Mercurio,
November 16, 2016, at http://www.economiaynegocios.cl/noticias/noticias.asp?id=309676.
http://www.senado.cl/presupuesto-2015-piden-priorizar-restitucion-de-tierras-a-comunidadesque-han-confiado-en-el-camino-institucional/prontus_senado/2014-10-24/161336.html
As of mid 2016 only 9 requests for the granting of these coastal marine spaces had been approved or were in the process of being approved for indigenous communities or associations.
See http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2016/05/22/pueblos-originarios-y-espacio-costero/
Terram Foundation, Environmental Balance Sheet 2016, http://www.terram.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Balance-Ambiental-2016-Fundaci%C3%B3n-Terram.pdf
Ministry of Social Development, http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/noticias/2016/01/20/
ingreso-a-tramitacion-en-el-congreso-los-proyectos-de-ley-para-la-creacion-del-ministerio-ylos-consejos-de-pueblos
Bulletin No. 9404-12
https://observatorio.cl/organizaciones-cuestionan-proyecto-de-ley-de-biodiversidad-y-suavance-sin-haber-concluido-consulta-indigena/
Bulletin No. 7543-12
The bill is currently in the Senate after having passed in the House of Representatives.
http://seia.sea.gob.cl/busqueda/buscarProyecto.php
An emblematic case exemplifying this situation is that of power plants, which only have to submit
to an environmental assessment when they generate more than 3 MW.
Use of this law to persecute acts of Mapuche social protest was denounced in 2014 by the InterAmerican of Human Rights Court (IACHR Court) in its judgment in the case of Norin Catriman etal. v. Chile. The Court found that the State of Chile, among other rights, had violated legality andthe presumption of innocence, judicial guarantees, and personal liberty in the case of eight Mapuches sentenced to prison under this act.
This case has been publicized by Amnesty International on its Human Rights Defenders Platform: http://amnistia.cl/nota/karina-riquelme-viveros/
In summary, in order to regularize ownership of indigenous property, the general procedures
have been applied that regulate the administration and alienation of government property, suchas Decree Law 1939 of 1979; a rule of exception applies to private property, that is, Decree with
Force of Law 2695, which allows small real properties to be regularized.
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Admissibility Report No. 29/13, dated March 10,
2013. Case 12,904.
These lands have a total area of 333 km2; their perimeter measures 94 kilometers, amounting toapproximately 31,980 hectares, according to the Territorial Delimitation of the Aymara Indige-

272

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

35

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017nous Community of Chusmiza Usmagama, conducted by the Department of Historic and Geographic Sciences of the School of Education and Humanities of the University of Tarapacá, at therequest of the Chusmiza – Usmagama Indigenous Community, completed in November of thisyear, 2016.
Bulletin 7543-12.
Waters Code, Decree with Force of Law1122 de 1981 and its subsequent modifications.
Supreme Court, Docket No. 11,040-2011, judgment of March 30, 2012.
Environmental Court of Santiago, Docket No. R-54-2014.
Supreme Court, Docket No. 817 – 2016, Cassation Appeal.
Case 12,741.
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Admissibility Report No. 1411/09, dated September 30, 2009.
Petition 687/2011.
Public redress ceremony; reform of adoption law; and training in human rights for operators of thejustice system and public officials.
Bulletin 10,683-06.
Law 20,600.
Which had been previously set through Supreme Decree 40 of the Ministry of the Environment
and Supreme Decree 66 of the Ministry of Social Development, both of 2013.
Second Environmental Court, claim filed by the organization named “Indigenous Peoples Unitedof the Basin of Tarapacá, Quebrada de Aroma, Coscaya, and Miñi Miñi” (PIUCT), which sought
to void the decision of the Committee of Ministers that had favorably qualified the “PaguantaProspection Test Drilling,” mining project located at the headwaters of the basin of the Tarapacá
stream, which is ancestral territory of Andean communities of the Aymara and Quechua people
in the Tarapacá Region. Judgment of December 1, 2015 (Docket No. R-54-2014) and Judgmentof May 19, 2016 (Docket No. 817-2016).
Third Environmental Court, claims filed by José Cayún against the ruling for enforcement of theCommittee of Ministers’ decision that had rejected the administrative appeal filed against the favorable environmental qualification of the “Pasada Mediterráneo Power Plant” project. Judgmentof November 17, 2016 (Docket No. R-38-2016). Claim filed by the Benancio Huenchupán Indigenous Community against the Committee of Ministers’ decision that favorably qualified the “Doña
Alicia Hydroelectric Power Plant” project. Judgment of December 28, 2016 (Docket No. R382016).

Report written by Observatorio Ciudadano de Chile with contributions from
José Aylwin, Felipe Guerra, Hernando Silva and Nancy Yáñez.

THE PACIFIC

274

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

AUSTRALIA
Indigenous peoples hold a long and complex connection with the Australian landscape, including marine and coastal areas. Recent research indicates that this relationship has endured for at least 50,000 years.
Throughout their history, Aboriginal people have lived in all parts of Australia. Today the majority live in regional centres (43%) or cities (32%),
although some still live in on traditional lands in remote or very remoteareas. At colonisation in 1788, there may have been up to 1.5 million
people in Australia. Today the Aboriginal population is estimated at some
745,000 individuals1 or 3% of Australia’s total population of 24,220,200.2
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians contribute in every
area of public, social and community life, including the arts, media, academia, politics, sport and business. However, the gap in life expectancy,
health, education and employment between Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander and non-indigenous Australians remains unacceptably wide despite the Close the Gap Campaign launched in 2006 by the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander leadership and receiving since 2008 bipartisan
government support at Commonwealth, state and territory levels.
The status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the firstpeoples of Australia has been recognized in a number of ways: throughcommon law native title and the historic Mabo decision, and in legislationsuch as The Racial Discrimination Act (1975), the Native Title Act (1993),
and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act (1989 and2005). Other landmarks event have been the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and the Roadmap for Reconciliation (2006) andNational Apology to the Stolen Generations (2008) At national level there
is a ministry of Indigenous Affairs and since 2015 an Assistant Ministry for
Care and Indigenous Health and States and Territories have legislation
on indigenous rights. Australia has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169
but, although it voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, it went on to endorse it in 2009.

THE PACIFIC

I

275

n July 2016, Australia held a “double dissolution” election to elect the 226 members of the 45th Parliament of Australia—150 MPs and 76 senators. With only
a one-seat majority, the liberal-national Coalition headed by Prime Minister, Malcolm Thurnbull, was able to remain in power.
The two-month long federal election campaign was devoid of any real engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. This sparked a united
call for action from a coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak representative organizations. On 9 June 2016, they signed an election platform declaration, the Redfern Statement, which calls on the 45th Parliament to meaningfully
engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and commit to a plan ofaction aimed at addressing issues regarding health, justice, violence prevention,
early childhood and disability as a matter of national priority.3

276

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Closing the gap: limited progressThat such a plan of action is needed is corroborated by several reports issued during
2016.4 The life expectancy gap is still around ten years5 and only two targets – childmortality and year 12 school attainment – are on track to be met by 2020. The rate of
employment among indigenous adult and youth is half as high as that of their non-indigenous peers. Racial discrimination is widespread, in particular in the major cities.6
The health situation is particularly alarming. The gap in mortality rates remains
1.7 times higher for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders than for non-indigenous
people (2009-2013). Mortality among children aged 0–4 years is 1.9 times higher
than for non-indigenous children. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians
also have higher rates of chronic diseases and the mortality rate from diabetes is 12
times higher than the rate for non-indigenous Australians. Other data show that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders adults are overrepresented when talking
about severe or profound disability, obesity, increased substance misuse, high levels of psychological distress and hospitalisations for self-harm.7
For the past 7 years, there have been demonstrable improvements in access
to, and usage of, primary health services and medicine. However, many barriers
for further improvements remain and include: lack of services, in particular within
mental health; lack of affordable and social/cultural acceptable services; and racism and institutional racism in services.8
Concurrently, it has been found that Aboriginal Community Controlled HealthOrganisations (ACCHOs) are preferred as primary health care providers since
they are better positioned to provide a culturally competent service aligned with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ holistic concept of health.9
Even if the average health expenditure per indigenous person is 1.47 times
that for non-indigenous people, government expenditure continues to not be commensurate with the substantially greater and more complex health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Suicide: a leading cause to gap in life expectancy
Suicide has emerged as a major cause of indigenous premature mortality and it
was in 2014 the fifth leading cause of death among indigenous people, primarily

THE PACIFIC

277

men, although the number of suicides and self-harm among indigenous females
is increasing. Indigenous children and young people are particularly vulnerable:
indigenous 15–24 year olds are over five times as likely to suicide as their non-indigenous peers and 30% of the nation’s youth suicides (to age 17) are Aboriginal.
Aboriginal children represent 80% of the nation’s suicides of children aged 12 years
and less. ‘Suicide clusters’, or a series of suicide completions and/or self-harming
acts that occur within a single community or locale over a period of weeks or months,
is also a significant concern, particularly among younger people.
The 2016 report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Evaluation Project (ATSISPEP) responds to the strong need for further research into indigenous suicide prevention and for service and program evaluation.10 The report findings are inter alia based on round-table consultations in 12
indigenous communities across Australia; as well as key themes and recommendations from the inaugural National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide
Prevention Conference held in Alice Springs on 5–6 May 2016. One of the report’s many conclusions and recommendations is the importance of strengthening social and emotional wellbeing and providing culturally safe service environment and culturally competent staff. The report also finds that a common successfactor in community-based interventions or responses to indigenous suicide istheir development and implementation through indigenous leadership and in partnership with indigenous communities based on the principle that indigenous people have the right to be involved in service design and delivery as mental healthconsumers.

Native lands and Aboriginal youths
More than 20% of Australia is owned by indigenous peoples under native title andstatutory land rights schemes.11 Most of this land (98%) is found in very remoteareas, and land has primarily great cultural significance but low commercial value. Native title provides Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with
communal rights and interests, with varying levels of control and management oflands and waters.
Even though the concept of native title has been at the core of indigenous
Australians’ struggle for their rights, there is today a growing concern that young
people feel disengaged with their native title organisations, communities and278

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

land. This concern was at the center of the National Native Title Conference 2016
in Darwin, Northern Territory, 1-3 June 2016.12 An indigenous youth forum comprised by two talking circles13 was therefore held on the first and last day of theconference for conference delegates under the age of 35 years.
The majority of delegates were native title holders, and the remaining delegateswere claimants. Despite this, there was a significant lack of engagement with native
title processes as well as a lack of involvement in and knowledge of the sector.
Delegates found that living away from their native title lands caused significant challenges, including difficulty involving themselves in Prescribed Bodies Corporate(PBC) or communities. They also viewed native title as an ‘older person thing’. They
felt that their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were advocating on their behalf and that they did not have the appropriate knowledge (or access to it) to be involved in the decision-making processes. Some also were ashamed of speaking up
or having their opinions or ability to contribute devalued by senior group members.
Despite the feelings of disengagement expressed, delegates reinforced thevalue and importance to them of their country and native title rights and interests.
In order to resolve some of the issues identified, they also discussed the possibility of creating a national network of young Indigenous people, aimed at creating
a sense of belonging for youth operating in the native title space and to support
increased youth participation in the sector.

The Constitutional Recognition process
A further step towards a national referendum about recognising indigenous peoples in the Constitution was taken in May with the decision to launch a thoroughand inclusive process for consulting all Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The process will be lead by the Referendum Council
appointed in December 2015 14 by the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull
MP, and the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Bill Shorten MP.
The consultation process started in June with a series of meetings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, including traditional owners and representatives of peak bodies. During the second half of 2016, a concurrent series ofindigenous consultations, community-wide and digital consultations took place.
The key proposals for reform include i) drafting a statement acknowledging
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians, ii) amending

THE PACIFIC

279

or deleting the ‘race power’, section 51 (xxvi); iii) inserting a constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination into the Constitution; iv) providing for an Indigenous voice to be heard by Parliament, and the right to be consulted on legislationand policy that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; v) deleting
section 25, which contemplates the possibility of a State government excluding
some Australians from voting in State elections on the basis of their race.15
Further consultations are planned for early 2017. Following their conclusion,
the Council will deliver its Final Report. The date for the introduction into parliament of a bill to amend the Constitution will be determined by the government.16
Indigenous leaders have already made it clear that a ‘minimalist’ approach—
one that provides symbolic recognition in a constitutional preamble, removes section 25 and moderates the race power (section 51 (xxvi))—would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Many of them are also morein favor of treaties modeled on those other Commonwealth countries have with
their indigenous peoples, as they see treaties as being less “symbolic” and having
more substance than a constitutional recognition. Several states have begun
working on such treaties with their indigenous communities.17

Political participation
Indigenous people have long advocated for better political representation andfairer consultation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the First Peoples, but they are less than 3% of the Australian population. In Australia’s representative democracy, which works by majority vote at the ballot box and in Parliament, it is difficult for their voice to be heard and for them to influence laws thatare made about them. The newly elected Parliament includes five indigenous
parliamentarians —three senators (Patrick (Pat) Dodson, Jacqui Lambie and Malarndirri McCarthy) and two members of the House of Representatives—Ken Wyatt and Linda Burney. Ken Wyatt became the first elected Indigenous MP in
201018 and has since 2015 been the Coalition’s Assistant Minister for Age Careand Indigenous Health. Linda Burney is the first indigenous woman to hold a seatin the federal House of Representatives and is the Australian Labour Party’s
Shadow Minister for Human Services. At the state level, there are presently 11
indigenous state parliamentarians (7 men and 4 women).19

280

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Free, prior and informed consent and genetic researchOver the past years there have been an increasing number of research projects
dedicated to unravel the genetic ancestry of the indigenous peoples of Australia.
In 2011, the first Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a 100-yearold lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in theearly 20th century was published.20 It has been followed in 2016, by “A genomic
history of Aboriginal Australia” 21 published in the scientific journal Nature.
This article shows that because the continent has been inhabited for such along time there exists an incredible genetic difference among Aboriginal Australians: groups from southwest Australia are genetically more different from groups
in the northwestern part of Australia than for instance American Indians and Sibirian peoples. This genetic differentiation started as early as 31,000 years ago.
The study also explains why almost 90% of the contemporary Aboriginal Australian languages belong to the Pama-Nyungan language family which is only some
4,000 years old. This huge age difference with the genetic results seems to be theresult of a migration wave from the northwest of the continent some 4,000 years
ago, which brought with it massive linguistic and cultural changes but had very
limited genetic impact.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples—as many other indigenous
peoples—have traditionally been very reticent about allowing tests of their blood,
saliva, etc., to be taken and used for scientific purposes. The international teambehind the article on the first aboriginal genome had therefore, prior to its publication in 2011, arranged for a series of discussions with Wongatha, Ngadju andother Aboriginal Australian peoples in Western Australia in order to get their formal consent. Subsequently, both researchers and the Aboriginal groups involvedin that project expressed interest in additional research. Hence, collaborations
were expanded to include Aboriginal Australians from numerous language groups
across Australia who were approached to participate in the research project.22
This collaboration was based on a set of ethical rules. In the case of the teamfrom the University of Copenhagen, for instance, project ethics were elaborated
on the basis of the research guidelines set by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and the Free, Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC) protocols for working with indigenous peoples set by the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007. Following Danish

THE PACIFIC

281

law, the project proposal was also submitted to the National Committee on HealthResearch Ethics, Denmark. Initial meetings were held with key individuals of Aboriginal communities, and whenever possible, a senior person from the group was
engaged as a consultant and culturally appropriate liaison. The ideas and suggestions put forward by these representatives were incorporated into the planningstages of this research. Discussions with potential participants included a background to the genetic research. Participants were made aware that while the results would be published, their identities would remain anonymous. Participants
were advised that if they wished to withdraw from the study at any time they may
do so by contacting the elder from their group or the locally-based researcher
without having to offer any explanation for their decision. Plain English consent
forms were provided too and signed by each participant who were also filmed
giving their consent. To protect anonymity, the filmed consents are held securely
and are not directly accessible to anyone outside the immediate research team.
If there was a challenge to the process of obtaining consent, an arrangement will
be made for a mutually acceptable third party to view the footage and confirm thatconsent was freely given.23 				Notes and reference
1
2

3
4

5
6

7

The actual numbers are highly disputed because of the difficulty in estimating a population sovery much changed by colonization.
The results of the 2016 census on population and housing are not yet available. See ABS Estimates and Projections,Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Australians,2001 to 2026, Cat. no.
3238.0.(2014)
Redfern Statement, at http://nationalcongress.com.au/about-us/redfern-statement/
See, e.g., Australian Government, Closing the gap: Prime Minister’s report 2016, at https://www.
dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre; The Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee, February
2016: Closing the gap - progress and priorities, at www.humanrights.gov.au/social_ justice/
health/index.html; SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2016, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2016, Productivity Commission, Canberra; Human Rights Commission, Social Justice and Native Title Report 2016 at http://
www.humanrights.gov.au://www.humanrights.gov.au/publication.
Life expectancy for Aboriginal Australian men and women is 69 and 73 years respectively compared with that of non-indigenous Australian 79 and 83 respectively.
In 2014-15, more than one in three Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 15
years and over reported they felt treated unfairly due to their indigenous status—in particularthrough hearing racial comments/jokes
See Closing the gap - progress and priorities.

282

8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The recent case of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu a multi-award winning and internationallyknown singer who was allegedly denied adequate treatment for hours has been seen as illustrative of the systemic issues of racial bias in the medical care of indigenous people. For the wholestory, see https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/14/race-row-rages-on-over-gurrumulhospital-ordeal
See Closing the gab – progress and priorities.
The ATSISPEP report “Solutions that work: what the evidence and our people tell us” is availableat www.atsispep.sis.uwa.edu.au
Dr Leon Terrill, “Indigenous Land Reform Project”, Indigenous Law Centre, Faculty of Law,UNSW, at http://www.ilc.unsw.edu.au/node 1424
The conference was co-convened by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and the Northern Land Council, and hosted by the Larrakia people. See
Report on the Indigenous Youth Talking Circles at http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NativeTitleNlr/2016/12.pdf
For indigenous Australians, talking circles symbolize completeness and equality and are used asa cultural sensitivity approach.
The Council comprises sixteen Indigenous and non-Indigenous members. It is Co-Chairedby Ms Pat Anderson and Mr Mark Leibler AC https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au
See https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au
See https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/get-the-facts
See, e.g., “What will Indigenous treaties mean?” Updated 14 Dec 2016, at http://www.abc.net.au/
news/2016-12-14/creation-of-indigenous-treaties-being-led-by-states/8119488
Senator Neville Bonner was the first Indigenous Member of Parliament in 1971.
The first indigenous state parliamentarian was elected in 1974 to the Northern Territory stateparliament.
Rasmussen et al., “An Aboriginal Australian Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into
Asia”,,Science. Oct 7, 2011;334(6052):94-8. This article shows that Aboriginal Australians aredescendants of an early human dispersal from Africa into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000
years ago. It also supports the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend fromthe earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa. At https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991479
Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas et al. “A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia”, Nature 538, 13 October
2016, pp.207–214. Can be downloaded at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication­/30839120­8_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
The international research team included geneticists from Griffith University (Australia) and fromthe University of Copenhagen.
See S01 Ethical approvals in relation to sampling in Australia at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/extref/nature18299-s1.pdf

This article has been compiled by Diana Vinding on the basis of documents andreports from various sources.

283

AOTEAROA (NEW ZEALAND)
Māori, the indigenous people of Aotearoa, represent 15% of the 4.5 million population. The gap between Māori and non-Māori is pervasive:
Māori life expectancy is 7.3 years less than non-Māori; household income
is 78% of the national average; 45% of Māori leave upper secondary
school with no qualifications and over 50% of the prison population is
Māori.1
The Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty) was signed between the British
and Māori iwi (nations) in 1840. There are two versions of the Treaty, an
English-language version and a Māori-language version. The Māori
version granted a right of governance to the British, promised that Māori
would retain sovereignty over their lands, resources and other treasures and conferred the rights of British citizens on Māori. The Treaty
has, however, limited legal status; accordingly, protection of Māori
rights is largely dependent upon political will and ad hoc recognition of
the Treaty.
New Zealand endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples in 2010. New Zealand has not ratified ILO Convention No 169.

Māori advocate for constitutional transformationI

n January 2016, Matike Mai Aotearoa, an independent iwi-led working group on
constitutional transformation, released its report on an inclusive constitution for
Aotearoa: He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa.2 The iwi-led effort paralleled a limited government-led conversation on the constitution that ended in2013 (see The Indigenous World 2013). The working group’s report is based upon hundreds of hui (meetings), submissions and discussions with Māori. It includes consideration of possible foundational values for a new constitution, suchas community, belonging and conciliation. It also discusses six indicative constitutional models that emerged from the working group’s consultations. Several ofthese models feature three spheres of influence: the rangatiratanga sphere

284

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

“where Māori make decisions for Māori”, the kāwanatanga sphere “where theCrown will make decisions for its people” and the relational sphere where Māoriand the Crown “will work together as equals” in joint decision-making.3 The working group identifies 2040 as an aspirational goal for some form of constitutionaltransformation for Ao­tearoa. Its recommendations include the need for discussions on constitutional transformation to continue, as well as formal dialogue between Māori, the Crown and local authorities; establishment of a further working
group; and that, in 2021, dialogue be initiated with the Crown to organise a Treaty convention on constitutional transformation. The government has not commented on the report.

Waitangi Tribunal reports on TPPA
The Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent hearing in March into claims that the TransPacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) breached Māori Treaty rights (see The Indigenous World 2016 and 2013). While the Tribunal’s Report on the Trans-PacificPartnership Agreement did not find that the TPPA’s text breached the Treaty of
Waitangi, the Tribunal did identify concerns regarding the ability of foreign investors
to bring claims against the New Zealand government. In particular, it noted:
We are not in a position to reach firm conclusions on the extent to which ISDS
[investor-state dispute settlement] under the TPPA may prejudice Māori Treaty
rights and interests, but we do consider it a serious question worthy of further
scrutiny and debate and dialogue between the Treaty partners. We do not accept the Crown’s argument that claimant fears in this regard are overstated.4
Despite these concerns, legislation to align New Zealand’s domestic law with its
obligations under the TPPA and enable ratification of the TPPA received royalassent in November.5 With Donald Trump’s assumption of the United States
Presidency, however, the TPPA now looks set to collapse. If the TPPA does proceed and there are allegations of a Treaty breach, the Waitangi Tribunal has
noted that Māori could return to the Tribunal: “if prejudice is alleged in future because of some Crown action or omission (short of introduction of a Bill) or inaction, then it remains open for Māori to submit a claim alleging a breach of theprinciples of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 6THE PACIFIC

285

In its report, theTribunal also commented on the government’s engagement with Māori regarding international
treaty negotiations.
The Tribunal reiterated its findings in the
Wai 262 claim (seeThe Indigenous World
2012), stating that
“Māori interests areentitled to a reasonable degree of protection when those interests are affected byinternational instruments entered intoby the New Zealand
Government”.7

Māori land reform
progresses
Progress on major reforms to the governance and administration of Mā Māori ori
land continued in 2016 (see The Indigenous World 2016 and 2014). The Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication report on the reforms in March: He Kura
Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te Ture Whenua
Māori Act 1993. The Tribunal considered whether both the Crown’s consultation
process on the exposure draft of the Bill and the content of the draft Bill breached
the Treaty. It found flaws in the 2013 and 2015 consultation processes and stated“that the Crown will be in breach of Treaty principles if it does not ensure that
there is properly informed, broad-based support for Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill toproceed.”8 The Tribunal also identified concerns with the content of the draft Bill,

286

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

primarily for failing to protect the retention of Māori land and the effective authority of its owners. These concerns included the flawed wording of the Māorilanguage version of the Bill, which the Tribunal stated “cannot be adopted in its
present form”; the ability of minorities of owners to hold second-chance meetings
regarding Māori land with no quorum required; and, the fact that thresholds ofowner agreement will only be required of governance bodies in select cases.9 It
also found that insufficient information had been provided regarding the Māori
Land Service established under the Bill.10 The Tribunal’s recommendations included further consultations with Māori on the draft Bill, the development of decision-making on the operation of the Māori Land Service collaboratively with Māori
landowners; and the avoidance of “legislative solutions which enable, in legal orpractical terms, small groups of participating Māori landowners to effectively alienate the interests of other Māori landowners”.11 Despite the Tribunal’s recommendations, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives the following month and passed its second reading in December.

New Māori language Act
New legislation aimed at revitalising the Māori language (see The Indigenous
World 2016) was enacted early in 2016: Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Act 2016.12 The Act repeals the earlier Māori Language Act 1987 and partof the Broadcasting Act 1989. It establishes an independent entity, Te Mātāwai,to lead community efforts at revitalisation while the Crown retains responsibility
for leadership at the national level. In a first for Aotearoa, the Act is enacted inboth the Māori language and English, with the Māori text prevailing in case of inconsistency.

International attention on Māori rights
The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) both commented on the human rights situation of Māori
during 2016. The UN Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on thesixth periodic report of New Zealand under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights included recommendations that New Zealand “revise the Ma-

THE PACIFIC

287

rine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 with a view to ensuring respectof the customary rights of Māori on their land and resources, and their culturaldevelopment”;13 “[s]trengthen the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the existing
constitutional arrangements”;14 “[g]uarantee the informed participation of indigenous communities in all relevant national and international consultation processes”;15 “[i]mplement technical capacity programmes for indigenous communities
aiming at their effective participation in all relevant consultation and decisionmaking processes”;16 “take all appropriate measures to enhance Māori and Pasifika representation in government positions at all levels, in particular at the local
council level, including through the establishment of special electoral arrangements”;17 and, evaluate the impact of law enforcement operational policies on indigenous peoples and provide training to law enforcement officials to protect
against racial profiling.18
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concluding observations on
the fifth periodic report of New Zealand under the Convention on the Rights of
the Child included a recommendation that New Zealand makes further efforts topreserve Māori identity, including intensifying “efforts to promote and foster
Māori language, culture and history in education and increase enrolment inMāori language classes”;19 take “urgent measures to address disparities in access to education, health services and a minimum standard of living by Māori
and Pasifika children and their families”;20 “address the root causes of youth
suicide, with special attention to Māori children”;21 “introduce a systemic approach to addressing child poverty, in particular [regarding] Māori and Pasifika
children”;22 and, “strengthen its efforts to address the overrepresentation of
Māori and Pasifika children and young people in the juvenile justice system”.23
The New Zealand government made no statement on the reports in the national media.

No Treaty breach regarding dolphins
In May, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a priority report concerning threats to the
Māui’s dolphin as part of its Te Rohe Pōtae (Wai 898) district inquiry: The Priority
Report concerning Maui’s Dolphin. The Tribunal found that Māui’s dolphin is ataonga (treasure) to the claimant groups (Ngāti Te Wehi and Ngāti Tāhinga) and,accordingly, that their kaitiaki (guardianship interests) were deserving of active

288

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

protection under the Treaty. However, it concluded that the Crown had notbreached its duties under the Treaty in the process of finalising its Threat Management Plan for the Māui’s dolphin nor did the plan itself breach the Treaty. It
noted that the Crown was required to balance Treaty interests in Māui’s dolphinwith customary fishing interests in the dolphin’s habitat.24

Treaty settlements continue
Progress continued throughout 2016 in the settlement of Māori claims for historical Treaty breaches.25 One group had their mandate recognised,26 three signed
terms of negotiation with the Crown,27 one signed an agreement in principle,28
three agreed that their deeds of settlement were ready for presentation to theirmembers for ratification,29 two signed deeds of settlement with the Crown,30 five
had legislation giving effect to their settlements introduced,31 and one had thelegislation giving effect to their settlement enacted.32
One notable development was the introduction of legislation giving effect tothe Whanganui River Deed of Settlement (Ruruku Whakatupua) in May. This settles the historical claims of Whanganui Iwi concerning the Whanganui River,through the establishment of Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua as a legal framework
for the river, and creates legal personality for the Whanganui River known as Te
Awa Tupua.33 					Notes and references
1
2

Statistics New Zealand, http://www.stats.govt.nz
Matike Mai Aotearoa He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa: The Report of Matike Mai
Aotearoa - The Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation (January 2016).
3 Ibid at 9.
4 Waitangi Tribunal Report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (2016) at 50.
5 The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Act 2016.
6 Waitangi Tribunal, above n 4, at 52.
7 Waitangi Tribunal, above n 4, at 7; Carwyn Jones Waitangi Tribunal Report on the TPPA (5 May
2016) https://ahikaroa.wordpress.com
8 Waitangi Tribunal He Kura Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te
Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (2016) at 355.
9 Ibid at 356-357.
10 Ibid at 359.

THE PACIFIC

289

11 Ibid at 359-361.
12 Available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0017/29.0/DLM6174509.html
13 United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee Concluding observations on the sixth periodic
report of New Zealand 28 April 2016 UN Doc CCPR/C/NZL/CO/6 at [44].
14 Ibid at [46(a)].
15 Ibid at [46(b)].
16 Ibid at [46(c)].
17 Ibid at [48]. The term Pasifika is used to describe people living in New Zealand who havemigrated from the Pacific Islands or who identify with the Pacific Islands because of ancestry or
heritage.
18 Ibid at [24].
19 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of
New Zealand 21 October 2016 UN Doc CRC/C/NZL/CO/5 at [19(a)].
20 Ibid [15(a)].
21 Ibid [17].
22 Ibid [36(a)].
23 Ibid [45(e)].
24 Waitangi Tribunal The Priority Report concerning Maui’s Dolphin (2016).
25 For further information see Office of Treaty Settlements https://www.govt.nz/organisations/officeof-treaty-settlements/
26 Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.
27 Maniapoto; Moriori; and Ngāti Maru (Taranaki).
28 Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa.
29 Ngāti Tūwharetoa; Ngāti Tamaoho; and Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa.
30 Ahuriri Hapū; Rangitāne o Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua.
31 Ngāti Pūkenga; Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa; Ngāi Te Rangi; Whanganui River Legislation; andRangitāne o Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua.
32 Ngāti Hineuru.
33 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill 2016.

Fleur Te Aho (Ngāti Mutunga and English) is a Lecturer in the Auckland Law
School at the University of Auckland and an Honorary Research Fellow with the
National Centre for Indigenous Studies at The Australian National University.

290

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

FRENCH POLYNESIA
A former French colony, French Polynesia has since 2004 been an Overseas Collectivity (Collectivité d’Outre-mer) of 270,000 inhabitants (around
80 % of whom are Polynesian).10 As a collectivity, it has relative politicalautonomy within the French Republic through its own local institutions:
the Government and Assembly of French Polynesia. Social inequalities
have been severely exacerbated by the economic crisis that French Polynesia has been suffering since the turn of the millennium. As of 2009, one
in every five households was living below the poverty line.2
Up until 2004, political life in French Polynesia was divided into a dichotomy between those in favour of autonomy, represented by Gaston
Flosse’s Tahoeraa Huiraatira political party (and advocating French Polynesia’s continued existence within the French Republic) and those in favour of independence, represented by Oscar Temaru’s Tavini Huiraatiraparty. Since then, French Polynesia has suffered a period of serious political instability along with the creation, in February 2016, of a third large
political party, Tapura Huiraatira, complicating local political life yet more.
This autonomist party was created by Edouard Fritch, President of French
Polynesia since September 2014 when he replaced Gaston Flosse who
had become ineligible. With a war of succession being waged within theautonomist family, creating this party enabled Edouard Fritch to establish
a new majority in the Assembly and hold onto his presidential title.

The UN and the right to self-determinationF

rench Polynesia has been placed back on the UN’s list of non-self-governing
territories since May 2013. While opponents of its re-inscription see this as animplicit demand for independence, its proponents note that this should result in areferendum on self-determination that offers a choice between becoming a
French department, an associated state, or gaining full independence. The requests made to the UN Committee on Decolonisation in 2016 included recogni-

THE PACIFIC

291

292

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tion of the Polynesian languages as official languages alongside French andFrance’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
The French state considers that “the French Polynesia issue” is a matter for thedomestic policy sphere and has thus far not cooperated with the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, which is responsible for decolonisation issues.3
2016, however, marked a turnaround in this “empty chair policy”, which appeared
to be counterproductive given that the committee was only ever hearing from thepro-independence side. An autonomist, Edouard Fritch, spoke for the first time on
4 October 2016 to present another vision of Polynesian demands – people who,
he stressed, continued to vote largely for the autonomist parties – and also toshare a number of areas of progress, including French Polynesia’s incorporation,
in September 2016, into the Pacific Islands Forum, composed thus far only of independent countries. Two other important points were also raised by the President in response to the demands of the independentists and the voluntary movements for protection of the environment and Mā’ohi culture: the impact of nuclear
testing, which has been “recognised by the French state since 2010” through thepassage of the Morin Law, and the management of natural resources: “the Frenchstate is not confiscating Polynesia’s natural resources for its own benefit”.4

The nuclear impact 20 years on
With 20 years passed since the end of nuclear testing (1966-1996), the Polynesian associations and churches continue to raise major concerns with regard torecognition of the social and health consequences, both moral and material, of
those tests, as well as how the ensuing nuclear waste is manged. The Mā’ohi
Protestant Church denounced the nuclear tests in 1982 and supported the call for
French Polynesia’s re-inscription in August 2012. This church – which has been
involved since the 1990s in defending the Mā’ohi land (te fenua), language (reomaôhi) and people – stated during its August 2016 synod that it envisaged taking
the French state to court for “crimes against humanity […] given the attitude of theFrench state, which pays no attention to the misfortunes of the people”. The difficulty the victims of nuclear tests have had in obtaining compensation, eventhough this was laid down in the Morin Law of January 2010, is perceived as an
example of such disinterest on the part of the French state. By stating that, undercertain circumstances, “the risk attributable to the nuclear tests can be consideredTHE PACIFIC

293

negligible”, the Morin Law only rarely enables victims to obtain compensation (7 Polynesian victims have been compensated, in contrast to the 1,043 cases submitted asof the end of 2016). During his only visit to French Polynesia on 23 February 2016, thePresident of the French Republic, François Hollande, stated that he wanted to amend
the implementing regulations of the Morin Law to ensure better consideration of thevictims without, however, removing the term “negligible risk”, which forms the stumbling block of the mechanism. The Catholic Church, thus far not particularly involvedin the matter, has now authorised (or is tolerating) the work of one of its clerics on
gaining recognition and reparation for the consequences of nuclear testing. Since
January 2016, the “193 association” – referring to the number of nuclear tests conducted in French Polynesia – chaired by Father Auguste Uebe Carlson, has launcheda petition that has garnered more than 50,000 signatures, or between a fifth and aquarter of the entire adult population. This petition is calling for a local referendum on
the nuclear issue. Two questions would be asked: “Do you think that the 193 nuclear
tests conducted at Fantataufa and Moruroa were a good thing?” and “Do you think that
the French state should therefore provide compensation for this?”

The right to natural resources
The second subject of concern is related to natural resource exploitation and particularly that of subaquatic mineral resources – commonly known as “rare earth metals” which could, over time, constitute a major area of economic wealth given the extent ofFrench Polynesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In November 2015, the Overseas
Minister, George Pau-Langevin, recalled that mineral resource exploitation was the
responsibility of the collectivity and not the French state, by virtue of an organic act of2004. Nevertheless, fears that such responsibilities could be redefined to the benefitof the French state have arisen based on the fact that current French legislation stipulates that the state exercises its responsibility over “strategic raw materials” (minerals
useful in atomic energy, liquid and gas hydrocarbons) and that the French state could
redefine the list of materials considered “strategic” at any time.

Hotel projects and environmental protection
Finally, several plans to create or extend large hotel facilities have elicited astrong reaction from local environmental and cultural protection organisations.

294

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The hotel project in Papeno’o valley (Tahiti), comprising the construction of a roadthrough the Maroto valley, a luxury hotel, a golf course and a cultural tourist centre has drawn the attention of the Mā’ohi Protestant Church and associations
such as Haururu who, given the pressure from investors, are concerned about theecological impact of this project. Such projects, including for example, the plan torevive phosphate mining in Makatea, promise to create several hundred jobs andFrench Polynesia has been severely affected by unemployment (21.8% in 2012,according to the ISPF). Haururu is therefore aware of the importance of economic development issues and has thus submitted an alternative project thatwould enable economic development to go hand in hand with land conservation
and respect for their culture. 					Notes and references
1
2
3
4The last census that mentioned “ethnic” categories was in 1988: “Polynesians and similar” accounted for 80.58%, “Europeans and similar” 13.28% and “Asiatics and similar” 5.42%.
Institute of Statistics (ISPF), Survey into household living conditions in French Polynesia. 2009.
Le Monde, “Polynésie: la France dénonce une “ingérence flagrante” de l’ONU” (“French Polynesia: France denounces UN’s ‘flagrant interference’”), Le Monde, 17 May 2013.
La Dépêche de Tahiti, “La Polynésie prend la parole ce matin à New York” (“Polynesia to speakin New York this morning”), La Dépêche de Tahiti, 4 October 2016.

Gwendoline Malogne-Fer is a post-doctoral sociologist with Groupe Sociétés,Religions, Laïcités (CNRS/EPHE) in Paris. She published a book based on hersociology thesis in 2007 entitled “Les femmes dans l’Eglise protestante mā’ohi.
Religion, genre et pouvoir en Polynésie française (Karthala)” (“Women in the
Mā’ohi Protestant Church. Religion, Gender and Power in French Polynesia(Karthala)”). Her work lies on the intersection between gender studies, the sociology of Protestantism and the anthropology of migrations. With Yannick Fer, she
has also produced two documentaries, one on the cultural demands of the Mā’ohi
Protestant Church: “Pain ou coco. Moorea et les deux traditions” (“Bread or coconut: Moorea and the two traditions”) (https://vimeo.com/104943192) and one on
the challenges of cultural transmission in French Polynesia: “Si je t’oublie Opunohu. Les chemins de la culture à Moorea” (“Lest I forget you Opunohu. Paths ofculture in Moorea”) (https://archive.org/details/SiJeToubliepnohu-LesCheminsDeLaCultureMoorea).

295

KANAKY – NEW CALEDONIANew Caledonia is an archipelago of 18,575 km2 in the South Pacific. The
main island, Grande Terre is 400 km long and 50 km wide.1 Apart fromGrande Terre, it comprises the Belep Islands to the north, the Loyalty islands (Ouvéa, Lifou, Tiga, Maré or Iaai, Drehu, Tokanod and Nengone in
the respective indigenous languages) to the east, the Île des Pins (Kunié
ou Kwênyii in indigenous language) to the southeast and the uninhabitedislands of Chesterfield, Huon and Surprise, as well as the Bellone reefs,
Walpole Island, the islands of Astrolabe, Matthew and Fearn or the Hunter Islands.2 Grande Terre is very rugged, with a central mountain rangethat has peaks reaching well over 1,600 m. New Caledonia also comprises an economic exclusive zone (EEZ) of 1,740,000 km2, or threetimes the area of France. New Caledonia is 18,000 km from France.
According to the 2014 census, New Caledonia’s population totals
268,767 inhabitants, broken down into 39% Kanak, 27% Europeans(mainly French), 8% Wallisians and Futunians, and almost 15% residents
of other origins (Tahiti, Indonesia, Vanuatu, Vietnam, other Asiatic origin).
32% of the population is under 20 years of age.3
Since its takeover in 1853, New Caledonia has been under French
rule but has been in a decolonisation process since the signing of the
Matignon-Oudinot Accords in 1988, reaffirmed by the signing of the
Nouméa Accord in 1998.4 These agreements provide for a referendum tobe organised between 2014 and 2018 which will define the institutional
future of the country and the transfer, by the French State, of some of its
sovereign powers (yet to be defined) to New Caledonia.5 This decolonisation process is the fruit of a Kanak nationalist struggle for independence
that started in the 1970s. This struggle was based on the Kanak people’s
right to self-determination and independence and its will to free itself fromthe colonial system imposed by France since 1853. The Matignon-Oudinot Accords divided the country into three provinces (North, South andIslands), created an agency in charge of rural and land development(ADRAF), an agency that would develop the Kanak culture (ADCK), and
new institutions based on “la coutume” (custom) such as the Customary

296

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Council, later to become the Customary Senate (1998), the customary
areas6 and their respective councils. These were reaffirmed by the
Nouméa Accord, the preamble to which furthermore recognises the anteriority of the Kanak people in New Caledonia in these terms: “It is now
necessary to create the basis for a Caledonian citizenship that allows theFirst People and men and women living in New Caledonia to become one
single human community embracing a common destiny”. This, unfortunately, may well prove difficult to achieve due to the deeply-rooted cultural and socioeconomic differences existing between the various communities living in Kanaky/New Caledonia.

Colonised by France since its takeover in 1853, New Caledonia is in a processof decolonisation. It is now on the path to fulfilling the Nouméa Accord (1998),
which anticipated three consultations on the country’s accession to full sovereignty. The first consultation is planned for 2018.

Right to vote, self-determination and indigeneity
The events of 2016, and indeed those of 2013 to 2015, have been marked by
fierce controversy around the issue of the right to vote.7 And when this is a matterof self-determination, through a referendum, this issue becomes “the mother of all
battles”, particularly for the indigenous and colonised people of New Caledonia,
the Kanak people. They have been demanding their right to independence andself-determination since 1975.8 Today, the pro-independence (largely Kanak) andanti-independence political parties are in disagreement over the formation of theelectoral bodies for the future elections to determine the destiny of New Caledonia. The last census, in 2014,9 confirmed that the Kanak people had become aminority in their own country. Non-indigenous individuals now make up 61% of the
population with the remaining 39% being indigenous. In addition, there are threeelectoral lists in New Caledonia:•

the “general” electoral roll for French national (presidential and legislative), European and municipal elections;10

THE PACIFIC

297

298

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017••

the “provincial” electoral roll to elect the members of provincial assemblies and members of the New Caledonian Congress;
the “referendum” electoral roll for the consultation on the country’s accession to full sovereignty.

These two latter rolls are “restricted”, and originate in the Matignon and Nouméa
accords.
The “provincial” electoral roll comprises people on the special provincial electoral list. This list is a way of identifying those people who are citizens of New
Caledonia. This electoral roll is defined by Article 188 of the Organic Law of 1999
on New Caledonia and contains three criteria.11 However, the special administrative committees responsible for drawing up electoral rolls placed around 2,000
Kanaks who are on the general electoral list in an annexed table of people notpermitted to vote in provincial elections.12 These Kanaks are therefore not considered citizens of their own country. This situation has been denounced by the
pro-independence political groups for years.
The “referendum”” electoral roll comprises people on the special electoral list
for the consultation on the country’s accession to full sovereignty. This electoralroll is defined by Article 218 of the Organic Law of 1999 on New Caledonia. It
comprises eight criteria.13 In 2016, however, pro-independence political parties
denounced the fact that 25,000 Kanaks were not registered on this special list.14
Despite being indigenous to the country, these Kanaks will therefore not be able
to exercise their right to self-determination and independence.
The pro-independence political parties have been denouncing fraud in relation to these special electoral lists since 2013, particularly within the special administrative committees responsible for drawing up and revising these lists, whichmeet each year in the town halls from March onwards.

UN Mission to New Caledonia
In response to the lobbying of the United Nations and also of regional institutions
such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) done by pro-independence
Kanaks, a number of missions have been conducted to New Caledonia with regard to this issue of the right to vote.

THE PACIFIC

299

In 2013, during the MSG Summit in New Caledonia, the MSG Member States
reaffirmed their support for the Kanak people through the Nouméa Declaration.
This states: “We the Leaders of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) […]now declare to renew our commitment on the following : (i) pursue and protect theright to self-determination of the indigenous Kanak people of New Caledonia in
accordance with the United Nations (UN) Charter and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights […]”.15
In 2014, the Committee on Decolonisation conducted a mission and the ensuing report contained the following points and recommendations:16 “The mission
shares the views of all those who consider the current situation in New Caledonia
to be extremely fragile and stresses the importance of a constructive dialogue
among all actors to find common ground, preserve peace and promote a ‘common destiny’. […] The mission also stresses the importance for all concerned toguarantee the full implementation of the Nouméa Accord by urgently undertaking
genuine efforts to address current shortcomings in its implementation, particularly concerning the restricted electorate provisions. […] The mission is of theview that the modus operandi of the special administrative commissions should
be reviewed because of the problems raised by many interlocutors, including themagistrates themselves.”
Similarly, since 2014, UN resolutions concerning New Caledonia17 have readas follows: “Notes the concerns expressed regarding the challenges encounteredin the provincial elections process with respect to the persistent varying interpretations of the restricted electorate provisions and the voter registration appeal
process, and encourages the administering Power and the people of New Caledonia to address in an amicable and peaceful manner the concerns of all stakeholders under the existing relevant laws in the Territory and in France, while also
respecting and upholding the spirit and letter of the Nouméa Accord; […] Expresses the view that adequate measures for conducting the upcoming consultations on access to full sovereignty, including a just, fair, credible and transparent
electoral roll, as provided in the Nouméa Accord, are essential for the conduct ofa free, fair and genuine act of self-determination consistent with the Charter of theUnited Nations and United Nations principles and practices”.
From March to July 2016, experts mandated by the UN Electoral AssistanceDivision were deployed to observe the operations of the special administrative
committees responsible for drawing up and revising the electoral lists. This mission will be repeated in 2017.					300IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references
1
2

https://www.croixdusud.info/geo/nc_dim.php
The Matthew and Fearn or Hunter islands are at the heart of a dispute between Vanuatu andFrance. In 2009, the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) officially recognisedthat Matthew and Hunter were a part of Vanuatu, http://www.tahiti-infos.com/Les-iles-Matthewet-Hunter-n-en-finissent-pas-d-empoisonner-les-relations-franco-vanuatuanes_a13518.html
3 Insee Census 2014, http://www.isee.nc/population/recensement
4 These accords were signed by the French State, the FLNKS (which is the Kanak National Liberation Movement), and the RPCR (which is a political anti-independence party).
5 These sovereign powers include: justice, defence, external relations, public order, currency andcredit.
6 The Nouméa Accord divided New Caledonia into eight customary areas: Hoot Ma Whaap, PaicîCèmuhi, Ajië Aro, Xârâcùù, Drubea-Kapumë, Nengone, Drehu, Iaai.
7 http://juspoliticum.com/article/La-fraude-a-la-sincerite-du-corps-electoral-en-Nouvelle-Caledonie-964.html;
http://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/nouvellecaledonie/300-400-personnes-menacees-de-radiationde-la-liste-electorale-des-provinciales-341155.html
8
LEBLIC Isabelle, 1993. Les Kanak face au développement. La voie étroite, Grenoble, Presses
universitaires de Grenoble, page 61.
9 http://www.isee.nc/population/recensement/communautes
10 The “general” electoral roll comprises individuals appearing on the “general” electoral list. These
include anyone aged 18 and over and resident in New Caledonia for six months. These people
can be registered on the general electoral list in their commune of residence.
11 Article 188: I. – Congress and the provincial assemblies are elected by an electoral roll of electors
meeting one of the following conditions: a) Meeting the conditions for being registered on theelectoral lists of New Caledonia drawn up with a view to the consultation on 8 November 1998;b) Being registered in the annexed table and living in New Caledonia for 10 years on the date of
the elections to Congress or the provincial assemblies; c) Having reached the age of majority
after 31 October 1998 and justifying 10 years of residence in New Caledonia in 1998, either having one of their parents meeting the conditions for being an elector in the election of 8 November
1998 or having one of their parents listed in the annexed table and justifying 10 years of residence in New Caledonia on the date of the elections; d) Time spent outside of New Caledonia innational service, studying or training or for family, professional or medical reasons is not, forpeople who were previously resident there, considered as interrupting the period consideredwhen assessing residency status.
12 The reasons why the special administrative committees placed these Kanak individuals on theannexed table are different and varied. Nonetheless, it is generally a problem of evidence. For
example, Kanaks are often required to justify 10 years of continued residence in New Caledonia
between 1998 and 2008. If evidence is not provided for any period within the 10 years, the special administrative committees place them in the annexed table. Another problem often reported
is that the applicant must provide proof of address to be able to register. And yet many Kanak
families live in squats around Nouméa or Grand Nouméa and cannot provide proof of address.
The requirements of the law are inappropriate to the Kanak way of life and thus discriminatory
against them.

THE PACIFIC

301

13 Article 218: The following are permitted to participate in the consultation: electors registered on
the electoral list on that date and who meet one of the following conditions: a) Having been admitted to participate in the consultation on 8 November 1998; b) Not being registered on the electoral list of the consultation of 8 November 1998, but nonetheless meeting the required conditionof residence to be an elector at this consultation; c) Not having been able to be registered on theelectoral list for the consultation of 8 November 1998 due to not meeting the residency conditions
but justifying their absence due to family, professional or medical reasons; d) Having had thestatus of customary civilian or born in New Caledonia and having the focus of their material andmoral interests there; e) Having one of their parents born in New Caledonia and having the focusof their material and moral interests there; f) Being able to justify 20 years of continuous residence in New Caledonia on the date of the consultation and no later than 31 December 2014; g)
Being born before 1 January 1989 and having their residence in New Caledonia from 1988 to
1998; h) Being born after 1 January 1989 on and having reached the age of majority on the dateof the consultation and having had one of their parents meet the conditions to participate in the
consultation on 8 November 1998. Time spent outside of New Caledonia in national service,
studying or training or for family, professional or medical reasons is not, for people who werepreviously resident there, considered as interrupting the period considered when assessing residency status.
14 http://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/nouvellecaledonie/corps-electoral-un-quart-des-citoyens-de-droitcoutumier-en-dehors-des-listes-354018.html; http://ustke.org/actualites/actualite-politique/Droita-lautodetermination-pour-tous-les-kanak-!-at767.html To appear on the special list for the consultation, you must first be registered on the general electoral list. Registration on the general list
is either a voluntary process or an automatic registration on reaching the age of majority. This
automatic registration is undertaken by the special administrative committees using a databaseprovided by the town halls and the New Caledonia Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies.
However, it has been noted, particularly by UN experts, that many young Kanaks are being refused automatic registration for lack of some particular evidence in their files. Another reason isthat many Kanaks do not feel concerned by French national elections and do not therefore register voluntarily on this general list.
15 Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Nouméa Declaration on the Kanak and Socialist National
Liberation Front (FLNKS) of New Caledonia, approved and signed on 21 June 2013, in Nouméa,
New Caledonia.
16 United Nations, 2014, Report of the United Nations mission to New Caledonia, 2014, A/
AC.109/2014/20.
17 United Nations, 2014. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 5 December 2014, Question of New Caledonia, A/RES/69/102 & United Nations, 2015. Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), A/70/505, pp. 10-14 & United Nations,2016. Papua New Guinea: draft resolution, Question of New Caledonia, A/AC.109/2016/L.23.

302

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Dr. Stéphanie Graff is adjunct research fellow at James Cook University (20152018) and associate member of the UMR 7367 European Dynamics Research
Unit (MISHA/ Strasbourg University). She completed her PhD in Development
Studies (Anthropology) at the Institut des Hautes Études Internationales et duDéveloppement, Geneva. She has been conducting research on the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights and self-determination since 2003, and in New Caledonia since 2005. She has completed four years of field work in New Caledonia andat the UN, at the Office of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples in Geneva and at the Decolonization Unit in New York. At the request ofBenoît Tangopi, ex-Kanak political prisoner, she is now collecting testimonies on
the events of the 1988 Ouvéa cave massacre with a view to a co-authored biography. She lives in New Caledonia and works for a local institution.

EAST AND
SOUTH EAST ASIA

304

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

JAPAN
The two indigenous peoples of Japan, the Ainu and the Okinawans, liveon the northernmost and southernmost islands of the country’s archipelago. The Ainu territory stretches from Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands (nowboth Russian territories) to the northern part of present-day Japan, including the entire island of Hokkaido. Hokkaido was unilaterally incorporated
into the Japanese state in 1869. Although most Ainu still live in Hokkaido,
over the second half of the 20th century, tens of thousands migrated toJapan’s urban centers for work and to escape the more prevalent discrimination on Hokkaido. Since June 2008, the Ainu have been officiallyrecognized as an indigenous people of Japan. Most recent government
surveys put the Ainu population in Hokkaido at 16,786 (2013) and in therest of Japan at 210 (2011).1
Okinawans, or Ryūkyūans, live in the Ryūkyū Islands, which makeup Japan’s present-day Okinawa prefecture. They comprise several indigenous language groups with distinct cultural traits. Although there has
been some migration of ethnic Japanese to the islands, the population islargely indigenous Ryūkyūans. Japan colonized the Ryūkyūs in 1879 butlater relinquished the islands to the US in exchange for its own independence after World War Two. In 1972, the islands were reincorporated into
the Japanese state and Okinawans became Japanese citizens although
the US military base remained. Today, 50,000 US military personnel, theirdependents and civilian contractors occupy 34 military installations on
Okinawa Island. The island is home to 1.1 million of the 1.4 million Okinawans living throughout the Ryūkyūs. The Japanese government does
not recognize Okinawans as indigenous people.
The Japanese government has adopted the UNDRIP (although it
does not recognize the unconditional right to self-determination). It has
not ratified ILO Convention 169.

305

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

1

1 Yanbaru Forest

The Ainu and Japan’s hate speech problemA

fter long-standing calls for government action to curb hate speech, the Japanese Diet passed the nation’s first anti-hate speech law in May 2016. During
deliberation of the bill, Ainu activists raised concerns that the law failed to cover

306

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017indigenous people, given that it defined hate speech as that against “foreign”
residents and their descendants. In response, lawmakers passed a supplementary resolution that clarified that the condemnation against discriminatory language was not limited to that specifically defined under the law, and that “appropriate action would be taken in accordance with the spirit of international conventions”.
While the law condemns hate speech and calls on local governments to provide support for victims and public education, some critics point out that the law
fails to impose any legal prohibition or penalties. Many Ainu activists, however,heralded the law as an important first step in combating the growing problem ofhate speech.

Addressing persistent discrimination
The Japanese government also announced in May 2016 that it had decided to
begin consideration of a new law to support the livelihoods and education of the
Ainu people. The Ainu Association of Hokkaido had long called for such a law,finding current levels of support (scholarships for secondary/tertiary education,
employment consultations) insufficient to address continuing disparities. The Ainu
Association seeks a more comprehensive approach, spanning from early childhood education through to social security for the elderly. The 2009 report by thegovernment’s “expert panel” had similarly called for a new law to take a morecomprehensive approach to supporting Ainu livelihoods. It remains to be seen
whether the government will consider restoration and protection of indigenous
rights for inclusion in the new law.
Public awareness of the situation of the Ainu also remains a challenge. According to the results of a survey released by the Japanese government in February 2016, 72.1% of Ainu agreed with the statement that “discrimination against
the Ainu people exists”. Among the general public, however, only 17.9% agreed
with the statement, with 50.7% saying that “discrimination doesn’t exist”. Such a
gap in public awareness may prove a challenge to any efforts made under a newlaw to address the effects of discrimination.

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

307

Return of ancestral remains
In March 2016, Hokkaido University agreed, under a court-mediated settlement,
to return to the Ainu of Urakawa, Hokkaido, the remains of 16 Ainu people that it
had excavated 85 years ago for “research purposes”. A group of five Ainu had
initiated court proceedings against the university for the return of the remains and,
under the settlement, agreed to drop demands for monetary compensation in
exchange for the release of the remains. Twelve of the bodies were given a ceremonial burial upon their return to the community in July. Meanwhile, the university refused to provide an apology, stating that it was “not part of the settlement”.
Despite the university’s position, at least one professor from the Hokkaido University Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies made a personal apology to members of the Ainu community regarding the university’s actions.
A similar court-mediated settlement was reached in November 2016 between
Hokkaido University and Ainu in Monbetsu, Hokkaido for the release of the remains of four Ainu people. Proceedings against the university are also ongoingfor the release of the remains of a further 64 people by another group from Urahoro, Hokkaido, and the two preceding settlements have provided hope that asettlement can be reached in this case as well.
The momentum created by these settlements has also pushed the issue of
Ainu remains to a global scale. In August 2016, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido
announced it had confirmed that the remains of 17 Ainu people were being heldin Germany, and stated that it would work with the Japanese government to request their return. Thus far, the German side has indicated that it would require
evidence of “improper acquisition”, which may prove a challenge to any return.

A new step in language revitalization
2016 also saw an important step forward in the revitalization of what remains a
critically endangered language. One elementary school in Nibutani, Hokkaido announced in January 2016 that it would begin teaching Ainu language classes
regularly throughout the school year. While teaching Ainu language in publicschools is not previously unheard of, this effort is the first time that it will be taught
on a sustained basis rather than as one-off classes.

308

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017The Okinawans
The struggle over Okinawa’s long-term future continues as the US and Japanese
governments make long-promised base closures and the return of existing military-occupied lands conditional upon Okinawans’ acceptance of new military facilities. A number of incidents this year, including violent crime, aircraft crashes
and contamination, highlight what is at stake for Okinawans. As they engage incivil disobedience, sit-ins and other forms of protest to prevent new construction,
court battles in 2016 revealed the extent to which the Japanese government defers to its military arrangements with the United States in the Okinawan context.
Citing increasing threats from China, moreover, the Japanese government is increasing its own Self-Defense Forces on the outer islands of Okinawa prefecture,
sparking new protests.
Still dominating Okinawan society is the two-decade old struggle to close the
US military’s Futenma Air Station, which the two governments tied to the construction of a new US military complex at Okinawa’s rural Cape Henoko (for morebackground see The Indigenous World 2011-2014). Ongoing legal wrangling effectively suspended construction at Henoko from March to December 2016. The
year began with the Japanese government filing a lawsuit aimed at shifting local
authority over Okinawa’s coastal waters to the central government. This was inresponse to the Okinawa Governor’s 2015 cancellation of his predecessor’s approval of the extensive land reclamation required for the Henoko project. Ignoringa court-mediated settlement, Tokyo ordered the Governor to reinstate the approval, which set in motion months of lawsuits, counter-suits and appeals. In December, Japan’s Supreme Court ruled against the Okinawa government’s right torevoke its approval, paving the way for construction. As a first ruling regarding theHenoko project, its effective nullification of local control over coastal waters setsa broader legal precedent of usurping the already limited Okinawan autonomy
afforded through existing national institutions.
By making Futenma’s closure conditional on the completion of the new base,the US and Japanese governments reveal their willingness to put residents at
risk. The December crash of an MV22 Osprey aircraft from Futenma base into abeach in Nago City highlights the danger posed to those living on current andfuture flight paths. A November court ruling found that the harm caused by aircraft
noise at Futenma exceeded tolerable levels. Studies show psychological effects,

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA309

low birth weight, as well as increased risk of dying from heart attacks andstrokes resulting from persistent aircraft noise at the base. More than a third ofschools near Futenma and Kadena air base reported that aircraft noise regularly
disrupted classes.
Given these impacts, the December 2016 return of a 4,000-hectare area of
Yanbaru forest, occupied for 65 years by US forces for jungle warfare training,
was bittersweet for most Okinawans. The US and Japanese governments tied thereturn to the construction of six new oversized helipads in the Takae region of the
Yanbaru forest, for flight training of the Marine Corps’ new and crash-prone MV22
Osprey aircraft. Two helipads are complete and operational. The Japanese government designated 17,000 hectares of Yanbaru as a national park in November
and is campaigning for UNESCO World Natural Heritage status because of Yanbaru’s biodiversity and indigenous flora and fauna. No environmental impact assessment has been conducted with regard to the Osprey deployment, however,which will bring noise and insecurity, and inevitably contamination. In November,a district court denied the Takae residents’ lawsuit to halt the helipad construction
on the basis of damaging noise levels.
Two cases of rape (March and December) and murder of women by US contractors sparked massive protests and a demand by the Okinawa Prefectural
Assembly to remove all US Marines from Okinawa. Other problems this year help
explain Okinawans’ sustained efforts to demilitarize their land. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, which is illegal in Japan, was discovered flowing from Kadena Air
Base into two rivers which, together, supply water to eight municipalities. A Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier jet from Kadena crashed off the coast of Okinawa Island.
Wildfires were caused by live-fire training.
The Japanese government’s increasing use of violent force and detention torepress popular opposition drew the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion andexpression. In April, David Kaye expressed his concern to the government andsaid he would monitor the situation in Okinawa. Riot police have become thegovernment’s main tool for clearing non-violent sit-ins, causing injuries to protestors a number of times this year. In August, several reporters were also prevented
from covering the protests. At the year’s end, Amnesty International joined thecall for the release of the jailed chairman of the Okinawa Peace Movement Center, who was arrested for his involvement in the opposition at Henoko and Takae.

310

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references
1

Population figure for Hokkaido taken from the 2013 Survey of Ainu Livelihoods conducted by the
Hokkaido prefectural government in cooperation with the Ainu Association (Hokkaido Government, Environment and Lifestyle Section. 2013. Hokkaido Ainu Survey on Livelihood Report,
Accessed 6 January 2015, http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/ainu_living_conditions_survey.
pdf). Population figure for the rest of Japan taken from the 2011 Survey of Non-Hokkaido Ainu
Livelihoods conducted by the Council for Ainu Policy Promotion. 2011. Non-Hokkaido Ainu Survey on Livelihood Report, Accessed 6 January 2015, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/dai3/siryou3_3.pdf). Many with Ainu ancestry do not publicly identify as Ainu due to discrimination and stigma in Japanese society. Ainu observers estimate the actual population of those with
Ainu ancestry to be between 100,000 and 300,000, with 5,000 in the greater Kanto region alone.

W. Lonnie Ding-Everson is the founder of AINU PRIDE PRODUCTIONS (http://
www.ainupride.com) and a former Ainu language instructor for the Foundation for
Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture’s language program in Tokyo.
Kanako Uzawa is an Ainu researcher and a member of the Association of Rerain Tokyo. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Sociology, Political Science, and Community Planning at the University of Tromsø, Norway.
Kelly Dietz is the author of the section on the Okinawans. She is assistant professor in the Department of Politics at Ithaca College in New York.

311

CHINA
Officially, China proclaims itself to be a unified country with a diverse ethnic make-up, and all ethnic groups are considered equal in the Constitution. Besides the Han Chinese majority, the government recognizes 55
ethnic minority peoples within its borders. According to the latest government data (report published in 2012) compiled from the 2010 national
census, the ethnic minority population stands at 111,964,901 persons, or
8.4 % of the country’s total population. There are still “unrecognized ethnic groups” in China, numbering a total of 640,101 persons.
The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy is an important basis for the governance of ethnic minority peoples. It includes establishing ethnic autonomous regions, setting up theirown local administrative governance and the right to practise their own
language and culture. “Ethnic autonomous regions” make up approximately 60% of China’s total land area.
The Chinese government does not recognize the term “indigenous
peoples”, and they rarely participate in international meetings related toindigenous peoples’ issues. The Chinese government voted in favour of
the UNDRIP but, from its attitude towards ethnic minorities, the UNDRIP
does not - in its opinion - apply to China.

National policy plan on ethnic minorities

T

he main economic and social policies for ethnic minority peoples in China arecovered by the national Five-Year Plan (2016-2020), which was announced by
the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council in October 2016. The plan contains the core concepts of innovation, openness, coordination, green environment,
and sharing of prosperity, which were the five guiding principles championed by Chinese President Xi Jinping.1 The government’s policy planning for ethnic minority peoples in the coming years will follow these five core concepts as outlined in the nationalplan, along with the economic development targets to eradicate poverty.

312

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Looking back at the period of the last Five-Year Plan, the Chinese government has applied the same “economic development” model to deal with the many
complicated issues and different ethno-cultures of minority peoples in China. Top
political leaders believe the highest priority for improving the lives of ethnic minorities is to reduce poverty. It is true that, in some ethnic minority regions, thepeoples’ livelihood has improved through the government’s economic stimulus
programs. These successful cases have become the government’s showcase topresent the outside world with the economic progress being made for ethnic minority peoples.
However, political unrest and cultural conflicts continued to take place in Uyghur Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia ethnic autonomous regions. Althoughsupposedly under the benevolent protection of the Chinese motherland, these
ethnic minority peoples still see themselves as living under oppression and discriminatory policies. There is a saying that goes: the Chinese government’s approach is to offer money with one hand while holding a gun in the other. Beijing
will provide economic assistance for ethnic minority peoples who are willing toobey its rules but applies harsh military crackdowns against those who choose to
defy the government.

Religion and human rights situation in Uyghur Xinjiang Region
One of the most protracted and difficult problems for the Chinese authorities todeal with is that of the Muslim Uyghur people of Xinjiang (also known as East
Turkestan). All upheavals and violent incidents in the area have been attributed to
extremist elements of the Muslim Uyghurs. The Chinese government continues toimplement strict controls over the Uyghurs in order to keep them from practising
their religious and cultural traditions although, in 2016, there were fewer reportsof the deployment of military forces to keep the situation under control.
Brutal, military crackdowns have, however, been replaced by government
policies which prescribe discrimination and unfair treatment, especially infringements upon the human rights and religious practices of the Uyghurs. The mostcontroversial example was the attempt to prevent the Uyghurs from fasting or
performing other religious rituals during Ramadan. Aiming to counter Muslim religious practice, the Chinese government initiated programs to promote eating anddrinking during Ramadan throughout cities and towns across Xinjiang.2 The Uy-

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

313

ghur population was encouraged to attend afternoon teas, social functions, banquets and community group events where eating and drinking took place. In Aksu
and other cities of Xinjiang, the local education bureau prohibited school students
from fasting during Ramadan. Officials said parents would also be punished if theban was violated. According to news reports from the Voice of America, the Chinese authorities in Xinjiang published regulations which explicitly “forbid Communist Party members, civil servants, and school students from fasting, attending
prayer and other religious events held in a mosque, and other Islamic religious
practices.” 3 Uyghur rights activists said enforcement of these impositions during
Ramadan was a “systematic suppression and hostile provocation” of the Uyghur
people and would only lead to more political dissent and social strife.
Furthermore, a “Mosque Rectification” campaign was launched in 2016. It
was supervised by the Chinese Central Ethnic-Religious Affairs Department, withthe support of local Xinjiang authorities and police units. Within three months ofthe campaign, 5,000 mosques had been demolished in cities, towns and villagesaround the region.4 Officials said the demolition works were carried out on “old,314

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

dilapidated buildings” that posed a danger to the public, and that the efforts wereto ensure stability and safety for worshippers. However, local residents said thecampaign was another attempt to subjugate the Uyghur population and to suppress the Muslim religious faith. By destroying mosques, the Chinese government hoped to stamp out what they perceived as “religious extremism” and “Uyghur separatism”.

International award for Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti
China’s repression of rights in the region was highlighted by the international
media in October when prominent Uyghur scholar, Ilham Tohti, won the 2016
Martin Ennals Award. This award honours worthy individuals who “defend humanrights with courage in the face of personal risk”.5 Tohti is a professor who used toteach at the Central University for Nationalities in Beijing. He was sentenced tolife imprisonment by a Chinese court on charges of promoting “separatism” in2014. Since then, he has been incarcerated in a state prison in Urumqi City,
capital of Xinjiang. The awards body, composed of leading international humanrights organizations, said Tohti “has rejected separatism and violence, and soughtreconciliation based on respect for Uyghur culture, which has been subject toreligious, cultural and political repression in Xinjiang.”After the award announcement, the European Parliament urged China to
grant Tohti his freedom. In a statement, they condemned the Chinese government for not following the due process of the law, given that Tohti did not benefit
from the right to a proper defence, and called for the immediate and unconditional release of both Ilham Tohti and his supporters detained in relation to hiscase. Geng Shuang, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, told reporters that
Tohti’s case had nothing to do with human rights, while accusing the scholar of
promoting and taking part in separatist activities.

New restrictions on movement
The Xinjiang regional government announced the abolition of the “personal identification program” in May 2016, which had only been enacted in Xinjiang province. It was a program whereby all persons were issued with an ID card contain-

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

315

ing all basic information, including age, ethnicity, schooling, occupation, place ofresidence, original home town, family members, etc. It was enacted in Xinjiang inMay 2014. Residents of Xinjiang had to carry it wherever they went, including
when migrating to towns or cities, going to school, or entering/exiting Xinjiang.
Police would inspect it at road travel check points, and it was required for applying
or registering for any local government services, schools, medical treatment,
jobs, etc. The Chinese government claimed that it enabled them to provide a better service for residents, and to keep track of economic, business and agriculturalactivities. Local people, however, said it was a strict mechanism of population
control aimed at monitoring and keeping track of people’s residence and movement, and of restricting Uyghurs from travelling out of the province, and discouraging them from migrating to cities. The abolition of the program therefore initially seemed to allow greater freedom to Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities of
Xinjiang to travel throughout the region.6
One month later, however, officials announced a new decree requiring Xinjiang residents to turn in their passports to the public security authorities for “annual review” and to be retained for “safekeeping” after the review. In addition,
people applying for a travel permit or a new passport are now required to provide
DNA samples, fingerprints, voice recording and a three-dimensional image forregistration in a government database.7 Human Rights Watch states that the newpolicy is a violation of people’s basic human rights, by arbitrarily restricting theirfreedom of movement, and that it will only lead to further social instability andresentment towards the government’s rigid control.

Protest over land grabbing in Inner Mongolia
For Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, conflict over the expropriation of land
and forcible relocation of inhabitants continued to cause clashes at several locations over the past year. Local Mongolian residents held several protests: thecommunity of Bayan Nur City protested four times after finding out that almost
30,000 acres of their pastureland in the Urat Middle Banner region had beenrented out to mining companies and property developers.8 A number of protesters
were arrested and detained in custody before release. The residents, mostly livestock herders, pointed out that transfer of ownership and renting of land were il-

316

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

legal, while the mining activities had resulted in pollution and degradation of theenvironment.
In another land-grabbing case, over 100 residents held a large protest on 20
June at their grazing pastureland in Bayan Tal District of Baarin Right Banner,under the jurisdiction of the Inner Mongolia city of Ulanhad. The local population
said the land had been rented out, without their consent, to a company owned
and operated by Han Chinese for an agricultural production business. When thebusiness lease expired in April, the residents wanted their community land backfor livestock grazing but the company had refused and had continued to plant
crops for the new season. The area residents therefore organized a resistancecampaign to block the company’s crop planting but the authorities mobilized over
80 police officers during the dispute, during which 20 protesters were arrested.9
On 17 August, some 200 herders and farmers at Xilin Gol League, headed tothe seat of the local government located in Xilinhot City to call for paid subsidies
for their loss of grasslands. The herdsmen said the government had not paid
them any subsidy for the state’s use of their community grazing land. Secondly,
they demanded higher prices for the state corporation’s purchase of their sheep,
cattle, and other livestock animals. Scuffles broke out during the incident, and the
local police arrested four people who practise a traditional pastoral and herding
lifestyle. A leader of the protesting residents said they were impoverished by aprolonged drought, resulting in a poor harvest of corn and other staple crops,
combined with drastically falling prices for the state corporation’s procurement oflamb and other livestock meat. According to news reports, the government-set
procurement prices for lamb and meat were previously much higher, at two to
three times the price.10
There were numerous other protests and clashes with the authorities over illegal expropriations of land, resulting in incarceration and jail terms for some
Mongolian herders. More of these violent protests have been reported in recent
years in Inner Mongolia, and elsewhere in China. Most are cases of illegal transfer deals where government officials have received bribes and other benefits
when granting concessions to mining companies and other businesses throughforgery of documents and other illegal means, while the local communities suffer
the consequences, as many people are forcibly removed from their traditional
community land.11 Historically, the conflict over land and natural resources between Mongolians and Han Chinese has been ongoing for many hundreds ofyears. Now the Mongolians are protesting more, and using modern technology toEAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

317

present their case to the outside world. These more vigorous and well-organizedactions are turning into civil resistance and a direct challenge to Beijing’s rule.

Ethnic language policy in national plan
The language and education policy outlined in the government’s Five-Year Planfocused on raising the Putonghua (standard Chinese) literacy rate in rural communities, as well as in the ethnic minority regions. A group of Mongolian parents
in Ulanhad protested to the city government in December after a Han Chinese
director at a local kindergarten refused to allow a Mongolian teacher to teach in
the Mongolian language. The parents said other Mongolian teachers in schools
were also suffering from such restrictions, and they demanded the implementation of the policy for teaching one’s mother-tongue language to children.12
In another case, the government education bureau in Tibet suggested using
only Chinese language textbooks for teaching mathematics in grade schools. According to the bureau’s statement in June, the move will boost learning for students, while printing the textbooks in Tibetan “will only complicate the education
process”. Tibetan activists fear such misguided education policy is only the beginning, and will eventually lead to the extermination of the Tibetan language.13
Most teaching of mother-tongue languages in ethnic minority regions has been
marginalized, due to the primacy of Chinese language education. The education
policies in the national plan for the next five years will only exacerbate the situation,
pushing ethnic minority languages in China on the road towards extinction.

New ethnic registration measures go into effect
A series of legal measures came into effect on 1 January 2016 which had major
consequences for ethnic minority peoples. These are known as “Measures for the
Administration of the Ethnic Composition Registration of Chinese Citizens”, issued under the authority of the State Ethnic Affairs Commission and Ministry of
Public Security.14 The new measures make it more difficult for individuals tochange their ethnic group identification, which can be registered as following either that of their father or mother. Children of divorced parents can apply tochange their ethnic affiliation only once, and can only do so up until the age of 20.

318

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Children under the age of 18 can only apply to change ethnic group identification
once in their lifetime. This set of measures also contained other new restrictions andmanagement regulations that will affect the national household registry system, eligibility for election as ethnic group representatives to the National People’s Congress, the implementation of policies for ethnic minority autonomous regions, andgovernment programs for citizens belonging to ethnic minority groups.

Beijing hosts ethnic arts festival
China held its Fifth National Ethnic Arts Festival in Beijing from 16 August to 14
September 2016. The Chinese government regularly organizes similar events toshowcase ethnic group talents, under the concept of promoting growth and prosperity for music, the performing arts, and other creative cultural industries of ethnic
minority regions. These programs also have the dual purpose of propagating government and Communist Party policies for ethnic peoples, through cultural and arts
media. For these state-sponsored festivals, the performing troupes present theglory of the “Chinese Dream” on stage, whereby all ethnic minority peoples live inharmony and happiness in the Chinese motherland. Uyghurs, Mongolians andother ethnic minority groups have, however, increasingly taken to protesting andvoicing their grievances over the past year, as they have suffered the injustice andoppression of the Chinese authorities and their law enforcement agencies.
Human rights defenders speaking for their cause said there is still much discrimination and marginalization in Chinese society, leading to rising tension andwidening cracks in the relationship between the Han Chinese majority and theethnic minority peoples. 				Notes and references
1

2

3

Republic of China. 13th Five-Year Plan for economic and social development 2016-2020, Document paper submitted by China State Council and adopted by the 12th National People’s Congress on 15 March 2016, http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/gzdt/201603/P020160318576353824805.pdf
Qiao Long, “Program by Xinjiang Government to Force Uyghur Students to Eat Rice Dumplings
During Ramadan, to identify with Chinese Culture”, Radio Free Asia, 15 June 2016.
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shaoshuminzu/ql3-06152016130953.html
Xiao Yu, “Communist Party Members in Xinjiang Urged to Eat and Drink during Ramadan”, Voiceof America, 16 June 2016,

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

4

5

6

7
8

9

10

11
12

13

14

319

http://www.voachinese.com/a/ramadan-in-xinjinag-20160615/3377524.html
Shohret Hoshur, “Under the Guise of Public Safety, China Demolishes Thousands of Mosques”,
Radio Free Asia, 19 December 2016, http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/udner-the-guiseof-public-safety-12192016140127.html
Human Rights Watch, “Ilham Tohti: 2016 Martin Ennals Award Laureate for Human Rights Defenders”, 11 October 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/11/ilham-tohti-2016-martin-ennals-award-laureate-human-rights-defenders“Xinjiang Authorities Require Passport Applicants to Register DNA, Fingerprints, and otherData”, Liberty Times News, 7 June 2016, http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1722402“Rights Groups Condemn China on Collective Management of Uyghur Passports”, Liberty Times
News, 23 November 2016, http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1896051
Qiao Long, “Over One Hundred Herders Detained at Protest in Inner Mongolia, “Pasture Heroes”
Put Under Watch”, Radio Free Asia, 2 February 2016,
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shaoshuminzu/ql3-02252016111801.html
News on “Pasture Protest with 20 Arrests at Inner Mongolia Baarin Right Banner”, Radio Free
Asia, 20 June 2016,
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shaoshuminzu/ql3-06202016115303.html
News on “Inner Mongolian Herders Loss of Livelihood Due to Disputes and Land Grabbing”,
Radio Free Asia, 19 August 2016,
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/zhuanlan/teahouse/m0819tea-08192016114626.html
Brendan O’Reilly. “Tensions persist in China-Mongolia relations”, SMHRIC Southern Mongolian
Human Rights Information Center, 10 September 2014, http://www.smhric.org/SMW_93.htm
News on “Parents Demand for Mongolian Language Teaching in Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia”,
Sound of Hope Radio, 19 November 2016,
http://www.sohcradio.com/b5/2016/11/19/art1163554p.html
Dan Zhen, “Objection over Change into Chinese Language for Tibetan School Math Textbooks”,
Radio Free Asia, 15 June 2016,
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shaoshuminzu/dz-06152016102805.html
Document on “Measures for the Administration of the Ethnic Composition Registration of Chinese Citizens” published by State Ethnic Commission of China, 26 June 2016,
http://www.seac.gov.cn/art/2015/6/26/art_31_230352.html

Huang Chi-ping is an associate professor at the Ethnology Department of the
National Cheng-chi University in Taiwan, where she is teaching and doing her
research on the Yi group of China’s ethnic minority peoples. Her field of speciality
is Ethnography and Ethnic Literature. She also serves as editor of the “Aboriginal
Education World” journal. Her article was translated from Chinese by Jason Pan
Adawai, Director of the indigenous rights activist organization, TARA Ping Pu,
and a former executive council member of the Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact
(AIPP). Jason is an indigenous Pazeh (one of the lowland Ping Pu groups) of Liyutan village, Miaoli County.

320

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

TAIWANThe officially-recognized indigenous population of Taiwan numbers
534,561 people (2013), or 2.28% of the total population. Fourteen indigenous peoples are officially recognized. In addition, there are at least nine
Ping Pu (“plains or lowland”) indigenous peoples who are denied official
recognition. Most of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples originally lived in thecentral mountains, on the east coast and in the south. However, nearly
half of the indigenous population has migrated to live in urban areas.
The main challenges facing indigenous peoples in Taiwan continue tobe rapidly disappearing cultures and languages, low social status andvery little political or economic influence. The Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) is the state agency responsible for indigenous peoples. A number of national laws protect their rights, including the Constitutional Amendments (2000) on indigenous representation in the Legislative Assembly,
protection of language and culture and political participation; the Indigenous
Peoples’ Basic Act (2005), the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples(2004), the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples (2001), the Regulations regarding Recognition of Indigenous Peoples (2002) and the Name Act(2003), which allows indigenous peoples to register their original names in
Chinese characters and to annotate them in Romanized script. Unfortunately, serious discrepancies and contradictions in the legislation, coupledwith only partial implementation of laws guaranteeing the rights of indigenous peoples, have stymied progress towards self-governance.
Since Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations it has not beenable to vote on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
nor to consider ratifying ILO Convention 169.

Formal apology issued by Taiwan presidentT

he most significant development for indigenous peoples in 2016 was when
President Tsai Ing-wen issued a formal apology on behalf of the government

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

321

to all Taiwan indigenous groups on 1 August for the discrimination and mistreatment they had suffered for the past four centuries. The ceremony took place atthe Presidential Office Building, as Tsai also formally apologized to the Pingpu
plains aborigine groups and promised to help them gain official recognition.1
Tsai outlined her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s plan toimplement improved policies and programs to help protect indigenous peoples’
rights, and to promote their education, culture, social welfare and economic development. Elected as Taiwan’s first female president in 2016, Tsai also madehistory for being the first leader in Asia to issue a public apology to indigenous

322

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

peoples, and the date was chosen since 1 August has been designated as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Taiwan.2
To back up her words, Tsai also announced that she was setting up an “Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Commission” under the Presidential Office, and other working committees headed by indigenous representatives, to pursue justice and rectify past government violations, and that regularmeetings would be held to review national policies which impact on their lives.
In her statement, Tsai pointed to when Chinese and Western foreign powers
first came to Taiwan in the 17th century, which marked the start of indigenous
peoples suffering from colonial exploitation and subjugation, turning them into
“displaced, foreign, non-mainstream, and marginalized.” She also said, “Indigenous peoples had their own languages. However, with Japanese rule aiming toassimilate and turn all into imperial subjects, and with the KMT government banning tribal languages after 1945, indigenous peoples’ languages suffered great
losses. Most Pingpu languages have disappeared. Successive governments
have been negligent in the protection of indigenous cultures.” 3
Regarding the Pingpu people issue, she promised her ruling DPP government would recognize the Pingpu groups as indigenous people under the principle of respecting the Pingpu ethnic group’s self-identity, recognizing their identity,and setting a deadline for the government agency, the Council of Indigenous
Peoples (CIP), to do this, “so that Pingpu ethnic group identity will receive therights and status they deserve.”

Reactions from society and protests by indigenous peoples
Tsai’s presidential apology on behalf of the government was hailed as a positive
development in the advancement of indigenous peoples’ rights in Taiwan. Pundits
and most politicians endorsed the official apology. Some activists, however, said
it did not go far enough, and that they wanted to see real changes and effective
policy implementation rather than mere promises and political statements. Several groups held protests in the plaza outside the Presidential Office to publicize
their demands for the return of ancestral lands, implementation of indigenous
self-government policies, a halt to land grabbing and tourism development, and arelaxation of restrictions on permit hunting of wildlife.4

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

323

Indigenous youth had earlier initiated a “Walking for Historic Justice” march,
starting on 2 July from the southern tip of Taiwan and walking all the way to Taipei
City, arriving on 31 July. They included activists from Amis, Bunun, Atayal, Paiwan, Sediq and other groups and were joined by Pingpu’s Makatao, Papora andKetagalan youth representatives.5

Pingpu people demand indigenous status
Despite President Tsai’s formal apology and promise to grant them recognition,
Pingpu people suffered a series of setbacks and denial of their rights in 2016. The
Taiwan High Court issued a ruling in May that sided with past government policies
to act against the Pingpu Siraya people of southern Taiwan. Siraya activists had
filed an administrative lawsuit in previous years, and appealed to the High Court
after losing the previous court battles. However, the judges once again ruled
against them in May, and indigenous activists said it could be seen as the judicial
system’s denial of Siraya people’s rights, denying them recognition as indigenous
peoples. They vowed to further appeal to the Council of Grand Justices for aconstitutional interpretation.6
Before President Tsai’s planned formal apology on 1 August, Pingpu leadersand organizations convened several regional meetings. These culminated in a national conference in July to consolidate their recommendations and reach a consensus on their demands to the government. The Pingpu Indigenous Rights Council,
with support from Ketagalan groups and the Central Taiwan Pingpu Indigenous
Youth Alliance, organized a rally at the legislature in July to press their demand forinclusion and end the systematic denial of their indigenous culture and history.7
Legislators Kawlo Iyun Pacidal of New Power Party and Chung Chia-pin of DPP
attended the rally to lend their support. Taokas youth activist Kaisanan Ahuan saidat the rally, “The government should squarely face the fact of our existence and it
has a duty to ensure that our culture can continue to pass on to the next generation.”

Pingpu people recognition in October
Following the mandate from President Tsai, CIP was pressured to announce, on
7 October, the “recognition” of Pingpu aborigine groups, which it did so by creat-

324

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ing a third category known as “Pingpu Indigenous People”, separate from andwithout the same indigenous rights as the two main CIP categories of “Lowland
Indigenous People” and “Mountain Indigenous People”. CIP officials said thecreation of “Pingpu Indigenous People” would be passed by an amendment to thenation’s Status Act for Indigenous Peoples but that granting of indigenous rights
and government support programs would be worked out gradually.8
Some Pingpu leaders and politicians welcomed the news as an “historic decision”, saying that it heralded a new era for their people, who would be able to go
on to achieve historic justice and equality, and obtain full indigenous status in the
future.
Other activists, however, believed it was justice yet again denied, and that the
CIP was using a “delaying tactic” to deceive the public and international communities, by stating that they want to give recognition while actively working to oppose
the granting of indigenous rights and to Pingpu groups. “The proposal to create
another category of “Pingpu Indigenous People” was not what we fought for. It
only gives us a superficial title and we fear that the CIP will work hard to stall on
granting any indigenous rights. In the end, we could be denied our rights andexcluded from the system again,” said Pingpu Papora activist Aidu Mali from
central Taiwan’s Puli Township.9

Government and business tourism development
Indigenous peoples joined efforts to fight against tourist resort projects with demonstrations and public petition campaigns last year. Two prominent cases receiving attention were the questionable land expropriation of “Peacock Garden” tobuild a luxury hotel on the shores of central Taiwan’s Sun Moon Lake in Nantou
County, and the continuing controversy over the Shanyuan Palm Beach Resort
on the coast of Taitung County. Thao people of Sun Moon Lake battled the local
government throughout 2016, as they had approved a developer to build a luxury
hotel via BOT (build-operate-transfer) with a 50-year lease on the existing tourist
attraction of “Peacock Garden”, an avian park occupying two hectares and which
once housed over 300 peacocks, along with other native and exotic fowl species.
The protest was led by Thao elder Banu Kapamumu because the area wasbuilt on the Thao community’s traditional territory. The Nantou government, under
the KMT party administration, rammed the project through without consulting

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

325

them, however. The Thao people organized several protests in November, andpresented a petition calling for the government to investigate the case. Banu Kapamumu said, “The hotel BOT project was made in the dark, under very questionable means, resulting in a very profitable deal for the developer company. The
entire process was illegal, because there was no public hearing and no proper
environmental impact assessment, and the hotel will generate wastewater andtrash to pollute the Sun Moon Lake.”.10
The Shanyuan Palm Beach Resort project covers 26 hectares of land which
the local Amis people say belonged to their traditional fishing ground. Despite
opposition from local residents and concerns of environmental damage, the project received provisional approval in June. Residents from the affected Amis communities of Kararuan, Edoulan, and Fulafulangan of Taitung County organizeddemonstrations in July to fight against the project, and their efforts received the
support of environmental groups.11
Leaders of Amis communities said the development would expropriate theirtraditional territory for business use, cause erosion of the coastal land, generate
pollution that would destroy the marine ecology, and ruin the livelihoods of thelocal fishermen.12

Impact of natural disasters
Taiwan was struck by five tropical storms in 2016, three of which caused major
damage - Typhoon Nepartak on 8 July, Super Typhoon Meranti on 14 September,and Typhoon Megi on 28 September. These three storms swept through Taiwan’s
southern and eastern regions, leading to flooding, landslides, collapsed roadways
and bridges, severe erosion, and property damage. Super Typhoon Meranti was
the most powerful storm of the Western Pacific region in 2016.13 It brought heavy
precipitation and record-breaking winds, and several indigenous areas in themountains suffered devastation, particularly Tjikuvulj community of the Paiwan
people, and Dahdah community of the Bunun people, both in Taitung County.14
These two communities were stranded without access roads and without water or electricity for several days, having to rely on outside deliveries of food anddaily provisions. Overall, Super Typhoon Meranti caused NT$ 2.198 billion(US$70.59 million) in damages to the agriculture, fisheries, livestock farming andforestry sectors. A total of 10,950 hectares of farmland were affected, with the326

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

production of banana, guava, jujube and jambu fruit the worst hit, which included
both indigenous and non-indigenous farmers in southern Taiwan.15
Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14

15

Report “President Tsai Ing-wen issues formal apology to nation’s indigenous peoples”, Liberty
Times newspaper, 1 August 2016.
Report “President Tsai welcomes indigenous representatives to Presidential Office and waves at
protesters outside, on Indigenous Peoples Day”, Taiwan People News, 1 August 2016.
“Full text of President Tsai Ing-wen’s apology to indigenous people”, Taiwan’s Central News
Agency, 1 August 2016, available at http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201608010026.aspx
Report “Protesters outside Presidential Office said apology is not enough”, Taiwan People News,
1 August 2016.
Report “Aboriginal groups begin march toward Taipei”, Taipei Times, 4 July 2016.
Report “High Court ruled against Siraya case on restoration of indigenous status”, Liberty Times
Newspaper, 19 May 2016.
Report “Protesters call for recognition of the Pingpu”, Taipei Times, 16 July 2016.
Report “Cabinet plan to amend status law to recognize Pingpu peoples”, Taiwan Indigenous
Television Network, 8 October 2016, available at http://titv.ipcf.org.tw/news-24516
Report “Pingpu recognized under Act for Indigenous Peoples”, Taipei Times, 8 October 2016
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/10/08/2003656743
Report “Thao people protest BOT case for Peacock Garden of Sun Moon Lake”, Newtalk.tw, 4November 2016.
Report from Taiwan Environmental Information Center, “Shanyuan Palm Beach Resort rushed
through environmental assessment review”, 28 July 2016, available at http://e-info.org.tw/
node/109152
Report “Delay for Shanyuan resort development, review process may block project”, United
Daily News, 8 December 2016.
Information from Taiwan Typhoon Information Center Database, 2016.
News reports and information from press release of President Tsai’s visit to Taitung County
Tjukuvulj and Dahdah indigenous communities to assess typhoon damage, 25 September 2016.
http://www.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=131&rmid=514&itemid=38081
Typhoon Disaster Preliminary Assessment Report, published October 2016, from Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction.

Jason Pan Adawai is the Director of the indigenous rights activist organization,
TARA-Ping Pu, and a former executive council member of the Asia Indigenous
Peoples’ Pact (AIPP). Jason is an indigenous Pazeh (one of the lowland Ping Pu
groups) of Liyutan village, Miaoli County.

327

PHILIPPINESThe latest census conducted in the Philippines in 2010 included an ethnicity variable for the first time but no official figure for the indigenous
peoples has yet come out. The country’s indigenous population thus continues to be estimated at between 10% and 20% of the national population, which has been projected to currently lie at 102.9 million. The indigenous groups in the northern mountains of Luzon (Cordillera) are collectively known as Igorot while the groups on the southern island of Mindanao are collectively called Lumad. There are smaller groups collectively
known as Mangyan in the central islands as well as even smaller, more
scattered groups in the central islands and Luzon, including several
groups of hunter-gatherers in transition.
Indigenous peoples in the Philippines have retained much of theirtraditional, pre-colonial culture, social institutions and livelihood practices.
They generally live in geographically isolated areas with a lack of accessto basic social services and few opportunities for mainstream economic
activities, education or political participation. In contrast, commerciallyvaluable natural resources such as minerals, forests and rivers can befound mainly in their areas, making them continuously vulnerable to development aggression and land grabbing.
The Republic Act 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act(IPRA), was promulgated in 1997. The law has been lauded for its support for indigenous peoples’ cultural integrity, right to their lands and rightto self-directed development of these lands. More substantial implementation of the law is still being sought, however, apart from there being
fundamental criticism of the law itself. The Philippines voted in favour of
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) but the government has not yet ratified ILO Convention 169.

328

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

National electionsT

he May 2016 national elections marked a major shift in political leadership in
the Philippines. Opposition candidate Rodrigo Duterte was elected President
with an overwhelming total of 16,601,997 votes, 6.6 million votes more than his
closest rival, administration candidate Mar Roxas.1 During the campaign, Duterte
gained popularity with his hardline anti-crime, anti-drugs and anti-corruption platform, winning the hearts of the Filipino masses with his promise of “genuinechange”.
Indigenous peoples (IPs) engaged in the electoral process by fielding theirown political party “Sulong Katribu” to represent their interests in the elections.
This attempt by indigenous peoples to gain seats in Congress via the party list
system failed, however, not because of insufficient votes but because the Commission on Elections and the Supreme Court refused to accredit Sulong Katribu
to participate in the 2016 national elections. The disqualification of the party’s list
was condemned by many indigenous peoples, including Katribu Kalipunan ng
Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KATRIBU), a national alliance of IPs in thePhilippines, the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance (CPA) and KALUMARAN of Mindanao. They filed appeals asserting that all the requirements for party list accreditation had been complied with and that the disqualification of Sulong Katribu was amove to further marginalize and discriminate against indigenous peoples. However, these appeals were likewise denied.

Indigenous peoples’ agenda 2016
On 29 June 2016, a National Peoples’ Summit was held with over 1,000 leadersfrom various peoples’ organizations, including indigenous peoples, aimed at crafting a comprehensive peoples’ agenda for the first 100 days of the Duterte presidency. This was followed by a dialogue with President Duterte on 30 June, theday he was inaugurated as the new Philippine President.2 IP leaders joined the
dialogue with the president, the first time they had ever been invited to enter
Malacañang presidential palace.
On 8 August 2016, in commemoration of International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, IPs from different regions of the country, led by KATRIBU, held

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

329

a rally and submitted a six-point IP Agenda to the President containing their longstanding demands for justice, peace and respect for indigenous peoples’ rights.3
They demanded that the new administration resume peace negotiations and release political prisoners; promote the right to ancestral lands and self-determination; stop the plunder of natural resources in indigenous territories; provide freeand sufficient social services, livelihood and support to victims of natural calami-

330

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017ties; respect and promote human rights; and hold former President Benigno
Aquino III accountable for the violation of indigenous peoples’ rights.4 A media
forum and photo exhibition on the theme of IPs’ right to education was also held.
Another gathering of 75 indigenous men and women from 29 indigenous peoples’ groups met in Quezon City from 9-11 August 2016 with the theme of “Ensuring
Fulfilment of IP Rights in the Implementation of the Sustainable Development
Goals”. The gathering formulated a statement on the state of IPs in the Philippines,
which they presented to the government and United Nations (UN) agencies, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. Among the salient demands raised were full and effective participation of IPs in the peace negotiation between the Philippine government and revolutionary groups; recognition ofcollective ownership of ancestral domains; ensuring education of IP children in theirmother tongue; strengthening of traditional occupations and innovations; a halt tomining operations which have adverse social and environmental impacts; support
for indigenous peoples’ climate change adaptation and mitigation actions; ensuring
representation of indigenous women in local decision-making bodies; and revamping the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The group also calledon the government to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples on an official mission to the Philippines in 2017.5 The government responseto these various IP agendas is yet to be seen.
The changes under the new administration since July 2016 have gained bothpraise and criticism from various parties. Indigenous peoples’ organizations wereamong those who expressed support for some of the populist pronouncements of
the President. During his inaugural address, the president specifically mentioned
the need for indigenous peoples’ concerns to be tackled during the peace negotiations between the government and revolutionary groups. Likewise, in his Stateof the Nation Address in July he said, “We will vigorously address the grievancesthat have been time and again expressed not only by the Bangsamoro, indigenous peoples and other groups for security, development, fair access to decisionmaking and acceptance of identities”.6
In a dialogue with Lumad evacuees in July, the President guaranteed the safe
return of Lumad evacuees who had fled their village after three civilians were
killed by paramilitary forces in their militarized communities. In October 2016, after more than a year of staying in evacuation centres, some 4,700 Lumad evacuees thus returned home to Lianga, Surigao del Sur, where they found their homes
and farms in derelict conditions, requiring months of hard work to be able to return

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

331

to their normal lives, with no support or compensation offered by the government.7 Meanwhile, indigenous organizations have remained critical, particularlyof the continued militarization under the Oplan Bayanihan counter-insurgency
operations and the rise in the number of extrajudicial killings.

Resumption of peace talks
One major development during the last six months of 2016 was the resumption inpeace negotiations between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and theCommunist Party of the Philippines, New Peoples’ Army and National Democratic
Front of the Philippines (CPP-NPA-NDFP), which have been waging an armed
revolution since 1968. The resumption in peace talks (which were suspended in2011) came with the release of 21 political prisoners, affirmation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights and the Respect for International Humanitarian
Law signed in 1998, acceleration of discussions on the substantive agenda andunprecedented indefinite unilateral ceasefires by both sides of the armed conflict.8
IP groups expressed support for the peace talks, especially since many IP
areas are where the armed struggle is taking place. The military claims that “90%of guerrilla bases and NPA camps are inside ancestral domain areas and 3 out of
4 NPAs in Eastern Mindanao are indigenous.” 9 In light of the ongoing peace talks,
IPs are pushing for the inclusion of IP rights and concerns over ancestral lands inthe draft Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms (CASER).
Regarding the Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination in Mindanao, theproposed draft Bangsamoro Basic Law failed to make it through the previous
Congress and was shelved. The new administration has now reconstituted theBangsamoro Transition Committee and has initiated dialogue with both the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)
aimed at arriving at a new draft Bangsamoro law under a proposed federal system of government.10

Militarization and human rights violations
President Duterte has gained notoriety all over the world for his “war on drugs”,
known as Oplan Tokhang, which has resulted in a rising death toll and worsening

332

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

climate of impunity in the country. As of 2 January 2017, Rappler had documented 6,218 people killed in the war on drugs since 1 July 2016. Of this number,
2,169 killings were of suspected drug personalities while 4,049 were victims ofextrajudicial killings.11 Various civil society organizations and institutions in the
country have strongly criticized the violation of due process and the rule of law
brought about by the war on drugs.
Political extrajudicial killings of IPs and other human rights violations havealso continued as a result of the militarization of indigenous communities despite
the unilateral ceasefires declared by both the government and the NDFP. On 13
October 2016, a 28-year-old member of Panalipdan Youth in Compostela Valley
was shot dead by gunmen believed to be elements of the Philippine Army’s 46th
Infantry Battalion while on his way home.12 In the province of Ifugao, the continued use of barangay or community halls as military camps by the 54th Infantry
Battalion of the Philippine Army has instilled fear in the residents and is endangering their lives. On 18 November 2016, a civilian worker had an argument with asoldier of the 54th Infantry Battalion who then shot him stating that it was in selfdefence.13

Suspension of mining operations
Gina Lopez, a well-known environmental advocate, was appointed the new Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Lopez embarked on an environmental audit of 41 mining companies operating in various
parts of the country, including IP territories. Prior to the audit, Lopez had alreadysuspended the operations of 10 mines for violating environmental laws. The audit
resulted in a list of 20 more mines recommended for suspension.14 IPs are currently pushing for the issuance and implementation of the suspension orders.

Expansion of monocrop plantations
Indigenous peoples have expressed alarm over government plans to boost foreign corporate oil palm investments and expand monoculture plantations in thePhilippines. In Mindanao, several hundred thousand hectares have already been
converted into oil palm plantations.15 The government has pronounced 5.67 mil-

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

333

lion hectares or 18% of the country’s total land area for land-use conversion
through joint corporate agribusiness venture agreements and direct foreign investments. This includes expansion of oil palm areas to a million hectares, largely in Mindanao, and up to 15,469 hectares in eight municipalities of South Palawan,16 affecting indigenous communities. The aggressive expansion of plantations in recent years has led to many cases of human rights violations against
farmers, plantation workers and indigenous peoples. Community members fromthe municipalities of Bataraza and Española in Palawan reported how their rights
had been violated by several companies that continue to expand their palm oil
plantations on community lands without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent(FPIC). The Palawan NGO Coalition Against Land Grabbing (CALG) and theCommission on Human Rights in the Philippines (CHRP) conducted a fact-finding
investigation that revealed a pattern of land grabs and forest destruction by palm
oil companies and indicated the complicity of government officials in defrauding
indigenous peoples of their lands.17

Lakbayan 2016 (Journey 2016)
From 13-21 October 2016, around 3,000 IPs and Moro from different regions of
the country converged on Metro Manila for the Lakbayan (Journey) of National
Minorities for Self-Determination and Just Peace.18 The Lakbayan aimed to promote the rights and struggles of national minorities through a series of protests,
seminars, fora, dialogues and meetings with Congressmen and government
agencies, as well as cultural and solidarity events calling for a halt to development
aggression, militarization, human rights violations and government neglect of social services. On 19 October 2016, IPs and Moro people protesting in front of the
US Embassy were violently and repeatedly rammed by a police car and dispersedwith water cannon, truncheons and tear gas, leaving at least 50 people wounded
and 29 under arrest.19 Among those injured was Piya Malayao, Secretary General of Katribu, who condemned the police brutality in dispersing the protesters.
The Lakbayan was nevertheless successful in raising broader public awarenessof the plight of IPs in the country and in forwarding their demands to concerned
government officials and agencies.

334

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Formation of SANDUGOOn 14 and 15 October 2016, around 600 delegates held a two-day assembly tolaunch the SANDUGO Movement of Moro and Indigenous Peoples for Self-Determination, marking the first time that IPs and the Bangsamoro people havecome together for collective actions in their common struggle for self-determination. At least 51 convenors from various tribes, ethnolinguistic groups and advocates made up the founding National Convenors of SANDUGO. Aside fromlaunching the movement, the assembly came up with a resolution which theysubmitted to both GPH and CPP-NPA-NDFP peace panels, calling for a separate
section on IP rights and Moro concerns in the CASER in order to address thedistinct problem of national oppression in the country.20

UN submissions on Philippine IPs
Throughout 2016, several Philippine IP organizations were involved in preparing
shadow reports, making interventions and/or submitting complaints to various UN
mechanisms, including the UNPFII, CESCR, CEDAW, UPR and Business and Human Rights, in order to present the situation of Philippine indigenous peoples. Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5

6

Rappler. “#PHVote 2016 Official Election Results”, http://ph.rappler.com/elections/2016/results/
official
Altermidya. ‘Comprehensive agenda’: Sectoral groups present set of reforms for Duterte gov’t,
http://altermidya.net/comprehensive-agenda-sectoral-groups-present-set-reforms-duterte-govt/
Ayroso, Dee. Bulatlat. “Groups bring 6-point Indigenous Peoples Agenda to Duterte”, http://bulatlat.com/main/2016/08/11/groups-bring-6-point-indigenous-peoples-agenda-to-duterte/
Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas. “Ang Adyenda ng mga Katutubong
Mamamayan sa Gobyernong Rodrigo Duterte” (IP Agenda on the Rodrigo Duterte Government)
Ensuring Fulfillment of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Implementation of the SDGs. Statementof indigenous peoples in the Philippines presented to the representatives of UN bodies andgovernment agencies during the celebration of International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples 9-11 August 2016, http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/content/372-ensuring-fulfillment-ofindigenous-peoples-rights-in-the-implementation-of-the-sustainable-development-goals
Inquirer.net. FULL TEXT: President Duterte’s first State of the Nation Address,

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19
20

335

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/799060/full-text-president-rodrigo-duterte-first-sona-state-nation-address-2016#ixzz4UmXJyXus
Inquirer, 26 October 2016. “Lumad evacuees now home, face challenge of restarting lives”, http://
newsinfo.inquirer.net/833534/lumad-evacuees-now-home-face-challenge-of-restarting-lives
Interkasyon. “Bayan, Karapatan list achievements, challenges of Duterte’s first 100 days”, http://interaksyon.com/article/133104/10-10--bayan-lists-achievements-challenges-of-dutertes-first-100-daysRappler. “Lumad: Caught in the middle of a war”, http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/indepth/105272-lumad-eastern-mindanao-war
Inquirer.net. “Bangsamoro Commission reconstituted”. Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/842046/
bangsamoro-commission-reconstituted
Rappler. “IN NUMBERS: The Philippines’ ‘war on drugs’”, http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs
Bulatlat. “Another Lumad killed in Compostela Valley”, http://bulatlat.com/main/2016/10/13/anotherlumad-killed-compostela-valley/
Press Statement, 24 November 2016: “Ifugao Peasant Movement Statement on the Continued
Militarization of Ifugao”
Philippine Daily Inquirer. “20 mining firms face suspension”,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/819728/20-mining-firms-face-suspension
Juan M. Pulhin and Mark Anthony M. Ramirez. National Updates on Agribusiness Large Scale Land
Acquisitions in Southeast Asia. Brief #4 of 8: Republic of the Philippines
http://ppdci.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/5th-NPOC-report2.pdf
Forest Peoples Programme. Human rights violations and agribusiness – Justice now for impacted
communities! 14 December 2015, http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/agribusiness/news/2015/12/
human-rights-violations-and-agribusiness-justice-now-impacted-commu
GMA News, 14 October 2016. “Some 3k indigenous people gather at UP Diliman to call for protection of rights, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/584982/news/nation/some-3k-indigenouspeople-gather-at-up-diliman-to-call-for-protection-of-rights
Bulatlat, 19 October 2016. “50 injured, 29 nabbed as police disperse protest at US embassy”, http://bulatlat.com/main/2016/10/19/50-injured-29-nabbed-as-police-disperse-protest-at-us-embassy/
Sandugo Resolusyon hinggil sa: Pagbubuo ng Hiwalay na Seksyon sa CASER sa Karapatan ng
Pambansang Minorya o Katutubong Mamamayan at Moro. 15 October 2016.

Sarah Bestang K. Dekdeken is a Kankanaey Igorot from the Cordillera region innorthern Philippines. She is a staff member of the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance, afederation of progressive peoples’, mostly grassroots-based, organizations
among indigenous communities in the Cordillera region.
Jill K. Cariño, an Ibaloi Igorot, is the current Vice Chairperson for External Affairsof the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance, and Convenor and Program Director of the Philippine Task Force for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (TFIP), a network of non-governmental organizations in the Philippines advancing the cause of indigenous peoples.

336

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

INDONESIA
Indonesia has a population of approximately 250 million. The government
recognizes 1,128 ethnic groups. The Ministry of Social Affairs identifies
some indigenous communities as komunitas adat terpencil (geographically-isolated indigenous communities). However, many more peoples
self-identify or are considered by others as indigenous. Recent government Acts and Decrees use the term masyarakat adat to refer to indigenous peoples. The national indigenous peoples’ organization, Aliansi
Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), estimates that the number of indigenous peoples in Indonesia lies between 50 and 70 million people.
The third amendment to the Indonesian Constitution recognizes indigenous peoples’ rights in Article 18b-2. In more recent legislation, thereis implicit recognition of some rights of peoples referred to as masyarakat
adat or masyarakat hukum adat, including Act No 5/1960 on Basic Agrarian Regulation, Act No 39/1999 on Human Rights, and MPR Decree No
X/2001 on Agrarian Reform. Act No 27/2007 on Management of Coastal
and Small Islands and Act No 32/2010 on Environment clearly use theterm Masyarakat Adat and use the working definition of AMAN. The Constitutional Court affirmed the Constitutional Rights of Indigenous Peoples
to their land and territories in May 2013, including their collective rights
over customary forest.
While Indonesia is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), government officials argue that the concept of indigenous peoples is not applicable as almost all Indonesians(with the exception of the ethnic Chinese) because they are indigenous
and thus entitled to the same rights. Consequently, the government has
rejected calls for specific needs from groups identifying themselves as
indigenous. On 10 August 2015, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry
agreed to be the trustee of 6.8 million hectares of indigenous maps, for
inclusion in the One Map Initiative.

1 Kapuas Hulu District

2 Sikka District

1

2

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

337

338

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Policy developmentsS

ome changes occurred in 2016 at the policy level. One of these was Regulation of
the Minister of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN)
No. 10 of 2016 on the Procedure for Enacting Communal Rights. Although, substantively, no major changes were made to this regulation, it is more detailed than Ministerial Regulation No 9 of 2015 on Communal Rights. Despite the changes, it has to be
admitted that implementation has been very slow, and on a small scale.
At the local level, despite early signs of implementation of the Village Law (which
recognizes indigenous governance systems) in some districts, such as Pelalawan
District, Riau Province, or ongoing implementation in Jayapura with the “indigenous
village” initiative, this could not cover up the fact that the legislative processes for thebill on recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, the legality ofcustomary forests and the legality of indigenous territories were not as busy as inprevious years. There was very little meaningful progress at all in 2016.
Violence and criminalisation of indigenous peoples continue. Almost no meaningful efforts have been made to systematically stop the acts of violence against
indigenous peoples. Moreover, the handling of cases of violence and criminalisationof indigenous peoples became more complicated in 2016, especially with the emergence of new types of conflict related to infrastructure and dams, and the more obvious military intervention in such violence and criminalisation.
Spaces for conflict resolution scarcely improved the situation of indigenous
peoples. Various complaints to state agencies failed to get a due response. Eventhe courts could do little to bring hope to indigenous peoples. One or two cases
won by indigenous peoples at the first level court were overturned following appeal, as happened to a group of indigenous peoples from Muara Teweh, Central
Kalimantan (see below).

New spirit amidst the fading hope for legal reform at both national
and local level
Finally, after two years of waiting since the 2014 National Legislation Program,the National Parliament re-included the Indigenous Peoples Bill into the 2017 Listof Priority Bills on 9 December 2016.1 Forty-nine bills are currently listed in the

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

339

2017 National Legislation Program, one of which is the Indigenous Peoples Bill.
However, it is worth noting that it is only a list, since the National Parliament will
simply adopt this list at a plenary session on a date not yet decided. Indigenous
peoples have to make sure that the Indigenous Peoples Bill is not removed fromthis list.
Of the political processes occurring during the preparations for this National
Legislation Program, special appreciation should be given to some Members of
Parliament who are constantly, tirelessly, fighting for the creation of national legal
frameworks for indigenous peoples. In addition to the Indigenous Peoples Bill,
several bills relating to indigenous peoples are also on the 2017 list of legislation,
including the Land Bill, Palm Oil Bill and Conservation Bill. Discussion of thesebills must be done openly and they must be examined closely. Contradictions arelikely to occur between one bill and another. Moreover, special attention should
be given to the Palm Oil Bill because the urgency of this bill is now being questioned. Instead of discussing this bill, the government should prioritise the Forestry Law, which still retains Law No 41 of 1999. The amendments that have repeatedly been reviewed by the Constitutional Court deserve priority at this time.
And what about the Indigenous Peoples Task Force? Three years havepassed since 2 January 2014 when AMAN proposed the draft Presidential Regulation on the Indigenous Peoples Task Force through the Secretary of Cabinet. To
date, however, a Presidential Regulation on the Indigenous Peoples Task Forcehas yet to be enacted.

One Map Policy going nowhere
Inaction and obscurity are the order of the day in the One Map Policy Program.2
Data and information on the existence of indigenous peoples and customary territories has continuously been transmitted to the government since 2012. As ofthe end of November 2016, the Indigenous Territory Registration Body (BRWA)
had registered as many as 703 maps of indigenous territories covering a total
area of 8.3 million hectares.
Despite many discussions, however, there has been no significant policy response from the ministries and agencies receiving the maps of indigenous territories. The Geospatial Information Agency (BIG), meanwhile, will produce theindigenous territories map as one of their thematic maps, as a component in

340

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017support of Joko Widodo and Jusuf Kalla’s government agenda of achieving the
One Map Policy pursuant to Presidential Decree No 9 of 2015.

Threat to indigenous peoples’ traditional farming andfood self-sufficiency
The President issued Presidential Instruction No 11 of 2015 on Improved Forest
and Land Fire Control on 24 October 2015. Through its implementation, thisPresidential Instruction has caused fear among indigenous communities3 as police and armed forces have reportedly been intimidating indigenous peoples. This
Presidential Instruction indicates that indigenous peoples’ dry farming tradition,using a burning technique, is the cause of forest fires.
Some incidents have been reported to the police, one of which was in Pelalawan District, Riau Province where 92 community members were detained on
charges of alleged land burning, while only 15 companies were examined on
similar allegations. Twenty-five of the 92 community members are now awaiting
trial. Only one company has been taken to court, however, while investigations
into another three have been discontinued.
In West Kalimantan, the members of the Dayak Bahau, Dayak Kayan andDayak Kenyah indigenous peoples in Mahakam Ulu were reportedly being put
under pressure by the police. Seven Dayak Iban villages in Jalai Lintang indigenous territory, Kapuas Hulu District were also pressured in similar ways. In fact,
12 residents had been sanctioned compulsory reporting on their whereabouts.
Similar cases have also occurred in Central Kalimantan and South Kalimantan.
It is evident that the policy does not understand the provisions set out in thelegislation, particularly related to making exceptions for the local wisdom-based
forest burning technique. Local wisdom dictates the burning of a maximum of two
hectares of land per household in order to plant local varieties of plant, all surrounded by firebreaks to prevent the fire from spreading, as outlined in Law No 32
of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, particularly Article 69
paragraph (1) and (2) juncto Explanation of Article 69 paragraph (2).

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

341

The struggle to take back indigenous territories throughjudicial channels
On 6 December 2016, after struggling for nearly a year through the courts, thelawsuit filed by the Talonang indigenous peoples against PT. Sumbawa Island
Agro was dismissed by the judges of Sumbawa District Court as it was deemed
obscure and lacking a party. PT. Sumbawa Agro is a company engaged in thedevelopment of sisal (agave sisalana perrine), which is a natural fibre crop used
as a raw material. With this ruling, the Talonang indigenous peoples were unable
to take back their indigenous territory, which was being controlled by the company. The Semunying Jaya indigenous peoples were likewise handed down a similar ruling in a case against PT. Ledo Lestari in West Kalimantan. After a one-year
trial, the judges ruled that the lawsuit filed by the Semunying Jaya indigenous
peoples was obscure and lacking a party. Decisions such as these are not prohibited but they are rather arbitrary because the simple logic that a case is “obscureand lacking a party” should be decided at the time of the interlocutory judgment,
thus spending less money and energy on the ensuing legal proceedings.

New stage of violence and criminalisation of indigenous peoples
In previous years, cases of violence and criminalisation of indigenous peoples
took place predominantly in the plantation sector, forest-related industry and mining but, in 2016, the cases were more varied. Some were related to dam construction, as was the case a few decades ago. 2016 was also marked by a returnof “military force”, which became more active in safeguarding the smooth runningof investments in indigenous territories. Some of the cases described below show
that, in addition to the police, the military are frequently involved in conflicts, in aposition that is at odds with indigenous peoples.
In August 2016, the Head of Sikka District issued Instruction No. Pem.
305/115/2016 ordering Soge and Goban indigenous peoples to vacate their ancestral territories immediately. The grounds for this instruction were that the Sikka
District Government had allocated the territories of these two indigenous communities to PT. Krisrama, despite their lack of a concession license. The instruction proved the lack of impartiality of the Sikka District Head, who clearly favours

342

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

investment over the survival of the Soge and Goban indigenous peoples. It also
reflected the Sikka District Government’s inability to solve a problem that had
been ongoing for a long time, ever since these indigenous territories were controlled by PT. Diosis Agung, a company involved in coconut plantations.
In October 2016,4 11 members of the Seko indigenous peoples were arrested
by North Luwu Police on charges of destroying equipment and expelling employees of PT. Prima Power Seko. The company is going to build a hydropower plantwith a 380 megawatt capacity, far exceeding the needs of North Luwu District.
These eleven people are still being detained at Luwu Utara police station, underinvestigation. Prior to this detention, hundreds of Seko indigenous peoples hadrallied to protest at the presence of PT. Seko Prima Power, a hydropower company taking over Seko indigenous territories. This case arose several years ago.
It forms a real threat to the Seko indigenous peoples as some villages will be
submerged when the dam is built for the hydropower plant’s reservoir. In addition
to this there is the social damage, which first began when PT. Seko Prima Powerarrived in the area and will escalate if this company continues to operate in theregion. This is not to mention the potential damage to the Seko’s culture, including their ancestral sites. Furthermore, the dignity of the Seko is also being violated
as the company has pursued a most uncivilised path, without any open consultation. The strong political and economic factors underlying the entry of this company only exacerbate the situation. This hydropower development is allegedly
intended to facilitate two mining companies, namely PT. Citra Palu Minerals and
PT Kalla Arebamma, which have been planned by the government since 2011.
On 17 November 2016, at around 19:20 East Indonesia Time, an investigatorfrom the Ngada Police committed an act of violence against a 20-year-old member of the Lambo indigenous community in Nagekeo District, East Nusa Tenggara
Province. This member was hit twice on the chest, and twice in the abdomen witha book. He was forced to tell the perpetrator who had burned the drilling equipment used for dam construction. This violent act was committed after an incident
on 8 November 2016 when drilling equipment at Lambo Dam construction site
was found burning while under escort from the police and civil service police unit
(Satpol PP). Although the cause of the fire remains unknown, the police haveaccused the Lambo indigenous peoples of being the perpetrators.
The Lambo dam construction plan, which is a continuation of the Mbay dam
construction in 1999, has long been rejected by the people due to the encroachment onto their territories, the lack of information about the dam construction

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

343

plan, the intimidation and criminalisation of indigenous peoples, the absence ofan Environmental Impact Assessment, and the fact that the dam construction on
the Lambo indigenous territories is not in accordance with the spatial planning of
Nagekeo District. Having been at a halt for years, Nagekeo District Government
finally went ahead with the dam construction in 2016. Since 6 June 2016, theNagekeo District Government, along with the Survey Team and escorted by thecivil service police unit, Nagekeo District police, and fully-armed military personnel, has been forcibly entering the construction site to conduct a survey. Butowe
Rendu Village Head sent a letter rejecting the Lambo dam construction plans to
Nagekeo Government. The letter was accompanied by official minutes of rejection signed by the tribe’s elders. The Nagekeo District government has ignored
the protests of the indigenous peoples, however.
The 25 and 26 November 2016 marked a culmination in the fear being experienced by the Alut and Tuyan indigenous peoples in Tana Bumbu, South Kalimantan Province. Escorted by 300 state officials, namely police, Mobile Brigade
Corps and military personnel, PT. Jhonlin Agro Mandiri displaced the Alut andTuyan indigenous peoples from their farmlands with the use of heavy equipment.
Rubber, rice, bananas, jering bean (dogfruit) and other plants were destroyed.
Agricultural tools such as sickles were seized. Three members of the public werealso attacked with weapons by the Mobile Brigade Corps. Such threats and violence committed by the state against indigenous peoples proves the state’s failure to protect indigenous peoples. In the eyes of the indigenous peoples, thestate is now heavily slanted in favour of investment even though this often destroys the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and the environment.


Notes and references
12
3
4

List of Priorities 2017, see http://www.dpr.go.id/uu/prolegnas
Oxford Business Group, Indonesia introduces one map policy as a solution to overlapping landclaims, see http://goo.gl/VxZjNn
Jakarta Globe, Plan to Ban Land Burning Sparks Concern About Indigenous People, see http://
goo.gl/RD9wAM
Mongabay Indonesia, Kala Protes PLTA, Belasan Warga Seko Ditangkap, 29 October 2016,
https://goo.gl/AJBlEB344

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Abdon Nababan is a Toba Batak from North Sumatra. He is the Secretary General of Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara/AMAN.
Rukka Sombolinggi is a Toraya from Sulawesi, and is Deputy to AMAN’s Secretary General on Policy Advocacy, Legal Issues and Politics.

345

MALAYSIA
As of 2015, the indigenous peoples of Malaysia were estimated to account for around 13.8% of the 31,660,700 million national population.1
They are collectively known as Orang Asal. The Orang Asli are the indigenous peoples of Peninsular Malaysia. The 18 Orang Asli subgroups
within the Negrito (Semang), Senoi and Aboriginal-Malay groups accountfor about 210,000 or 0.7% of the population of Peninsular Malaysia(31,005,066). In Sarawak, the indigenous peoples are collectively known
as natives (Dayak and/or Orang Ulu). They include the Iban, Bidayuh,
Kenyah, Kayan, Kedayan, Lunbawang, Punan, Bisayah, Kelabit, Berawan, Kejaman, Ukit, Sekapan, Melanau and Penan. They constitutearound 1,932,600 or 70.5% of Sarawak’s population of 2,707,600 people.
In Sabah, the 39 different indigenous ethnic groups are known as natives
or Anak Negeri and make up about 2,233,100 or 58.6% of Sabah’s population of 3,813,200. The main groups are the Dusun, Murut, Paitan andBajau groups. While the Malays are also indigenous to Malaysia, they are
not categorised as indigenous peoples because they constitute the majority and are politically, economically and socially dominant.
In Sarawak and Sabah, laws introduced by the British during theircolonial rule recognising the customary land rights and customary law of
the indigenous peoples are still in place. However, they are not properly
implemented, and are even outright ignored by the government, which
gives priority to large-scale resource extraction and the plantations of private companies and state agencies over the rights and interests of theindigenous communities. In Peninsular Malaysia, while there is a clear
lack of reference to Orang Asli customary land rights in the National Land
Code, Orang Asli customary tenure is recognised under common law.
The principal Act that governs Orang Asli administration, including occupation of the land, is the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954.
Malaysia has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and endorsed the Outcome Document of
the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples but has not ratified ILO
Convention 169.

346

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Follow-up to the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous
PeoplesIn August 2016, the Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (or Indigenous Peoples’
Network of Malaysia / JOAS) submitted a memorandum to a Federal Minister
under the Prime Minister’s Department calling for greater transparency in providing information on the progress and timely implementation of the recommendations to resolve issues related to the land rights of indigenous peoples. In 2013,
the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) published the findings of
its National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A Task Force wasappointed by the government to assess the findings and recommend steps fortheir implementation (see The Indigenous World 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
In June 2015, the Federal Cabinet accepted all of the Task Force’s 50 recommendations (categorised into short-, medium- and long-term plans) but rejected
the call for a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to be established,stating that the function of a commission would be served by a Cabinet Committee for the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Indigenous peoples are concerned that the Cabinet Committee has not communicated with indigenous communities or organisations since its establishment
but has tasked the Governance and Integrity Bureau (BITU) to be its secretariat.
In conjunction with the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples celebrations in August 2016, representatives held a dialogue with the Director of
BITU to call for better and more timely communications, to ensure transparency
in its process and to involve the Orang Asal. To date, however, the BITU has notcontacted indigenous organisations nor replied formally to the memorandum submitted to the Minister through BITU.

Challenging encroachment onto indigenous lands and territories
At the start of 2016, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak reiterated the needto establish a land tribunal to look into cases of Native Customary Rights (NCR)
over lands and territories in order to hasten the settlement of such cases. It wassuggested that proposed members of the tribunal could include those knowledgeable in native land claims and legal issues with a cultural and traditional dimen-

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

347

sion. The proposed land
tribunal was recommended
by the SUHAKAM National
Inquiry into the Land Rightsof the Orang Asal andadopted by the Cabinet
Committee but has yet tobe implemented.
Realising the need tostrengthen its advocacy onlands and territories, many
indigenous peoples’ organisations scaled up theircommunity mapping efforts
in Sabah, Sarawak andPeninsular Malaysia in
2016 and invested in drone
technology. They also
linked their advocacy efforts with the international
Land Rights Now! campaign. More than 10 new
traditional territories were
mapped and many moreon-the-ground situations
were captured using thedrone. For example, thedrone was able to capture
the encroachment of agribusiness onto indigenous
territories through aerial
photographs which, in thepast, could not be taken
due to the companies refusing access. Among the
local land conflicts that

348

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017need highlighting is the dismantling of several blockades set up by the Orang
Asli of Gua Musang to stop logging. In November, more than 50 Orang Asli werearrested and detained but later released on bail. This did not break their spirit,
however, and they set up more blockades despite further threats from the authorities. It was important to note the heightened interest from the media, NGOs
and the public in this regard.
More communities filed cases in court during 2016 and a number of victories
were gained. However, the majority decision of the Federal Court on 20 December
regarding the Sarawak government’s appeal in the case brought by TR Sandah(see The Indigenous World 2016) was extremely disappointing to Orang Asal. It
was ruled that the customary practice of indigenous peoples did not have the forceof law because – even if shown to exist – it did not fall within the definition of customary laws under the Sarawak Land Ordinance. The Federal Court’s decision will have
major legal implications for large tracts of customary lands and forests currently
occupied, used and enjoyed by the indigenous peoples of Malaysia. It is also a serious setback in the decades of struggle by indigenous peoples in Malaysia to exercise their customary rights to their territorial domains and to maintain their traditional system of land and resource use, which has contributed to the sustainable
use and conservation of the rainforests in Borneo and Peninsular Malaysia.
In Peninsular Malaysia, the Orang Asli made some gains in the courts. In thecase of Kong Chee Wai, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High
Court and asserted that the Semai of Kampung Senta had native title right to theircustomary lands (estimated at 2,000 hectares) despite a large part of it having
been alienated to a private company. However, it is still not conclusive as towhether the Orang Asli enjoy blanket rights to their customary lands. Several
other court cases are at various stages of hearing or appeal, and these may alter
the landscape of the recognition of Orang Asli land rights.

Anti-dam campaign
In Sabah, protests at the proposed construction of the Kaiduan dam in the upper Papar River continued throughout 2016, and particularly in October when the director
and deputy director of the Sabah Water Department were allegedly involved in thesiphoning off of RM3.3 billion in federal funds for water development in Sabah. The
Water Department has been the key department pushing for the Kaiduan dam. Thus

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

349

far, however, only three people have been taken to court, one of them being the former
Sabah Water Department director who was charged with 12 counts of money laundering involving a total of RM 56.9 million (S$18.4 million) at the Sessions Court.
Despite calls from many quarters to review the decision to build the dam inview of this scandal, the department instead went on the offensive against theaffected communities. The government is adamant that the dam is the best option
to prepare for a purported water shortage, and has shot down every recommendation made to adopt alternative water supply measures and step up efforts to
reduce pipe leakages, reported to stand at more than 30% of water lost.
In Sarawak, the persistent and intensive campaign by indigenous peoples inBaram and throughout Sarawak as well as the support of various groups, CSOs
and individuals at the local, national and international level also attracted the attention of the then Chief Minister of Sarawak, Tan Sri Adenan Satem and theSarawak government. Adenan humbly acknowledged the strong opposition to the
proposed mega Baram HEP Dam which, if implemented, would have submerged
30 villages and around 420 km2 (42,000 hectares of forested lands and gardensof the affected villages). It would also have forcibly displaced and dispossessedmore than 20,000 indigenous people from their traditional homelands. He ordered the project to be stopped and revoked the government gazette to extinguish the NCR of the indigenous communities in the target reservoir area of the
proposed HEP Dam, just a few months prior to the Sarawak State Elections in
May 2016. Meanwhile, the people of Baram are still cautious and are continuing
to monitor activities related to the proposed mega dam.

Economic and political insecurity
Malaysia continued to face serious economic and political insecurities throughout
2016, which have also affected service delivery and commitments to indigenous
peoples. The National Coalition, dominated by the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), has held power for six decades and has devised many ways
to protect itself and its top leaders, and to purge critics. The 1MBD scandal linking
the Prime Minister to the siphoning of funds earmarked for development raged on
for the third year. Even though related legal actions and investigations have been
initiated in several countries such as the USA, Switzerland and Singapore, there
have been no further developments in the parliamentary investigation in Malaysia,

350

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

and no one in Malaysia has been charged with the 1MDB’s missing money. A court
has, however, handed down a prison sentence to an opposition politician who managed to expose the 1MDB scandal, and an editor and publisher of one of Malaysia’s
independent news organisations are facing jail under a rule which forbids certain
content from being published with the “intent to annoy”. A news portal was also
closed down in March after the authorities ordered its website blocked.
The ringgit has depreciated faster than other emerging-market currencies,
and the authorities asked foreign banks to stop some ringgit trading abroad, raising fears of harsher controls. The introduction of the Goods & Services Tax andthe removal of subsidies on fuel and essential goods has further burdened thecommunities, and particularly angered rural indigenous communities because
service delivery and poor infrastructure have not improved.
Indigenous peoples have been among the most affected economically. They
participated in peaceful assemblies and sent several memoranda to the government. One such peaceful assembly was BERSIH 5, organised by the Movement
for Clean & Fair Elections, BERSIH (see The Indigenous World 2016) in October
2016 in several cities in Malaysia and elsewhere around the world. In connection
with BERSIH 5, on 19 November 2016 Maria Chin Abdullah was detained for 10
days under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the government had promised
would never be used against political opponents and critics. Many believe that the
motivation behind the detention was to stifle outrage over 1MDB, a state-owned
investment firm from which billions have gone missing.2
Meanwhile, on 20 December 2016, Jannie Lasimbang was acquitted of thecharges brought against her by the government under the Peaceful Assembly Act
2012 (PAA) for her role in organising BERSIH 4 in Sabah (see The Indigenous
World 2016). The magistrate also opined that a notice to the police to hold peaceful assemblies was not necessary as long as the government has not compliedwith a requirement in the PAA to gazette public places for assemblies.

National and international advocacy
In November 2015, the Sabah government mandated a transition to 100% Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO) by 2025 and appointed a Jurisdictional Certification Steering Committee (JCSC) to oversee the process. The JCSC comprises
government, industry and civil society representatives and is convened by the

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

351

Sabah Forest Department, with Forever Sabah and RSPO as technical advisors.
The JCSC established four working groups on High Conservation Value Forests;
Compensation; Smallholders; and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for
this purpose. The working group on FPIC has produced a draft Guide and Operationalisation mechanism based on several workshops with communities, government and the private sector, to ensure FPIC application across the state that
could help resolve numerous complex issues in the oil palm sector.
In November, JOAS advocated for the implementation of FPIC in Malaysia at
the Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva, and also hosted an international Conference on Human Rights & Agribusiness. Two local cases were also
highlighted, namely the shrimp farms in Pitas and the oil palm joint-venture development in Bigor, a small village in the region of Nabawan in Sabah (approx. 250
km southwest of Kota Kinabalu), where their customary lands have been taken
under the pretext of granting communal titles to the community.
At the roundtable discussions on the mid-term follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) held by SUHAKAM in January 2016, indigenous peoples’
representatives also urged SUHAKAM to follow-up on the Land Inquiry report andto re-visit recommendations made during the 2013 UPR on Malaysia.
Notes and references
1

2

Malaysia Statistics Department, 2015. Click “Current population estimates” for Sabah and Sarawak
ethnic groups. For Sabah and Sarawak, the figure used is under “bumiputera” which includes the
Malays i.e. the “Brunei Malays” (Sabah) and “Malays” (Sarawak). The actual number of natives
should therefore be lower than this estimate. There is no breakdown by ethnic group. There is no
current population data available for the Orang Asli but this is sourced from the estimate of the
Department for Orang Asli Development (JAKOA), http://pqi.stats.gov.my/searchBI.php
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21710820-opposition-has-do-more-win-over-rural-malays-malaysians-underestimate-damage?zid=306&ah=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227

Jannie Lasimbang is a Kadazan from Sabah, Malaysia. She is currently the
Secretary General of Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS) or the Indigenous
Peoples’ Network of Malaysia. Other contributors for the article were Colin Nicholas (COAC) and Thomas Jalong (CICOM). JOAS is an umbrella network of 100
community-based indigenous organisations and six NGOs working on indigenous
peoples’ issues.

352

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

THAILAND
The indigenous peoples of Thailand live mainly in three geographical regions of the country: indigenous fisher communities (the Chao Ley) andsmall populations of hunter-gatherers in the south (Mani people); small
groups on the Korat plateau of the north-east and east; and the manydifferent highland peoples in the north and north-west of the country (theChao-Khao). Nine so-called “hill tribes” are officially recognised: the
Hmong, Karen, Lisu, Mien, Akha, Lahu, Lua, Thin and Khamu.1 According
to the Department of Welfare & Social Development, there are 3,429 “hilltribe” villages with a total population of 923,257 people.2 The indigenous
peoples of the south and north-east are not included.
A widespread misconception of indigenous peoples being drug producers and posing a threat to national security and the environment hashistorically shaped government policies towards indigenous peoples in
the northern highlands. Despite positive developments in recent years, it
continues to underlie the attitudes and actions of government officials.
Thailand has ratified or is a signatory to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) andthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It voted in support of theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) but does not officially recognise the existence of indigenous peoples in the country.

Although there have been some positive developments in Thailand’s politicalenvironment, such as the adoption of a draft constitution and a long-term
national strategic plan (20 years), the indigenous peoples’ situation remains thesame. Some issues have even become worse.

353

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

2

1

1 Rawai

2 Kaeng Krachan National Park

354

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Land grabbing at Rawai
Rawai, located in the province of Phuket, is a popular tourist spot in the south ofThailand. It is home to the Chao Ley (people of the sea), a collective term forthree indigenous groups: the Mogan, Moglen and Urak Lawoi. Their population isroughly 13,000 living in the five provinces of Phang Nga, Phuket, Krabi, Satunand Ranong along the Andaman coastal area and sea.
Rawai is one of the largest Chao Ley villages in the south. These villagers
were in an uncertain standoff with the Baron World Trade Co. Ltd throughout
2016. The company claims ownership of over 33-rai (5 hectares) of land (publicbeachfront at Rawai sub-district in Muang Phuket district). This overlaps with theancestral lands of the Chao Ley, who have used them to hold sacred ceremonies
for generations.
The situation degenerated into violence on 27 January 2016 when the company hired a group of young men using a backhoe and trucks to unload rocks
onto the road and try and block it to prevent villagers from entering the area.
These young men destroyed the huts and fishing equipment of the Chao Ley.
Around 30 Chao Ley were injured in the violent encounter, with 10 seriously hurt.3
The company claimed that it had legally obtained title to the land in order todevelop a luxury villa project on Rawai Beach but that construction work had been
obstructed by the Chao Ley, who refused to leave the disputed land.4 In the letter,the company also requested that the authorities deploy troops to protect company
workers as they started to construct the villas on the disputed land, which theauthorities had reportedly agreed to.
The public beachfront is where the Chao Ley moor their boats, unload fish,and keep their fishing equipment. The beach also includes their ritual sites andspirit house (Balai), where they perform sacred ceremonies and where the spiritsof their ancestors reside. According to an investigation by the National Human
Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), the cultural and religious practices of
the Chao Ley prove that they have used these lands for hundreds of years. The
road block has affected some 252 households living there, and a total of 2,063
people.5 This was confirmed by police Lieutenant Col. Prawut Wongsinil of the
Department of Special Investigation (DSI) under the Ministry of Justice. Various
forensic, historical and cultural evidence, such as aerial photographs, ancestral

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

355

Chao Ley graveyards, testimonials of witnesses, school registrations etc., showthat the Chao Ley have resided in the area for hundreds of years.6
When the government issued the first deeds to their land in 1965 (2508 BE),
there was no information provided to, nor consultation undertaken with, the Chao
Ley living in the area, let alone obtaining of their free, prior and informed consent(FPIC). This is still the case today.7 In November 2014, the Justice Ministry asked
the Department of Lands to revoke the title deeds held by several businessmen
claiming ownership of 11-rai (1.7 acres) of coastal lands in Phuket where the
Chao Ley community live.8 Despite several efforts, however, there has been no
progress in this matter. These efforts have included:
•
•

•

•

•

•

Establishing a committee to solve the land disputes of the Chao Ley infive provinces,9 under the chairmanship of General Surin Pikulthong.
On 2 February 2016, the Phuket provincial governor called for a meeting
between representatives of the company and the Chao Ley to settle thedispute. No agreement was reached.10
On 2 February 2016, the NHRCT also launched an inquiry into the case,including site visits and meetings.11 The report produced by the NHRCT
restated the legitimacy of the existence of the Chao Ley in Rawai withvarious evidence similar to the DSI findings, while calling for an investigation into the legality claimed by those with land title deeds.
A group of 30 Chao Ley submitted a written petition to the Deputy Prime
Minister Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan on 9 February 2016, seeking help toresolve the land dispute. They called on the Land Department to revoke
the land deeds issued to the company which, they claimed, overlappedwith 19-rai (3.20 acres) of their ancestral lands. They also called for acommittee tasked with solving land conflicts to investigate whether theland deeds were issued to the company legally or not.
On 11 February 2016, the Chao Ley representatives filed a complaint with
the Justice Ministry asking their cases to be handed over to the DSI toensure impartiality and efficiency. They also called for compensation for
34 members of the community who were injured in the violent encounterin January 2016.12
On 4 March 2016, in a Facebook video, Thai PBS reported a resumptionof construction work on the disputed land, with an excavator levelling the
ground to build a fence at the entrance. The Chao Ley could only watch

356

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

while the excavator went to work. There were around 20 military and police officers deployed in the area.13 The Chao Ley peoples have struggledwith this issue for years. They have sought in vain for the Thai authorities
to protect them from eviction. Successive governments have promised toreview the land ownership issue but there has been no progress to date.14
This case was also submitted to the Special Rapporteur, Ms Victoria Tauli Corpuz,
as a matter of urgency.15

Court case on burning Karen properties in Kaeng Krachan NationalPark
In 2014, the Karen filed a case against the Government of Thailand for the destruction of their property and forceful eviction.16
On 7 September 2016, the Central Administrative Court ruled that the park authorities did not break the law by burning Karen people’s properties in order toforcefully evict them from Kaeng Krachan National Park in 2011. The court dismissed all the demands of the Karen apart from compensation for the loss of theirproperties. The court ordered the Department of National Parks to pay compensation of 10,000 THB (approx. 287 USD) to each of the six Karen plaintiffs, in contrast
with their initial demands of 100,000 THB each. The Department has refused to payeven this meagre compensation and has pledged to appeal against it.
In its verdict, the court stated that because the Karen had “encroached” upon
forestland to expand their community and farms, the Department’s decision toburn down their homes was permissible under the National Park Act 1961. The
court also barred the community from returning to the land, which the Karen claim
belonged to their ancestors. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs, including a 105-year
old Karen spiritual leader, had lived on the lands all their lives until the evictions
began, generations before the National Park was established in 1981.
“The ruling that the Karen had ‘encroached’ forestland only affirms the general lack of understanding on our histories and sustainable traditional practices
and livelihoods,” said Wut Boonlert of the Karen Network for Culture and Environment. “Our rights to stay in our ancestral land and continue our traditional farm
rotation system are protected in the existing laws, including categorically underthe 2010 Cabinet Resolution. However, the court concluded that the resolution

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

357

does not give rights inside National Parks. So, that means our rights are only on
paper.”
Villagers are concerned that this will set a precedent for other authorities to do
the same in other forest areas. The affected villagers have now lodged an appeal
to the Central Administrative Court. The case is underway.

Referral once more of the inscription of Kaeng Krachan Forest
Complex (KKFC) as a Natural World Heritage site
Last year, the Thai government (Department of National Parks) undertook a series of consultations and workshops with Karen villagers living in or near the
Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) in response to the World Heritage Committee’s decision at its 39th session held in Bonn in 2015 (39 COM 8B.5). The
committee felt that Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) in Thailand hadstrong potential to meet criterion (x) for inscription as a World Natural Heritagesite but requested, among other things, that the State Party address the concerns
regarding the rights of the local Karen community living in the area.
The additional report submitted by the Thai government stated that they had
made various efforts to deal with this issue,17 i.e. a public hearing of all stakeholders, integrated collaboration of all relevant sectors around conflict resolution, andthe fostering of inclusive participation in management. The report further states,
among other things, that public hearings with all stakeholders, including representatives of Karen communities, had been arranged in each national park andwildlife sanctuary and, finally, for the entire forest complex. The outcome of theprocess shows that all stakeholders have been informed and acknowledged thenomination of KKFC for the World Natural Heritage List. For conflict resolution
and improvement of quality of life, a number of mechanisms and measures havebeen implemented to show Thailand’s readiness to look after the Karen communities. In terms of participation in management, representatives of different Karen
communities are included in the composition of the Protected Area Committee(PAC) of each national park and wildlife sanctuary of KKFC.
At the 40th session held in Istanbul and Paris, the World Heritage Committee
again decided to refer the nomination of the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex(decision 40 COM 8B.11) in order for the Government of Thailand to better address the concerns raised by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human

358

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Rights concerning the Karen communities, including the implementation of a participatory process to resolve rights and livelihood concerns and to achieve a consensus of support around the nomination.
Such a referral will allow the Thai government another three years to initiate
further steps in which to address the outstanding problems and concerns of the
Karen people and local communities living there.

Continued efforts to get indigenous peoples’ rights into the draft
constitution of Thailand
The draft 2016 constitution was finally approved in a national referendum on 8
August 2016. This draft adopted the term “Thai Ethnic Groups” rather than “Indigenous Peoples” as initially written in the first draft. It was stated in Chapter VI:
Policies of the state section that:“The State shall promote and protect the rights of Thai people of different
ethnic groups to live voluntarily and peacefully without disturbances in thesociety according to their culture, custom and traditional ways of life, in so far
as such livelihood is not contrary to public order or good morals of people, ordoes not harm the security of the State or health”.
In the section, the state apparently makes a commitment to promote and protect“Thai people of different ethnic groups”. It does not, however, define any of thegroups. Furthermore, there is no definition of precisely how ethnic people may
offend the “public order” or the “good morals of people”, or “harm the security of theState or health”. This issue is subject to further interpretation and deliberation. 

Notes and references
1

2
3

Ten groups are sometimes mentioned, i.e. the Palaung are also included in some official documents. The directory of ethnic communities of 20 northern and western provinces of the Department of Social Development and Welfare of 2002 also includes the Mlabri and Padong.
The figure given is sometimes 1,203,149 people, which includes immigrant Chinese in the north.
Documentation submitted to AIPP from local community representative. Also see Supra note 2
and Threatened seafarer tribes demand rights over their home, Prachatai, 11 February 2016,
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/5845

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

359

Green News TV (in Thai) http://www.greennewstv.com/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%
B8%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%8B%E0%
B8%B1%E0%B8%94-%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87/ as reported in HRW, Supra note 2
Ibid.
Thai PBS News (in Thai) http://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/7641 as reported in HRW Supra note
2
Interview on TV 11 channel as per documentation submitted to AIPP from local community representative.
Panel upholds sea gypsy claim, Bangkok Post, 5 November 2014, http://www.bangkokpost.com/
archive/panel-upholds-sea-gypsy-claim/441449
This was formed on 22 July 2014, as per Order 116/2014 of the Prime Minister’s Office and the
Cabinet Resolution on restoration of the traditional livelihoods of the Chao Ley (dated 2 June
2010)
Ibid.
Bangkok Post, Supra note 16
Prachatai, Supra note 7
Prachatai, Supra note 8
HRW, Supra note 2
A report jointly prepared and submitted by Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP) and Network of
Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (NIPT) in April 2016.
The Indigenous World 2014 and 2013
Additional report submitted to the World Heritage Committee dated 26 January 2016.

Kittisak Rattanakrajangsri is a Mien from the north of Thailand. He has worked
with indigenous communities and organisations since 1989. He is currently General Secretary of the Indigenous Peoples’ Foundation for Education and Environment (IPF) based in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

360

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

VIETNAMAs a multi-ethnic country, Vietnam has 54 recognized ethnic groups, 53 ofwhich are ethnic minority groups, comprising an estimated 12.3 million
people or around 14.27% of the country’s total population of some 91
million. Each ethnic minority group has its own distinct culture and traditions. The Vietnamese government does not use the term “indigenous
peoples” for any groups but it is generally the ethnic minorities living in themountainous areas that are referred to as Vietnam’s indigenous peoples.
The term “ethnic minorities” is thus often used interchangeably with “indigenous peoples” in Vietnam. Poverty is still high among the ethnic minorities. While the national poverty rate is 9.79%, it is still around 43- 48%
in many ethnic minority areas. The process of poverty reduction is unstable and there is a high poverty relapse rate.
All ethnic minorities have Vietnamese citizenship, and Vietnam’s constitution recognizes that all people have equal rights. There is no specificlaw on ethnic minorities but a ministry-level agency, the Committee on
Ethnic Minority Affairs, is in charge of ethnic minority affairs. The Government of Vietnam has ratified CERD, CEDAW and CRC but not ILO Convention 169 and although Vietnam voted in favour of the UNDRIP it does
not recognize ethnic minorities as indigenous peoples. The draft law on
association and the proposal to develop a specific national law on ethnic
minorities were not adopted by the National Assembly in 2016.

New legislation relevant to ethnic minoritiesO

f specific interest to ethnic minorities are the Law on Referendum No. 96/2015/
QH13, which took effect on 7 January 2016, and the Law on Religion and Belief,
which has been approved and will take effect on 1 January 2018. Most of the new laws
have no separate articles targeting ethnic minorities (EM).The draft proposal on thedevelopment of the Law on Ethnic Minorities was not approved by the National Assembly. This legislative proposal was once more rejected, more than 20 years after the
first concept note on the development of the Law on EM was initiated.

361

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

1

2

3

1 Lai Chau Province

2 Lao Cai Province

3 Dac Lak Province

362

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Vietnamese indigenous peoples’ involvement in REDD
UN-REDD is the first programme ever in Vietnam to promote EM participation at
all levels. It has been conducted in Vietnam with the technical support of UNEP,
FAO and UNDP since 2009. An EM Network was established in six UN-REDD
pilot provinces in 2015. The members of the EM Network, with the support of theCentre for Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas - CSDM, have beenorganized and strengthened to participate in developing, implementing and monitoring the REDD+ processes in these six pilot provinces.
One of the important elements of the REDD-related activities was the pilotingof FPIC in the six UN-REDD provinces. The consultation process with local communities was limited, however, as the REDD+ programme was not providing information to all local people and thus did not obtain the consent of all. At the sametime, UN-REDD is speeding up the process of finalizing the safeguard information
system with the aim of ensuring the right to participate and gain benefits fromforests and share such benefits with EM.
The draft Prime Minister’s decision on a National REDD+ Action Plan (NRAP)
for the period 2016-2020 and Vision 2030 included the phrase “ensuring the fulland effective participation of stakeholders, including ethnic minorities and womenfrom local communities” under the first part “Points of View”. The recognition andparticipation of ethnic minorities, and specifically CSDM, has been included in theReport on Self-Participatory Assessment of the REDD+ Readiness Package in
Vietnam, submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank.
UN-REDD phase II is coordinating with CSDM to conduct a survey of and selectethnic minorities in the pilot provinces; to elect the representatives of EM people
to participate on the REDD+ Programme Executive Board; and to deploy the plan
to connect with the EM networks in the pilot provinces. It has developed a set ofcriteria for selecting the EM representatives, identifying the specific tasks of these
representatives, and identifying the needs and interests of EM in relation to forest
protection and their participation in the REDD+ programme. UN bodies and theNorwegian government have encouraged the Government of Vietnam to effectively engage civil society and EM in formulating and implementing the NRAP investment plan.

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

363

Land tenure and forest land allocation
Policies, laws and regulations related to land tenure and forests are not consistent across the country in Vietnam and vary considerably from province to province. Furthermore, the process of Forest Allocation and Forest Land Allocation(FA/FLA) has not been applied consistently. Forest cover and land management
contexts differ significantly between provinces as well. The study in six provinces
found that the area of forestland that had been allocated to households and communities was considerably smaller than that allocated to State entities. The assessment also revealed the impacts of FA/FLA on forest conditions, on the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, the types and severity of conflicts, andother risks and challenges associated with the FA/FLA process. The summary of
key findings is divided into those related to the legal and policy framework, to FA/
FLA processes, and to FA/FLA practices.1

Ethnic minority policies
Between 2011 and 2015, the EM-related legislative system, with a total of 180
legal documents, was institutionalized through Government Decrees and Prime
Minister’s Decisions. However, this system still has the following shortcomings:
•
•
•

•

The existing legislative system has overlapping content, target groups
and valid terms.
Resources for policy enforcement are insufficient. Implementation also
lacks coordination, leading to low effectiveness and very limited impacts.
The inconsistency in coordination is mainly found in the implementation ofpolicies on emigration, production development support and/or policies
which require a series of solutions, large-scale application or are of relevance to many sectors.
The lack of systematic implementation of policies is also reflected at provincial level, where quite a few provinces have not followed the guidelinesof the central organs.

364

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

•

•
•

•

The legislative system is still focused on supporting well-being, infrastructure and production development but not on social investment, technology transfer or environmental protection.
The existing legislative system is not yet suitable for the specific features/condition of EM and their living areas.
Fairness and equality are not assured for all target groups in the same
area. Policy implementation is thus heavily subsidized, failing to promote
the driving forces and self-reliance of EM.
The feasibility and efficiency of land policies targeted at EM householdswith limited land availability and resettlement, as well as land and forest
allocation policies targeted at EM households, individuals and communities, remains low.

Sustainable Development Goals
Vietnam has promoted the SDG implementation as committed. Aiming to achieve
Goal 5, Target 5A and Target 5B “universal access to reproductive health in EM
areas”, Vietnam has developed the proposal “Minimizing child marriage and consanguineous marriage in EM areas for the period 2015 – 2025” approved by thegovernment. The programme aims to raise awareness, and change attitudes andbehaviour towards marriage among ethnic minorities. The project goal is to decrease child marriages by 2-3% per year in EM areas, with a 3-5% decrease in
consanguineous marriages per year. Since 2015, and as of July 2016, however,Son La province has witnessed nearly 500 child marriages and two consanguineous marriages. Child marriage is actually showing a tendency to increase.2

Indigenous women and youth
Although remarkable progress has been made in Vietnam to close the gender
gap in past years, important gender differences still remain. These differences arereflected in women’s and men’s contributions to productive and reproductive
work, formal and informal employment opportunities, different salary levels, poverty levels, literacy rates, their access to and control over natural resources.

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

365

Although representation of women in the National Assembly is high by regional standards and there are two female members of the Politburo, there arestill signs that women do not have an equal voice in public affairs. In fact, there
are some indications that women’s political representation has worsened slightly
in some areas. For example, women’s representation in the National Assembly
decreased from 27.3% in 2002-2007 to 24.4% for the 2011-2016 session.
Many of the barriers that women face in the political sphere are also encountered at grassroots level. Women tend not to be involved in decision-making. Attending village or commune meetings is commonly considered a man’s task.
Women’s participation in local People’s Committee Councils is significant but still
limited: 23.8% at provincial, 23.2% at district and 20% at commune level.
Access to land: there is a new policy to include both husband’s and wife’s
names on the land-use certificate but the results are still minimal. According to the2008 Vietnam Rural Economic Study in 12 provinces, the number of land-use
rights certificates registered in the names of both wife and husband (2006-2008) is
32% in Lai Chau, 27% in Lao Cai and 17% in Dak Lak. For agricultural land registered to both wife and husband, this figure is 21% for EM. However, some reports
note that even when their name is on the land-use certificate, many EM women still
do not take decisions on the use of the land due to their dependence on men andtheir lack of confidence. Having less land rights limits women’s access to credit withwhich to diversify income sources and recover from loss. The proportion of residential land-use right certificate without both names on them among EM is 77%.
EM women play an important role in forest protection; they are the ones who
keep the cultural traits of the community alive and transfer indigenous knowledge
and values about the forest to the next generation. They protect biodiversity andgenetic resources in the forest and rivers and share new knowledge and experiences of protecting and improving the forest. They expand the area of forest area
utilized for sustainable livelihoods and plant new seedlings. They are family medical doctors who take care of the health of their family and community using
herbal medicines from the forest. And yet the women’s role in managing andprotecting the forest is becoming less important because of a lack of recognitionof indigenous knowledge and the fading away of indigenous knowledge, which is
kept and transmitted by EM women.
366

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references1
2

http://www.molisa.gov.vn/vi/Pages/chitiettin.aspx?IDNews=24957
As shown by the statistics of the Sub-Department of Population and Family Planning in Son La,
7/2016.
EG Discussion Paper 2b.2. Improving Policies, Processes and Practices of Forest and Forestland Allocation in Viet Nam. December 1st, 2016. Ha Noi, Viet Nam.
PhD Ta Long; 2015: Ethnic Minorities Policy Gaps, Effectiveness and Constraints.
The Workshop “Sharing experiences in the communication of population and family planning” forpopulation workers and journalists was organized by the General Department of Population andFamily Planning (Ministry of Health) on 28 July in Lao Cai province.

Luong Thi Truong is the director of the Vietnamese NGO, the Centre for Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas (CSDM). She belongs to the Thai
ethnic minority in Vietnam. She was selected as the ethnic minority representative
to the Programme Executive Board of UN-REDD Vietnam in 2014.

367

LAOS
With a population of six and half million, Laos is the most ethnically diverse country in mainland Southeast Asia. The ethnic Lao, comprisingaround half of the population, dominate the country economically andculturally. There are, however, pockets where the number of ethnic
groups exceeds that of the Lao and where their culture is prominent.
There are 4 ethnolinguistic families in Laos; Lao-Tai language-speaking
groups represent two-third of the population. The other third have first
languages belonging to the Mon-Khmer, Sino-Tibetan and Hmong-EwHmien families and are considered to be the indigenous peoples of Laos.
Officially all ethnic groups have equal status in Laos, and the concept ofindigenous peoples is not recognised by the government, despite the factthat Laos voted in favour of adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.
The Lao government currently recognises 160 ethnic sub-groups
within 49 ethnic groups. Indigenous peoples, especially of the third group,
are unequivocally the most vulnerable groups in Laos, representing 93%
of the country’s poor. They face territorial, economic, cultural and politicalpressures and are experiencing various threats to their livelihoods. Theirland and resources are increasingly under pressure from pro-investment
government development policies and commercial natural resource exploitation.
Laos has ratified ICERD (1974) and ICCPR (2009). The Lao government, however, severely restricts fundamental rights, including freedom of speech (media), association, assembly and religion, and civil society is closely controlled. Organisations openly focused on indigenous
peoples or using related terms in the Lao language are not allowed andopen discussions about indigenous peoples with the government can besensitive, especially as the issue is seen as pertaining to special (human)rights. In 2014, the Universal Periodic Review of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR or Laos) made no direct reference to indigenous peoples.

368

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Indigenous people in the latest 2015 national population census

T

he 4th Population and Housing Census (PHC) 2015 was conducted fromMarch 1-7, 2015 according to Prime Ministerial Decree No 89/PM, dated September 11, 2013. The PHC has been conducted in the country every 10 years
since 1985. The 2015 PHC collected data on important demographic and social
characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, religion, citizenship and ethnicity.
Out of the total population, the ethnic Lao accounted slightly over half of the nation’s population (53%). Khmu and Hmong are the second and third largest
groups, respectively. Each of these two groups comprises more than half a million
individuals.1
High ranking officials from central level are advocating for the recognition of
the Brou indigenous people as official ethnic group; Brou is comprised of Tri,
Makong and Katang indigenous people (all of whom consider themselves asBrou). If the central government agrees on the demand, Brou – that is geographically distributed over three provinces: Khammouane, Savannakhed and Saravane province – would become the 4th most populous group of the country with
345,000 people.

Regulatory framework and political representation
2016 witnessed three main events of political significance. Among the most important were the 10th Party Congress of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party in
January, the election of National Assembly and Provincial People’s Council members in March, and the ASEAN Summits in September. Laos became first country
to serve as ASEAN Chair for the new ASEAN Economic Community. This is a big
responsibility for the Government of Laos (GoL) that brought considerable international attention and provided Laos with an opportunity to demonstrate astrengthened commitment to principles of culturally sensitive sustainable development.2
Three indigenous people were re-elected out of 69 members during the 10th
Party Central Committee members’ election in early 2016 including Mr. Bounnhang Vorachit (Katang), Ms. Pany Yathotou (Hmong) and Major General Somkeo Silavong (Khmu). Mr. Laopaoxong Navongxay (Hmong) was also elected asalternative Party Central Committee members.3 Mr. Vorachit and, Ms. Pany Ya-

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

369

thotou were also elected as member of the Politburo and Mr. Vorachit was nominated as Secretary General of the Party Central Committee.
The Decree 84 on Compensation and Resettlement Management in Development Projects (05/04/2016) replaced the decree No. 192/PM dated 7 July, 2005
concerning compensation and relocation-allocation of people affected by development projects. The new decree provides principles, regulations and standards
on the management, monitoring of compensation of losses and the managementof resettlement activities and directly advocates for the respect of local cultures,
religions, believes and traditions of affected people based on their customary
practices.4

370

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Prime Minister to stop export logging
The new Lao government has issued a moratorium on the export of logs andtimber in a bid to reduce rampant and widespread illegal wood shipments outside
the small Southeast Asian nation’s borders. Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulithissued the Prime Minister order 15 on May 13. The moratorium requires all ministries, provincial governors and mayors to implement strict measures to control
and inspect the felling of trees, log transportation, and logging businesses. The
moratorium contains 17 points, including one that forbids the export of logs, timber, processed wood, roots, branches, and trees from natural forests as well as
logs the previous government had recently approved for export.5 Following this,
Lao Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith instructed that all types of forest be
closed to logging by June 1, with all parties prohibited from collecting or removing
logs from forest fields and this will allow the government to review the implementation of the logging quota. Both regulations contribute to preserve forested spaces often located on indigenous lands.6

Ban of banana plantation concessions
Following Bokeo Province Governor Khamphanh Pheuyavong who had imposeda ban on expansion of banana farms back in April 2016,7 the Lao government has
prohibited the establishment of more large scale banana plantations in a move toaddress environmental impacts after learning of severe environmental impacts
caused by the use of hazardous chemicals on some farms, which is causing suffering among communities in the Northern provinces of Bokeo, Luang Namtha,
Phongsaly, and Sayaboury.8 Marginalized Indigenous people who previously relied on subsistence farming form the majority of workers on banana concession.
They get low wages and are not paid if they are sick and are forced to work inunsanitary conditions around dangerous chemicals. “We all have headaches, although we’re wearing masks when we spray pesticides on the trees,” says Sith,an ethnic Khmu from the mountains of neighboring Xayaburi province. “My son
doesn’t eat any more. He always feels like vomiting,” he adds, pointing out ateenager with patches of depigmented skin.9 They typically earn between $120
and $150 a month in a country where the national income per capita is estimatedEAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA371

at $137 a month by the World Bank. Armed Chinese guards were forcing Lao
workers in the country’s northern Oudomxay province to labor in banana plantations: “The plantation owner uses the weapons because he is scared that Lao
workers will resist his orders, but he does not have permission to have firearms,”
said a village chief in Houn district in Oudomxay province.10

Decree on pesticide
The Lao government has issued a mandate stating that the current Ministerial Regulation on pesticides must be uplifted to Prime Minister Decree inorder for providing more powers and measures to assigned authorities incontrol of the synthetic chemical pesticides while promoting the biologicalagents that ASEAN Member States have already harmonizing its regulatory
framework through the ASEAN Guidelines on the Regulation, Use, and Tradeof Biological Control Agents. Further, the Pesticides Decree under revision
provides coordination mechanism for relevant government sectors to involveand participate in controlling not only the use of the pesticides but other related activities in relation to pesticides as production, sale, transportation,
importation and disposal.11

Economic development impact indigenous people land
The economy grew at a rate of only 6.9 percent, which fell short of the government’s target of 7.5 percent but still high compared to other countries in the region. In terms of private investments, 1,222 investment projects were approvedfor domestic and foreign businesses over the past nine months, with registeredcapital of over 25.5 trillion kip (US$ 3.13 billion). Of the total, nine projects wereapproved in the form of concessions, worth US$ 447 million. Approval was given
to another 33 projects for operation in special and specific economic zones, witha total value of US$ 443.9 million.12
Investments in indigenous land are proliferating but many schemes – including mining, plantations and processing units – not utilizing environmentally friendly practices adversely affect local communities and fail to comply with government
regulations. 400 Lahu and Akha families in Phonesamphan and Taohom villages

372

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

in Long district of northern Laos’ Luang Namtha province are being increasingly
affected by a cassava-processing plant operated by Jupaoyan Cassava Processing Co., Ltd. a Lao-Chinese company that releases pollutants into a nearby
stream on which they depend for water.13 This includes chemical running off
leaching into the river and livestock poisoning occur all too frequently, informal
labor depriving the workers of the rights afforded to formally employed, etc.14 This
resulted in Prime Minster maintenance on the ban on mining concessions.15 Hydropower development also heavily impact indigenous people livelihood as in thecase of the Namtha 1 dam that resulted in the resettlement of 37 villages mostly
indigenous Khmu and Lamet communities in Phaoudom district in Bokeo province and Nalae district in Louang Namtha Province.16

Opium cultivation and addiction
Opium addiction is still widespread in 2016 including in Lahu communities inViengphoukha district and is a factor hampering Lahu children accessing education. Often both the husband and the wife will work a full day for Akha or Lue villagers in exchange of the quantity of opium the husband needs, taking away the
resource needed to support the children’s education. In Tasoum village, out of 50
students enrolled in primary school, 43 are Akha and 7 are Lahu. There are over
30 adults addicted to opium in Tasoum village. The Lahu case is not isolated asopium addiction occurs throughout Laos with over 12,000 opium addict inventoried in 2015 belonging mostly to Sino-Tibetan and Hmong-Ew-Hmien speaking
indigenous people.17
In terms of access to education, the Lao-Tai groups displayed the highest literacy rate, 95 and 92 percent, for males and females, respectively. The lowest
school attendance rate is for indigenous girls in remote areas who do not receive
parental or community support to attend school, and who are expected to workwithin their households.18 Literacy among the various ethnic groups varied greatly. Mon-Khmer and Hmong-Ew-Hmien, the second and third largest groups, have
similar literacy levels (71.1 and 69.8 percent, respectively). The lowest literacy
was observed among the Sino-Tibetan speaking group at 46.8 percent. While
cultural traits may explain some variations, socio-economic factors and geographical location that affect access to education may also have an impact. For
example, in some indigenous people proportions who have never attended school

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

373

hit at least 50 percent, such as Lahu (63 percent), Akha (50 percent), Tri (54			percent), and Katang (41 percent).19


Notes and references
1
2

The 4th Population and Housing Census (PHC) 2015 p.36
[Laos] Everything under stricter control, SEAPA – Southeast Asian Press Alliance Creative Commons License, https://www.seapa.org/everything-under-stricter-control/ accessed 8/2/2017.
3 New Party Central Committee elected, Vientiane Times, January 22, 2016.
4 The Prime Minister Office, PM Decree No. 84, Decree on Compensation and Resettlement Management in Development Projects, Vientiane Capital, Date: 05 / 04 / 2016.
5 Radio Free Asia, New Lao Prime Minister Issues Ban on Timber Exports, 2016-05-17, http://
www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/new-lao-prime-minister-issues-ban-on-timber-exports-05172016152448.html
6 Lao PM issues order to close all types of forest to logging by June 1, http://www.asianews.network/content/lao-govt-bans-logging-forests-18291
7 Bokeo Governor imposes ban on expansion of banana farm, http://kpl.gov.la/En/Detail.
aspx?id=11887
8 Lao gov’t bans more commercial banana plantations to address environmental impacts, 12 November 2016. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-11/12/c_135823293.htm
Banana farms ordered to stop, Vientiane Times, December 12, 2016. http://www.vientianetimes.
org.la/FreeContent/FreeConten_Banana_289.html
9 The True Cost of Laos’ Banana Plantations, Southeast Asia Globe, February 10, 2016. http://
sea-globe.com/laos-banana-plantations
10 “Armed Chinese Threaten Lao Banana Workers”, Radio Free Asia,9.2.2016, http://www.rfa.org/
english/news/laos/armed-chinese-threaten-lao-workers-02092016143850.html
11 http://www.asean-agrifood.org/laos-pesticide-decree-uplifted-and-to-be-finalised-soon/
12 The Year 2016 in Review. http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/sub-new/Feature/Feature_The306.html
13 Cassava-Processing Plant Contaminates Stream in Northern Laos, RFA, 01 Aug 2016.
14 What can be done to mitigate the harmful effects of mining? Vientiane Times, November 7, 2016
http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/sub-new/Opinion/Opinion_what260.html
15 PM announces continued suspension of mining concessions, Vientiane Times, October 20, 2016
http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/FreeContent/FreeConten_PM245.htm
16 Bokeo families relocate to make way for dam, Vientiane Times, September 19, 2016
http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/FreeContent/FreeConten_Bokeo_218.htm
17 Daviau, Steeve (2016) BEQUAL Evaluative Study – Ethnic household perceptions, drivers &constraints for basic education. Laos Australia Development Learning Facility. Published withsupport from BEQUAL (the Basic Education Quality and Access in Lao PDR Program) and theMinistry of Education and Sports (Education and Sports Research Centre)
18 Bouapao, Lilao & all, 2016. STRATEGIC REVIEW OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IN
LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. An independent review commissioned by the World
Food Programme (WFP), Vientiane, July 2016.
19 The 4th Population and Housing Census (PHC) 2015, P5.5, Appendix 1.

374

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Due to the sensitivity of some of the issues covered in this article, the author
prefers to remain anonymous.

375

MYANMAR*
Myanmar’s diversity encompasses over 100 different ethnic groups. The
Burmans make up an estimated 68% of Myanmar’s 51.5 million people.
The country is divided into seven mainly Burman-dominated regions andseven ethnic states. The Burmese government refers to those groups
generally considered to be indigenous peoples as “ethnic nationalities”.
This includes the Shan, Karen, Rakhine, Karenni, Chin, Kachin and Mon.
However, there are more ethnic groups that are considered or see themselves as indigenous peoples, such as the Akha, Lisu, Lahu, Mru andmany others.
Myanmar has been ruled by a succession of Burman-dominated military regimes since the popularly-elected government was toppled in
1962. The general election held on 8 November 2015 saw Aung San Suu
Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) unseat the Union Solidarity
and Development Party (USDP) in a landslide. The subsequent transferof power took place peacefully and, after half a century of military-dominated rule, the new administration took office with a formal handover ceremony on 30 March 2016. The NLD, led by Aung San Suu Kyi as State
Counsellor, has begun the process of “national reconciliation” in a delicate coexistence with the military, which retains 25% percent of unelectedseats in the Hluttaw (House of Representatives), allowing it a veto overconstitutional change.
Myanmar voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007,
but has not signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and nor has it ratified ILO Convention No. 169. It is party to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC), although it has thus far failed to take
into account many of the CEDAW and CRC committees’ respective recommendations.

376

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Institutional and policy developmentsT

he 6th and final draft of the National Land Use Policy (NLUP), which was
adopted by parliament in 2016, includes a chapter on “Land Use Rights ofEthnic Nationalities” that refers to customary land tenure and land use mapping.1
Customary land tenure protections are not limited to agricultural land but also include shifting cultivation practices in forest land as well as the recognition of communal land tenure systems such as swidden farming. The document also mentions Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a means of addressing “landmonopolization and speculation”.2 It is unclear how FPIC can be applied as apractical means of addressing these problems as they are not defined in the policy. The NLUP is a landmark in Myanmar’s reforms given that amendments toprevious drafts have been made after public consultation and consideration of
written and verbal statements from stakeholders across the country, and in noshort part down to the work of indigenous peoples’ organisations in Myanmar.
How the new national land policy (currently under draft) will harmonize a myriadof overlapping land laws and implement the policy remains to be seen. The longawaited 2016 Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure (EIA) offered abroad definition of Myanmar’s indigenous peoples as “people with a social orcultural identity distinct from the dominant or mainstream society, which makes
them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the processes of development”.3 The
EIA also requires public consultations and disclosure of project information inlarge-scale infrastructure and development projects.4 Furthermore, the ongoing
implementation of REDD+ will require a revision of current laws and policies inorder to implement the Cancún Safeguards, respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Despite encouraging
policy developments, both state-sponsored and corporate development projectsof all kinds have largely ignored international best practices regarding FPIC andinternal policy designed to safeguard indigenous communities.

Establishment of the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs
As mandated under the Law Protecting the Rights of National Races 2015, the newadministration has established a Union-level Ministry of Ethnic Affairs with two de-EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

377

partments: ethnic literature and culture, and the protection of ethnic rights. The
Ministry of Ethnic Affairs’ Union Minister, Nai Thwet Lwin, is an influential Mon political figure. A mixed amount of scepticism surrounded the initiation of the Ministry
and whether it had been established to “placate” ethnic people.5 The early signs,

378

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

however, have been positive. The Union Minister, speaking publicly at the Day of
the World’s Indigenous Peoples in August 2016, specifically mentioned that the Law
Protecting the Rights of National Races 2015 had provided the impetus for broader,more transparent ethnic and indigenous rights in the country and an opportunity to
implement the UNDRIP. The Ministry has continued to engage in capacity-building
initiatives with NGOs on the UNDRIP and consultations on a bylaw for implementation of the Law Protecting the Rights of Ethnic Nationalities 2015.

National reconciliation
Following the landslide victory in November 2015 (See Indigenous World
2016), Parliament approved Aung San Suu Kyi’s close ally, Htin Kyaw, as thecountry’s new President in April 2016, and he subsequently appointed Aung
San Suu Kyi to the position of State Counsellor. This new position, created by
the NLD and designed to circumvent the 59(f) constitutional restriction on her
ability to be president, provided space for Aung San Suu Kyi to “make all political decisions”, fulfilling her pre-election pledge.6 She was also elected as foreign minister, giving her control over external relations.
Key steps for national reconciliation initiated since the NLD took office include the establishment of a new Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, the release of over
100 political prisoners and the de-blacklisting of over 600 people.7 They havealso established an executive committee to address land confiscation, initiatedat the 21st century Panglong Peace Conference, and furthermore appointed
indigenous representatives to senior positions within government, including amember of the Chin indigenous group, Henry Van Thio, as Vice President. Thisappointment was met with opposition from Buddhist nationalists.8 Concerns
were also raised by indigenous community members from Chin State9 on theappointment of Tharu Aung Ko as the Union Minister for Religious and Cultural
Affairs. Despite being seen as a pragmatic, politically-strategic decision by
civil society, this does not sit well with national reconciliation objectives.10 How
Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD government approach the constitutionally-embedded military in national government will, however, be paramount for national reconciliation.11

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

379

Panglong Peace Conference
One basic premise of the symbolic 21st century Panglong Conference was the
stance of the NLD that it should include all Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAO), in
an attempt to make it an “all inclusive” forum for dialogue. This meant that those
who were either non-signatories of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA),or not recognized to do so, were also invited to attend – building on January’s
Union Peace Conference, hosted by the then president, U Thein Sein.12 This was
welcomed by all eight signatories to the 2015 NCA as well as groups under theUnited Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) umbrella. The conference, which
took place in August 2016 over three days, was attended by all EAOs with the
exception of the Arakan Army (AA), the Myanmar National Democratic AllianceArmy (MNDAA), the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), and the Nationalist
Socialist Council of Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K). These groups either did notattend due to the breakdown of negotiations on disarmament before the conference, or refused to attend on ideological grounds.13
Despite nothing substantive being debated, negotiated or concluded, it was
clear that a difference of opinion exists over what a Federal Democratic Union willneed to look like for sustainable peace. The EAO’s vision for the Union is set on
administrative autonomy for the separate states and a separation of powers between the civilian government and the military whereas the civilian-military government foresees amendments to the 2008 Constitution in order to facilitate adecentralized structure of governance.14 This fundamental difference has provided the impetus for increased and intensified fighting.15

Ceasefire
Armed conflict increased steadily throughout 2016, particularly in Rakhine State
involving the Rohingya ethnic minority, and in the North-East involving non-NCA
members from Kachin and Shan based EAOs. The peace process has also been
undermined by fighting involving Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) members. In October, skirmishes broke out between Tatmadaw (Myanmar Armed
Forces) and the Restoration Council of Shan State, (RCSS),16 and the Tatmadaw
attacked a Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA) splinter group in Karen380

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

State. Ongoing militarization and reinforcement of military bases has also beenreported in ceasefire areas.17
Intensified fighting took place in November and December 2016 as a newalliance of non-NCA members joined forces under the name of the “Northern Alliance Brotherhood” (NA-B) and went on the offensive in Tatmadaw outposts along
the Chinese border. This group is made up of the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO), Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) and Arakan Army (AA). The group coordinatedattacks on Tatmadaw outposts in Northern Shan State, resulting in a further
32,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) confirmed from Kutkai, Lashio, Museand Namhkan townships. None of the NA-B members are part of the NCA, having
either refused to sign or being deemed ineligible to take part in the negotiations.

Effect on civilian population
The continuation and escalation of fighting over the year has resulted in over 40,000
new IDPs in Myanmar.18 Chin in Paletwa continued to be affected by fighting between the Arakan Army and Tatmadaw in 2016.19 Airstrikes destroyed civilian buildings in Mong Koe, Northern Shan State resulting in four deaths and 63 injuries tocivilians.20 Tatmadaw airstrikes in Pang Mark Mu Village, Northern Shan State, resulted in the deaths of three civilians with a further seven injured, including two
women and a five-year-old child.21 In June, the shallow graves of five villagers werediscovered after a Tatmadaw interrogation in Moung Yaw sub-township had takenplace.22 Amidst reports of land grabs by the military, farmers in Kachin State returned to work on their land despite ongoing fighting and risk of landmines.23
Humanitarian support has been either slow to be authorized or blocked entirely during periods of fighting, affecting indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities
in Shan, Kachin, Chin and Rakhine states24 (this is also true of a public healthcrisis in the Naga Self-Administered Zone).25 The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, was denied access to areas
where fighting had been taking place in Shan State and Kachin State during her
official visit to Myanmar in June 2016.26 The Special Rapporteur recently noted acommon fear of reprisals among interlocutors after speaking to her about humanrights issues affecting indigenous and ethnic minority communities.27

EAST AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

381

Indigenous women’s rights
The Myanmar delegation’s claims at the 64th session of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee thatwomen do not face “social barriers in education, jobs and career advancement” 28
belie the facts. In the 330 townships in Myanmar, not one township administrator isfemale, and out of 16,785 Village Tract/Ward Administrators only 42 are women.29
The concluding observations of the committee highlighted the need for temporary
special measures, including statutory quotas, to address the gender gap in decision-making positions within both the public and private sectors.30
The delegation also defended the controversial Protection of Race and Religion
Laws which, if implemented, would violate convention norms.31 The Committee
urged the government to amend or repeal the cluster of laws, as well as constitutionally-embedded preconceptions of women’s role in society.32 Women face major
barriers in accessing justice for gender-based violence. The fear of reprisals felt by
women from indigenous and ethnic minority communities when reporting sexualassault or rape by the armed forces was highlighted by the committee.33
Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Part VII paras 68, 23 and 71 of the draft NLUP.
Art 33 (f) National Land Use Policy 2016.
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures 2016 at 2 (V).
EIA (Chapt II, Art. 13)
See comments of Salai Mang, “Mixed Reaction to Ethnic Affairs Ministry”, Frontier Myanmar, 1 April 2016.
See, “Appointed President will take instructions from me if NLD wins: Suu Kyi” Channel News Asia, 10
November 2015.
See, “Myanmar Government Removes More Than 600 Names from Official Blacklist”, Radio Free Asia
3 August 2016.
See, “Buddhist Nationalist Monks to Protest Christian VP-Elect”, Irrawaddy, 18 March 2016.
Fleming, R, “Hidden Plight: Christian Minorities in Burma”, United States Commission on Religious Freedom, December 2016.
Chin Human Rights Organization. “Threats to Our Existence: Religious Persecution in Chin State”, 2013
and Rhododendron News Vol. XII, No. III. May-June 2008 and July-August 2009.
Via the 2008 Constitution, the military remain in control of Ministry of Home, Defense and Border Affairs- a 25% bloc of unelected legislators, enough for a veto on constitutional amendments.
See, “State Counsellor ‘opening doors’ to NCA non-signatories: official”, Myanmar Times, July 2016.
See, “Army Demands Three Ethnic Allies Disarm Before Joining Peace Process” Irrawaddy, June 2016
and “Seeking federal status under the 2008 Constitution was ‘unwarranted and a complete contradiction

382

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

*

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

to the Naga sovereignty struggle’”, The Morung Express, “NSCN-K on 21st Century Panglong Conference, Myanmar” 7 August 2016.
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, “A Patchy Road to Peace: the Panglong Experiment in Myanmar”
18 November 2016.
See, “Peace Process Survey Shows Increased Conflicts in Ethnic Areas after Peace Conference”, Burma
News International, February 2017.
See, “Upswing in Shan State Fighting, Drives 2000 from their homes”, Myanmar Times, 4 October 2016.
Karen Human Rights Group, “On-going Militarization in Southeast Myanmar”, October 2016.
Figure calculated from Burma News International, Peace Monitor, http://mmpeacemonitor.org/research/monitoring-archive
Chin Human Rights Organization, “Caught in the Crossfire”, June 2015.
Myanmar Times, 6 December 2016.
Shan Human Rights Foundation, 16 January 2017.
See, “Shan State Villagers Arrested by Myanmar Military Turn up Dead Near Lashio”, Radio Free Asia,
30 June 2016.
See, Hidden Plight, supra note ix.
See “Pawns in their Game: the military’s blocking of aid to IDP’s in Kachin and Northern Shan State” NDBurma, 22 December 2016; “Caught in the Crossfire” Chin Human Rights Organization, June 2015, and“Burma: Aid Blocked to Rakhine”, Human Rights Watch, October 2016.
See, “In Naga Hills, a healthcare crisis continues”, Frontier Magazine, 3 September 2016.
United Nations Human Rights, Office of The High Commissioner, “End of Mission Statement by theSpecial Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar”, July 2016.
United Nations Human Rights, Office of The High Commissioner, “End of Mission Statement by theSpecial Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar”, January 2017.
See, “‘Women do not face social barriers’ Myanmar CEDAW Delegation tells experts in Geneva”, Myanmar Times, 11 July 2016.
See, “Gendered Aspects of Land Rights in Myanmar: Evidence from Paralegal Casework”, Namati, April
2016.
CEDAW C/MMR/CO/4-5
For a comprehensive analysis of these laws see, Amnesty International and International Commission ofJurists, “Myanmar: Parliament Must Reject Discriminatory ‘race and religion’ laws”, 3 March 2015.
CEDAW C/MMR/CO/4-5 at para 14.
CEDAW C/MMR/CO/4-5 at para 18.
The author and publisher of the this article are well aware of the existing Myanmar/Burma name dispute, however, Myanmar is here used consistently to avoid confusion.

Founded in 1995, Chin Human Rights Organisation (CHRO) works to protect
and promote human rights through monitoring, research, documentation, education and advocacy on behalf of indigenous Chin people and other ethnic/indigenous communities in Myanmar. The organization is a founding member of the
Indigenous Peoples Network of Myanmar, made up of over 20 non-governmentalorganizations engaged in indigenous peoples’ issues in the country.

SOUTH ASIA

384

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

INDIA
In India, 705 ethnic groups are recognized as Scheduled Tribes, andthese are considered to be India’s indigenous peoples by the Adivasis
and Tribals of the Country.1 In central India, the Scheduled Tribes areusually referred to as Adivasis, which literally means indigenous peoples.
With an estimated population of 104 million, they comprise 8.6% of thetotal population. There are, however, many more ethnic groups that would
qualify for Scheduled Tribe status but who are not officially recognized.
Estimates of the total number of tribal groups are higher than the official
figure. The largest concentrations of indigenous peoples are found in theseven states of North-east India, and the so-called “central tribal belt”
stretching from Rajasthan to West Bengal.
India has several laws and constitutional provisions, such as the Fifth
Schedule for Central India and the Sixth Schedule for certain areas ofNorth-east India, which recognize indigenous peoples’ rights to land andself-governance. The laws aimed at protecting indigenous peoples havenumerous shortcomings and their implementation is far from satisfactory.
The Indian government voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) with a condition that, after independence, all Indians are indigenous. However, it does not consider theconcept of “indigenous peoples”, and thus UNDRIP, applicable to India.

Legal rights and policy developmentsOn 25 October, while inaugurating the first ever tribal carnival in New Delhi,
the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, stated that “natural resources inforests should not be exploited at the cost of tribals” and warned of stringent action against those who “snatch” their land and rights. The Prime Minister also
advocated the use of modern technology in mining, besides the gasification ofcoal at underground excavation sites, to help control pollution and damage to thehealth of people in the surrounding areas.2

SOUTH ASIA

385

The Prime Minister’s public pronouncements regarding the inviolability oftribal rights did not, however, seem to have any effect on the state-level governments. Jharkhand is a case in point. On 23 November, the State Assembly of
Jharkhand passed amendments to the two tribal-friendly Land Acts of the State,
the Chhotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act of 1908 and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (SPT) Act of 1949. The proposed amendments were passed without any discussion.3 The amendments to the CNT Act and the SPT Act allow governmentuse of tribal land for non-agricultural purposes. Despite poor implementation,these two special laws had succeeded in protecting tribal lands and restricting
their alienation, as well as ensuring the restoration of illegally transferred tribal
lands.4 The amendment bills were sent to the President of India for his assent.5

386

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Prior to the amendments passed by the State Assembly, the State Government of Jharkhand had attempted to amend these two special laws through ordinances. In May, the State Government of Jharkhand issued two ordinances, theChhotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016 and the Santhal
Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016.6 The amendments
proposed through the ordinances led to widespread protests in the state, leading
to the deaths of at least eight people in three incidents of police firing in Ramgarh,
Hazaribagh and Khunti districts in August and October.7 Following protests, theordinances were later withdrawn by the State Government. However, in theirplace they brought the two amendment bills, which were approved by the State
Assembly – now pending the approval of the President.8

Human rights violations against indigenous peoples
According to the latest report “Crime in India 2015” of the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, a total of 10,914 cases of crime
against Adivasis were reported in the country during 2015 as opposed to 11,451
cases in 2014, thus showing a 4.7% decrease from 2014 to 2015.9 These are
only the reported cases of atrocities committed by non-adivasis on Adivasis anddo not include cases of human rights violations by the security forces.
In 2016, the security forces continued to be responsible for human rights violations against the tribals. In the areas affected by armed conflicts, the tribals are
pinched between the armed opposition groups (AOGs) and the security forces.
Cases are numerous and many not reported. Some cases became public and areincluded here to illustrate the severity of these violations. On 8 July, a 20-year-old
Adivasi died following alleged torture in police custody in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The
Adivasi was taken into custody by police the previous night on suspicion of supplying arms to the Maoists. The deceased’s family alleged torture, resulting indeath.10 On 22 October, one Adivasi was killed and 12 others wounded by gunshots fired by the police at Soyko village in Khunti district, Jharkhand. The police
allegedly opened fire on the villagers, who were going to join the protest rally inRanchi against the Jharkhand Government’s attempt to amend the Chhotanagpur Land Tenancy Act and Sathal Parganas Land Tenancy Act.11 On 10 December, a 17-year-old tribal student from the Auxiguri area in Kokrajhar district ofAssam was allegedly killed by security forces during a confrontation. The de-SOUTH ASIA

387

ceased’s mother claimed that her son, a tuberculosis patient, was picked up by
four to five armed personnel and later killed in a false confrontation.12 On 16 December, a 13-year-old tribal boy from Metapal village in Jagdalpur district ofChhattisgarh was killed by security forces in an alleged encounter on the suspicion of being a Maoist. However, residents of the village and family members
claimed that the deceased was not a Maoist. On 27 December, the Bilaspur High
Court ordered a further post mortem of the deceased.13 On 27 December, a40-year-old tribal farmer was allegedly killed by security forces at Laopani Ashrabari in Kokrajhar district of Assam. Security forces claimed that the deceased wasa militant of the NDFB (S) faction. However, his family and the headman of thevillage contended that the deceased was not involved with any militant group.
They said the deceased was allegedly picked up by security forces while returning home from a market. Following widespread protests, the State Government
ordered an inquiry into the death.14
Armed opposition groups also continued to be responsible for gross violationsof international humanitarian law, including killings. During 2016, the Maoists continued to kill innocent tribals on charges of being “police informers”, or simply for
not obeying their orders. The majority of the victims were killed in Jan Adalats(“People’s Courts”) held by the Maoists. The Naxal Division of the Ministry ofHome Affairs recorded 21 Jan Adalats held by the Maoists during 2016.15 Someof the alleged killings took place at Koyalibeda area in Kanker district, Chhattisgarh on 16 February;16 at Hatbal village in Lohardaga district, Jharkhand on 17
September;17 at Raitorang village in Khunti district, Jharkhand on 26 September;18
at Nama village in Sukma district, Chhattisgarh on 4 November;19 and at Kudumuluguma village in Malkangiri district, Odisha on 27 December.20

Alienation of tribal land
The 5th and 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India provide stringent provisions
for the protection of land belonging to the tribal peoples. At the state level, there
is furthermore a plethora of laws prohibiting the sale or transfer of tribal lands tonon-tribals and restoration of alienated lands to the tribal landowners. However,these laws remain ineffective as none have been invoked and attempts are madeto weaken these laws.

388

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

In Jharkhand, tribal lands were being illegally transferred to non-tribals throughmisuse of the compensation provision under the CNT Act. On 28 January 2016, theTribal Advisory Council (TAC) recommended scrapping the norm of awarding compensation under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in lieu of tribal land to a non-tribal tosettle title issues. As of late January 2016, there were 4,219 such cases pending
with Scheduled Area Regulation (SAR) courts in various parts of Jharkhand.21 On
the basis of the recommendation of the TAC, the Jharkhand Government revoked
Section 71 of the CNT Act, which provides for compensation to tribals against theland obtained from them in the amendment bill passed in the State Assembly on 23
November. The Jharkhand Government states that all such land plots that weretransferred from tribals to others would be restored to the owners.22
Similarly, tribal lands were being sold to non-tribals in Maharashtra. Although,sale of tribal land to non-tribals is restricted under the Revenue Code, it can besold with the permission of the collector, who has the power to allow such transactions with the government’s approval. With such a system in place, a large amountof tribal land in the State has been alienated. In June, the Governor of Maharashtra issued a notification which stipulates that the District Collectors will have toseek the permission of the gram-sabhas before allowing transfer of occupancy
from tribals to non-tribals in scheduled areas. Tribal activists claim that an estimated 3 million hectares of tribal land have been alienated in Maharashtra.23

The conditions of the internally displaced tribal peoples
There were no reports of displacement caused by conflict during 2016. However,tribals who had been displaced over the years due to conflicts were yet to be rehabilitated at the end of 2016. Over 30,000 Bru (Reang) tribals continued to live
in inhumane conditions in six temporary relief camps in Tripura after their displacement from Mizoram in 1997. The repatriation process of the Brus to Mizoram, scheduled to begin in 30 November, had not taken place due to various
reasons by the year’s end.24
Land has been acquired for mining, industrialization and non-agricultural purposes, to make way for development projects in tribal areas. Tribals who lost theirlands due to such projects were denied proper compensation, rehabilitation andother facilities, and those who opposed land acquisition or demanded proper rehabilitation were met with force. On 1 October, four tribals were killed when police

SOUTH ASIA

389

opened fire during a protest in Hazaribagh district, Jharkhand, against land acquisition by the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). The NTPC had acquired 8,056 acres of land for the Pankri-Barwadih coal mining project in 2010.
The protestors were demanding higher compensation, employment and rehabilitation.25 On 29 August, two tribal farmers were killed and over 40 others injured
when police opened fire on a crowd protesting a thermal plant in Gola in Ramgarh
district, Jharkhand. The protestors claimed that their crops were being damaged
because of excessive usage of river water by the power plant run by Inland Power Limited and because of the pollution it was causing.26

Repression under forest laws
A large number of forest-dwelling tribals continue to be denied their rights. As of 31
October 2016, and according to information available from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, a total of 4,243,668 claims (4,130,373 individual and 113,295 community
claims) had been filed under the Forest Rights Act. Of these, nearly 87% were settled, for which 1,726,815 titles (1,678,623 individual and 48,192 community claims)
were distributed.27 The remaining claims were either rejected or are pending.
Section 4 (5) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006 provides that no member of a forestdwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or
removed from land under his occupation until the recognition and verification procedure for settlement of forest rights is complete.28 However, tribals continue toface eviction in the name of forest conservation or are being threatened for opposing evictions or relocations. On 7 December, some 577 Jenu Kuruba tribal
families were evicted from their homes in Diddalli in Devamachi Reserve Forests
in Kodagu district, Karnataka.29

Deaths and sexual exploitation in tribal residential schools
There are a number of schemes for tribal development in the country. One such
scheme is the tribal residential (Ashram) schools which are established to educate the children of tribals living in the forests. However, there have been reports ofdeaths and sexual exploitation of the tribal students in these schools across the country.

390

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

In May 2016, the Tribal Development Department of Maharashtra established acommittee headed by Dr Subhash Salunkhe following reports of deaths in tribal residential schools in the state. The Salunkhe Committee Report submitted to the Governor of
Maharashtra in October stated that 1,077 students had died in these schools over the
past 15 years. The Committee, which investigated 793 deaths, concluded that these
deaths could have been avoided. The school authorities claimed the causes of these
deaths were drowning, snake bites, suicides, major and even minor illnesses. The reportstated that over half of the dead children were girls and indicated sexual exploitation.30
On 10 October, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a notice to theState Government of Maharashtra seeking a report into the deaths. However, the State
Government has failed to take any initiatives to address the problem and has even failed
to submit a report to the NHRC.31

Situation of Adivasi women
Adivasi women in India are deprived of many of their rights. Both collective andindividual rights are violated in private and public spaces. The major issues are:sexual violence, trafficking, killing/branding as a witch, the militarization or state
violence and the impact of development-induced displacement, etc. There are
numerous, unreported cases of sexual violence by the security forces. In 2016,
one case that was taken up by the media reveals the situation concerning women, particularly Adivasi women. In Bastar region of Chattisgarh, 16 Adivasi women from Kunna, Guler and Bellam Landra villages were raped and sexually assaulted from October 2015 to January 201632 and, according to the NHRC, they
were still awaiting statements from around 20 other victims.33 Human rights defenders are under threat, such as Soni Sori, a local leader from Baster, who herself has already suffered state violence and was again attacked on 20 Februaryin Geedam, where attackers threw a chemical substance into her face and threatened her because she is involved in the wider campaign against state violence.34
Another case is from Gadchiroli, Maharastra, where two women were picked
up by C-60 Maharashtra police personnel near Todgatta village. They were released after active protest from the villagers. These women subsequently complained of sexual assault and sought legal intervention. However, as the victims
were seeking legal assistance, and demanding a medical check to prove sexualassault, the police (without any concern for the constitutional rights prescribedSOUTH ASIA

391

under Art. 19(1)(g) and due process) barged into the office of the advocate, inplain clothes, and abducted the women and their companions. These women
were not checked for signs of sexual assault and rape - only a blood test was
conducted in the name of a medical/legal exam.35
The level of trafficked young Adivasi girls and women from Central India isvery high, and the majority of these women and young girls are trafficked to ensure cheap labour in domestic service, construction work, factories and hotels. In
one of the cases, 12 girls from Dumka district were caught on a train with an agent
who said they were working in a meat factory in Uttar Pradesh, although he had
no proof of their employment.
Witch branding and even killings are still taking place in India. In 2016, more than
54 women were killed in the name of witch hunting. Most of them are single women or
widows. Physical and mental torture such as brutal beatings, stripping, shaving of thehead, breaking of teeth, being forced to eat human excreta, drink urine or blood isdeeply traumatizing, and robs the women of their dignity, and often their livelihood andhome as they become outcasts in their community. Jharkhand has the highest numberof reported cases; more than 156 cases were reported according to the NCRB 2014
record. Other states such as Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh had 32, 24
and 16 cases respectively. There is no national law protecting women from witch hunting. Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Rajastha state do have laws but theyneed amendment and effective implementation.

NagalimWith a population of approximately four million and comprising more than 50 different tribes, the Nagas are a transnational indigenous peoples inhabiting parts ofNorth-east India and North-west Burma. The Nagas were divided between thetwo countries as a result of the colonial transfer of power from Great Britain to
India in 1947. Nagalim refers to the Naga homeland transcending the present
state boundaries, and is an expression of their assertion of their political identityand aspirations as a nation. The Naga people’s struggle for the right to self-determination dates back to when the newly-formed Indian state sought to crush the
Naga people’s declaration of independence with violent repression and heavy
militarization of the Naga territories. Armed conflict between the Indian state andthe Nagas’ armed opposition forces began in the early 1950s and it is one of the392

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

longest armed struggles in Asia. In 1997, the Indian government and the largestof the armed groups, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland Isaac-Muivah
faction (NSCN-IM), agreed on a ceasefire and have since then held regular peace
negotiations. As a result of India’s divide-and-rule tactics, the armed resistancemovement was split into several factions fighting each other. Since the declaration of the ceasefire, CSOs (including the churches) have initiated reconciliation
processes such as the one facilitated by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation(FNR). However, reconciliation both within society and among the armed resistance groups is yet to be realized.

The peace framework agreement with NSCN-IM
The political talks between the Government of India (GoI) and the NSCN-IM havebeen ongoing for 19 years but there is not much to show in terms of achieving
peace, despite the framework agreement signed on 3 August 2015. The Nagapublic and CSOs, which received the Agreement with mixed feelings, continue tobe skeptical (with some sections indeed opposing the Agreement) because thecontent has not yet been made public. Pressure has therefore been mounting on
the GoI and NSCN-IM as the legitimacy of the Agreement is heavily questioned.
The NSCN-IM also suffered a setback in June 2016 with the passing of their
85-year-old co-founder and Chairman, Mr Isak Chishi Swu. With the growing mistrust and unrest around the Agreement, the NSCN-IM leaders have held many
consultations with CSOs. The key content of the agreement, shared with the people through consultations, is as follows:•••that Naga integration has been accepted (in principle) as part of theframework agreementthat shared sovereignty in the framework agreement means that two entities will work together
that salient features of competencies include the eminent right of the Nagas over land and its resources and internal affairs, including foreign affairs and joint defence in the context of external aggression.

Dissatisfaction over the consultations has been widely expressed by the public
and CSOs, however, and the NSCN-IM now seems at its wits end and is desper-

SOUTH ASIA

393

ately trying to find a solution. The CSOs are conducting their own consultations
as a reaction to the non-transparent nature of the peace process. The present
situation is resulting in more fragmentation and tribalism, whether based on realor perceived threats posed by the framework agreement and the different factionsof the armed resistance movements. As a result, there is an increasing tension
within the Naga CSOs and many Tribe Hohos are withdrawing from the Naga
Hoho (the primary traditional governing institution of the Nagas) while new CSOs
are questioning the legitimacy of other organizations. It is clear that unless there
is a clear intellectual content brought to the public for wide acceptance, fragmentation and frustration will continue. Another crucial point raised is the issue of inclusiveness i.e. ownership and the participation of other factions to the Agreement and the political solution that will be worked out.
On a positive note, Anthony Ningkhan Shimray, the Head of Foreign Missionof the NSCN-IM, who was jailed by the GoI on charges of purchasing arms for hisorganization, was released on 2 August 2016 to enable him to participate in thepeace process. However, in the case of the forced exiling in 1995 of two prominent peace activists and members of the Naga Peoples Movement for Human
Rights, Mr Luingam Luithui and Ms Peingamla Luithui, the Court of India has deferred the hearing eight times, thus denying them justice.


Notes and references
1
2

3

4

5

6

Since the Scheduled Tribes or “tribals” are considered India’s indigenous peoples, these terms
are used interchangeably in this text.
See “PM Narendra Modi Warns Of Action Against Those Who ‘Snatch’ Tribal Rights”, NDTV, 25
October 2016, http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-warns-of-action-against-tho­se­-who-snatch-tribal-rights-1478980
See “Jkhand Oppn parties urge Prez not to give nod to tribal land”, India Today, 21 December
2016, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/jkhand-oppn-parties-urge-prez-not-to-give-nod-to-triballand/1/840001.html
See “Amendments to century-old laws on tribal rights spark protests in Jharkhand”, Down to
Earth, 24 November 2016, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/amendments-to-century-oldtribal-rights-laws-spark-protests-in-jharkhand-56411
See “Jkhand Oppn parties urge Prez not to give nod to tribal land”, India Today, 21 December
2016 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/jkhand-oppn-parties-urge-prez-not-to-give-nod-to-triballand/1/840001.html
See “Amendments to century-old laws on tribal rights spark protests in Jharkhand”, Down to
Earth, 24 November 2016, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/amendments-to-century-oldtribal-rights-laws-spark-protests-in-jharkhand-56411

394

7
8

9
10

11
12

13

14
15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

See “People of no land”, Down to Earth, 15 January 2017, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/
people-of-no-land-56671
See “Jharkhand govt abandons ordinance route, to place tenancy laws in House”, Hindustan
Times, 15 November 2016 http://www.hindustantimes.com/ranchi/jharkhand-govt-abandons-ordinance-route-to-place-tenancy-laws-in-house/story-3gYATHDJUYgyXRTtOB82LM.html
See NCRB, “Crime in India 2015”, Chapter 7.
See “Tribal dies after ‘torture’ in Jharkhand, cops suspended”, The Times of India, 8 July 2016
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/Tribal-dies-after-torture-in-Jharkhand-cops-suspended/articleshow/53117816.cms
See ‘Tribal killed in police firing’, The Telegraph, 23 October 2016.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1161023/jsp/frontpage/story_115074.jsp#.WJAof1N96M8
See “NGO and college students protest against fake encounters”, The Sentinel Assam, 1 January 2017 http://www.sentinelassam.com/state1/story.php?sec=2&s­ubsec=2&id=29­3668­&dtP­=2017-01-02&ppr=1
See “Exhume body of teenager killed in encounter, says HC”, The Hindu, 23 December 2016
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Exhume-body-of-teenager-killed-in-encounter-says-HC/article16933709.ece
See “ ‘Fake’ encounters worry Bodo groups”, The Telegraph, 31 December 2016.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1161231/jsp/northeast/story_127725.jsp#.WHnEOVN96M8
Statistics of LWE violence during 2011 to 2016 (up to 15.12.2016), Naxal Division, Ministry ofHome Affairs, Government of India, http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LWE_151216.
pdf
See “Naxals kill tribal man accusing him of being police informer”, Pradesh18, 17 February 2016
http://english.pradesh18.com/news/chhattisgarh/naxals-kill-tribal-man-accusing-him-of-beingpolice-informer-874060.html
See “Maoists kill ‘police informer’ in Jharkhand”, The Times of India, 18 September 2016.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/Maoists-kill-police-informer-in-Jharkhand/articleshow/54395025.cms
See “Three shot dead by Maoists in Jharkhand”, The Indian Express, 28 September 2016.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/three-shot-dead-by-maoists-injharkhand-3053575/
See “Tribal killed by Naxals for protesting their activities”, The New India Express, 6 November
2016, http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/nov/06/tribal-killed-by-naxals-for-protesting-their-activities-1535621.html
See “Maoists kill tribal man, Abduct another in Odisha”, The Samaya, 27 December 2016.
http://odishasamaya.com/odisha/maoists-kill-tribal-man-abduct-another-odisha/78439/
See “TAC seals tribal land sale route, okays sar courts”, The Pioneer, 29 January 2016,
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/ranchi/tac-seals-tribal-land-sale-route-okays-sarcourts.html
See “Tribals will benefit from amendments, says Raghubar Das”, Times of India, 24 November
2016.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/tribals-will-benefit-from-amendments-says-das/articleshow/55588179.cms?from=mdr
See “Maharashtra Governor curbs collector’s power in tribal land sale”, Daily News and Analysis,
27 June 2016, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-maharashtra-governor-curbs-collector-spower-in-tribal-land-sale-2228374

SOUTH ASIA

395

24 See “Bru repatriation to begin from mid-February”, Business Standard, 8 January 2017
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bru-repatriation-to-begin-from-mid-february-117010800602_1.html
25 See “Jharkhand: 4 villagers killed in police firing over land row; 2 officers injured”, Hindustan
Times, 1 October 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/jharkhand-two-killed-dozens-injured-in-police-firing-over-land-acquisition/story-6boabOFQ6KagMvcQA1FtnO.html
26 See “As two die in protest against Jharkhand power plant, villagers claim police used excessive
force” Scroll.in, 3 September 2016, https://scroll.in/article/815390/as-two-die-in-protest-againstjharkhand-power-plant-villagers-claim-police-used-excessive-force
27 See “Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 31.10.2016]”, Ministry of
Tribal Affairs, http://tribal.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/FRA/FRA_MPR/MPR%20October%202016.pdf
28 http://tribal.nic.in/WriteReadData/CMS/Documents/201306070147440275455NotificationMarge
with1Link.pdf
29 See “Govt. promises rehabilitation of tribal families in Diddalli”, The Hindu, 20 December 2016
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Govt.-promises-rehabilitation-of-tribal-families-in-Diddalli/article16913421.ece
30 See “1077 kids died in Maharashtra’s tribal schools in 15 years, cause of death “unknown” for 2/3
cases: Report”, Daily News and Analysis, 20 October 2016 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report1077-kids-died-in-maharashtra-s-tribal-schools-in-15-years-cause-of-death-unknown-for23-cases-report-2265838
31 See http://www.nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=34172
32 https://in.news.yahoo.com/mass-rape-adivasi-women-bastar-124100317.html and see “Eight
tribal women allege gang-rape by security forces in Bijapur”, The Hindu, 22 January 2016 http://
www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Eight-tribal-women-allege-gang-rape-by-security-forces-in-Bijapur/article14014055.ece
33 http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01/09/nhrc-indicts-chhattisgarh-police-for-sexual-violenceagainst-adivasi-women-in-bastar/
34 http://www.countercurrents.org/wss210216.htm
35 https://wssnet.org/2017/02/06/wss-statement-on-sexual-violence-and-police-impunity-in-gadhchiroli-district/

Tejang Chakma is a researcher at the Asian Centre for Human Rights and Elina
Horo (Munda indigenous community), the Director of Adivasi Women’s Network,
contributed the section on the situation of indigenous women. The section on
Nagalim was written by Gam A. Shimray is the executive director of Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP) and member of the Naga Peoples’ Movement for
Human Rights (NPMHR).

396

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

BANGLADESH
Bangladesh is a country of cultural and ethnic diversity, with over 54 indigenous peoples speaking at least 35 languages, along with the majority
Bengali population. According to the 2011 Census, the country’s indigenous population is approximately 1,586,141,1 which represents 1.8% of
the total population of the country. However, indigenous peoples in the
country claim that their population stands at about 5 million.2 Approximately 80% of the indigenous population lives in the plain land districts of
the north and south-east of the country,3 whereas the rest reside in the
Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). In the CHT, the indigenous peoples arecommonly known as Jummas for their traditional practice of swidden cultivation (crop rotation agriculture), locally known as jum. The Governmentof Bangladesh does not recognise indigenous peoples as “indigenous”.
Nevertheless, since the 15th amendment of the constitution, adopted in2011, people with distinct ethnic identities other than the mainstream Bengali population are now mentioned.4 However, only cultural aspects are
mentioned, whereas issues related to indigenous peoples’ economic andpolitical rights, not least their land rights, remain ignored.
The CHT Accord of 1997 was a constructive agreement between indigenous peoples and the Government of Bangladesh. Still, even after 19
years, major issues in the Accord, such as the Land Commission, thedevolution of power and functions to the CHT institutions, preservation of
the tribal area characteristics of the CHT region, demilitarisation, rehabilitation of internally displaced people, etc., remain unaddressed.

Moves towards implementing the CHT Accord

The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Land Dispute Resolution Commission Act
2001 (Act) was amended on 9 August 2016. It is now in line with the CHT
Accord 1997 provision and the CHT Regional Council’s 13-point amendment proposal. The old Act was not consistent with the CHT Accord provision, which was

SOUTH ASIA

397

adopted without any consultation with the apex body of regional administration,
the CHT Regional Council. While the Act was passed in 2001, many of the clauses are contradictory. This was later resolved through dialogues between the CHT
Regional Council and the government, a process that took 15 years. The Act of2001 recognises the formation of the Land Commission with a composition of therelevant government, semi-government (CHT autonomous bodies) and traditional administrative representatives of the CHT. One of the functions of the Land

398

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Commission is to resolve the land problems in the CHT and the Chairman of theCommission was given supreme authority in the decision-making process. This
arrangement became controversial, protested by other members,5 and has remained dysfunctional and ineffective since its enactment in 2001.
With the recent amendment, the Act has been harmonised with the CHT Accord and the powers and functions bestowed upon the Land Commission in the
Accord. According to the Accord, “The Commission shall resolve the disputes in
consonance with the law, custom and practice in force in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts”. The phrase “existing laws and customs in force in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts” has now been included. The term “practices”, which is very important withregard to the land management system of CHT, has not. The recently amended
Act of 2016 has successfully dealt with this and it is hoped that the recent amendment Act of 2016 will help overcome these issues and pave the way for proper
resolution of land disputes and restitution of dispossessed lands belonging to theindigenous peoples.

Education of indigenous children and youth
At the national level, the government has recently undertaken a few measures toimprove the state of education of indigenous children and youth. The Education
Policy adopted in 2010 states that “Measures will be taken to ensure the availability of teachers from ethnic groups and to prepare texts in their own languages”
and, in this regard, “the inclusion of respective indigenous communities will beensured”.6 After years of dialogue, lobbying and advocacy, the government finallymanaged to distribute pre-primary level books in five indigenous languages,
namely Chakma, Garo, Kokborok, Marma and Sadri in January 2017.
However, the government has yet to take any measures to train an adequate
number of qualified teachers with the necessary language skills in the aforesaid
languages. Moreover, the government has not yet come up with a concrete planfor introducing mother-tongue education into the subsequent stages for students
graduating from the pre-primary level and, moreover, for other indigenous languages that have not been covered in the first phase. If pre-primary education of
all indigenous children can be effectively ensured, it would significantly improve
the state of education of indigenous youths in the future.

SOUTH ASIA

399

Land rights of indigenous peoples
The land rights of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh are one of the emergency
issues and key factors of gross human rights violations. For example, on 6 November 2016, three indigenous Santal men were killed over a land dispute, andhouses were looted, vandalised and set on fire in an eviction drive conducted by
the local administration and sugar mill authority, with the help of police and hiredgoons in the Shahebgonj-Bagdafirm area of Gabindagonj under Gaibandha district. Moreover, some 1,200 indigenous families were forced to flee as their houses were destroyed and burnt to ashes.7 Instead of arresting the culprits of the incident, however, the police filed cases against more than 300 Santal people inthis regard. Traditionally, the Santal indigenous community is the owner of thisland and yet the government seized it in 1962 with the purpose of setting up asugarcane mill. According to the agreement, only sugarcane would be farmed in
the area and the condition was that the land would be returned to the original
owner if it were used for any other purpose. However, the agreement was violated
as the mill authority leased out most of the land for cultivating crops such as rice,wheat, mustard, tobacco and maize. In line with the conditions of the agreement,
the original landowner is now therefore demanding its land back.
Similarly, the government has decided to acquire 9,145 acres of land in Modhupur in Central Bangladesh where Garo and Koch indigenous peoples live. They
are the owners of this traditional land. The purposes of the land grab are: to preserve the biodiversity; to establish amusement facilities in the national forest,
such as a safari park, especially protected area and prospective tourist spots; tostop the illegal poaching, hunting and wildlife trade; and, finally, to “settle theclashes” between the wildlife and the population. This government move would
adversely affect more than 15,000 forest-dependent indigenous people who havebeen living in this area for generations. If the government’s decision is enforced,
the livelihood, culture and tradition of these people will be extremely compromised, as their life is entirely dependent on the forests. Local indigenous leaders
allege that the main objective of the government’s move is to grab the lands of
local indigenous peoples by exploiting the loopholes in the Forest Act, 1927.
On the positive side with regard to land issues, the World Bank recently decided not to move forward on the construction a 123-kilometer road in Rangamati, Chittagong Hill Tracts. The government had submitted this road construc-

400

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tion proposal without any consultation of the affected indigenous communities,
representative bodies or other concerned indigenous institutions. The indigenous
peoples and civil society organisations, traditional leaders, elected public representatives and human rights activists of Bangladesh submitted a letter of concern
to the World Bank on its proposed funding of the road construction. They raised
serious concerns about the lack of meaningful engagement of indigenous peoples in the project, including insufficient feasibility studies. The proposed project
would have affected land issues in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), including theimplementation of the Land Dispute Resolution Act (Amended) 2016, as well as
have severe impacts on forest, environment and cultural sites.8 Indigenous peoples’ leaders in the region called for meaningful engagement with local administrative bodies and traditional institutions, and consultation with indigenous peoples in the project area in compliance with the World Bank’s safeguard policy.
Overall, the land rights situation has remained alarming in 2016. According to
the Kapaeeng Foundation, “at least six indigenous people have been killed, including five from plain land and one from CHT, and 84 persons were injured inland related incidents in the country. At least 31,693 families, 600 families fromCHT and 31,093 families from the plains have faced livelihood under threat inconnection to land grabbing. Besides, 1,208 houses belonging to indigenous people were burnt to ashes in the plain land”.9

Situation of indigenous women and girls
The situation of indigenous women has not improved. In 2016, Bangladesh wasunder review by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the situation of indigenous women
was partially addressed through effective lobbying and advocacy work from different indigenous organisations. The concluding observations highlight that the government should: “effectively investigate all reports of gender-based violenceagainst indigenous women connected with land grabbing and take measures tobring those responsible to justice”.11 Furthermore, the following issues were mentioned: indigenous identity, sexual and gender-based violence for land grabbing
purposes and militarisation in indigenous areas, particularly in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts.11 The CEDAW also expressed concerns about the situation of indigenous

SOUTH ASIA

401

women, who “…face multiple intersecting forms of discrimination due to….indigenous identity”.12
From January to December 2016, there were 53 cases of human rights violations against indigenous women in Bangladesh in which a total 59 indigenous
women and girls were the victims of sexual and physical violence. A total of 9 indigenous women and girls suffered attempted raped, 5 indigenous women were
physically assaulted, 17 women were raped, 6 were killed following rape, 9 weregang raped, 2 sexually harassed and 5 kidnapped. In these human rights violations, of the 85 perpetrators, 14 were from indigenous communities while 71 werefrom the mainstream Bengali community and 1 was a member of the law enforcement agency. The age of the victims varied from 3 to 35.13

Civil and political rights of indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples’ organisations have been protesting against the increasing
number of human rights violations, and are demanding protection, promotion andrespect for their human rights. Arbitrary arrests, detentions, intimidation and criminalisation of indigenous peoples’ activists carried out by state and non-state actors have been growing. The victims of these violations include innocent indigenous villagers, activists, indigenous peoples’ human rights defenders (IPHRDs)
and representatives from indigenous peoples’ organisations (IPOs). Extrajudicial
killings, torture and harassment continued unabated against the indigenous communities. Communal attacks on the indigenous peoples have been carried out,
houses set on fire, and properties destroyed and looted – in many cases involving
members of the law enforcement agencies. For example, a video has gone viral
showing police officers directly involved in torching indigenous Santal houses in
Gaibandha. The Supreme Court has taken an outrageous role in the matter ofextrajudicial killings and other human rights violations of the Santal indigenous
community in Gaibandha, as they have halted an order for a judicial inquiry into
these atrocities.
For the first time, indigenous peoples’ organisations in Bangladesh jointly
demonstrated in 27 districts to demand the implementation of the CHT Accord
and the formation of an independent land commission for the indigenous peoples
in the plain land. The government responded negatively to this demonstration insome places, for example, in the CHT, where the Khagrachari district administra-

402

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tion and law enforcement agencies obstructed the human chain of the demonstration.

UN-REDD Bangladesh National Programme
The Government of Bangladesh has approved the UN-REDD Bangladesh Programme and conducted an inception workshop in June 2016 in cooperation withits development partners, UNDP Bangladesh and FAO Bangladesh.14 Bangladesh has recently been playing a promising role by taking concrete measures tocombat global climate change in line with its promises made under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The country
joined the UN-REDD global family as a partner country in 2010. The Bangladesh
National Programme has started supporting the government to achieve three ofthe four UNFCCC requirements to obtain REDD+ result-based payments. These
are: 1) establishing a National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS) for Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) in order to record reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions or enhanced carbon stocks over time; 2) establishing Forest Reference Emission Levels (REL) and Forest Reference Levels (RL)
to serve as benchmarks for assessing each country’s performance in implementing REDD+ activities; and, finally, 3) developing a national REDD+ strategy or
action plan. Indigenous peoples are engaged in this national programme throughthe Programme Executive Board (PEB) and REDD Stakeholder Forum (RSF).

Supreme Court of Bangladesh upholds Chittagong Hill Tracts
Regulation 1900
The significance of CHT Regulation 1900 is that it provides safeguards for indigenous peoples as it upholds the special legal and administrative status of the
CHT region, and recognises customary laws over land, forests and other natural
resources.
In June 2006, the High Court Division ruled that CHT Regulation 1900, thepremier law of the semi-autonomous Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region, was a“dead law” (expired and not applicable), on account of it being in contradiction
with the Constitution of Bangladesh.15 After hearing the matter, the Honourable

SOUTH ASIA

403

Court admitted an appeal on the ruling. On 22 November 2016, the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh subsequently overturned the ruling,
thus reaffirming the significance of Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation 1900.16 Notes and references
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12

13
14

15
16

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2011: Population and Housing Census 2011, Government of
the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, p. 3.
Barkat, A. 2015: Political Economy of Unpeopling of Indigenous Peoples: The Case of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the 19th biennial conference, Bangladesh Economic Association, 8-10
January 2015, Dhaka.
Halim, S. 2015: “Land loss and implications on the plain land Adivasis,” in S. Drong (ed.): Songhati, Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum, pp. 72.
Article 23A stipulates that “The State shall take steps to protect and develop the unique local
culture and tradition of the tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities”.
The members are the Chairman of the CHT Regional Council, traditional chiefs of the three hill
district circles, Hill District Council Chairmen/representatives among others.
Ministry of Education, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (2010) Education
Policy 2010, pp. 8, Bangladesh.
Kapaeeng Foundation 2017, Human Rights Report 2016 on Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh,
Kapaeeng Foundation, Dhaka.
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2016/09/indigenous-peoples-lodge-complaint-bangladeshworld-bank-project/
Kapaeeng Foundation 2017, Human Rights Report 2016 on Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh,
Kapaeeng Foundation, Dhaka.
Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 2016,
Concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of Bangladesh, UN Document No:
CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/8, Para 19 (d).
Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (18November 2016), Concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of Bangladesh, UN
Document No: CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/8.
Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 2016,
Concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of Bangladesh, UN Document No:
CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/8, Para 40.
Kapaeeng Foundation 2017, Human Rights Report 2016 on Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh,
Kapaeeng Foundation, Dhaka.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Bangladesh 2016, ‘Bangladesh government
officially launched the UN-REDD Bangladesh National Programme’, http://www.bd.undp.org/
content/bangladesh/en/home/operations/projects/environment_and_energy/targeted-supportto-implement-bangladesh-redd/un-redd-home/
UNPO: Chittagong Hill Tracts High Court Hearing on CHT Regulation: http://unpo.org/article/4723
Rangamati Food Products v. Commissioner of Customs & Others, Bangladesh Law Chronicles,
Volume 10, pp. 525.

404

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Binota Moy Dhamai is a Jumma from the Tripura people of the Chittagong Hill
Tracts and is an activist in the movement for the rights and recognition of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. He is an active member of the Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Forum, Bangladesh, and Executive Council Member of the Asia
Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP).

Pallab Chakma belongs to the Chakma people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHT) of Bangladesh. He is an indigenous peoples’ rights activist, and currently
the Executive Director of Kapaeeng Foundation, a human rights organisation ofindigenous peoples of Bangladesh.

405

NEPAL
According to the 2011 census, the indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) of Nepal comprise 36% of the total population of 26.5 million, although indigenous peoples’ organizations claim a larger figure of morethan 50%. The 2011 census listed the population as belonging to 125
caste and ethnic groups, including 63 indigenous peoples, 59 castes, including 15 Dalit castes,1 and 3 religious groups, including Muslim groups.
Even though indigenous peoples constitute a significant proportion of
the population, throughout the history of Nepal indigenous peoples havebeen discriminated, marginalized, excluded, subjugated, dominated, exploited and internally colonized by the dominant caste groups in terms ofland, territories, resources, language, culture, customary laws, politicaland economic opportunities and collective way of life.
The new Constitution of Nepal promulgated in 2015 denies the collective rights and aspirations for identity-based federalism of indigenous
peoples,2 in spite of the fact that Nepal has ratified ILO Convention 169 on
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and passed the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the WCIP Outcome Document. The implementation of ILO Convention No. 169, UNDRIP and the
Outcome Document is still wanting. It is yet to be seen how the amendments in, or rewriting of, the new constitution and drafting of new legislation will comply with the provisions of these international human rights
standards.

Failure in the implementation of the ConstitutionT

he new Constitution of Nepal, promulgated in 2015 amidst controversy andthe use of state violence against indigenous peoples and the Madhesi, has byand large failed in its implementation due to wrangling among the main politicalparties, a lack of meaningful inclusion of all groups in society in the drafting process, and continued protests by indigenous peoples and Madhesis (cf. Indige-

406

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017nous World 2016). As the new constitution lacks so many fundamental elements,
such as the names of all seven provinces were not given, no special, protected orautonomous regions were set, elections were not held for federal and provincialparliaments, and elected local bodies were nowhere in sight, difficulty in implementation is obvious. Although the main political parties have claimed that the
new constitution has many positive elements, including federalism, secularism,
inclusive representation, and affirmative action, indigenous peoples’ experts,
movements and leaders have heavily criticized these as being doctored and misused in order to deny the collective rights of indigenous peoples. The Lawyers’
Association for the Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP) has identified four categories of discrimination against indigenous peoples in
the constitution. These are as follows: (a) five provisions give racial supremacy to
the Khas Arya caste group, (b) 11 provisions are against indigenous peoples, (c)23 provisions discriminate against indigenous peoples, and (d) 49 provisions exclude indigenous peoples.3 The indigenous peoples’ movement (and also theMadhesi movement) are thus demanding either total amendments, from the preamble through to the annexes, or a complete rewriting of the constitution in linewith the UNDRIP, ILO Convention No 169 and the Outcome Document. Failure
could, at worst, either lead to a dictatorship or result in protracted ethnic and regional violence. The year 2016 thus ended with such uncertainties unresolved.

Rising controversy over amendments to the Constitution
Indigenous peoples, especially the Tharus, as well as the Madhesis, have been
demanding a rewriting of the constitution to fulfil the mandate of the people’s
movement of 2006, Madhesi and indigenous peoples’ movements of 2007, theinterim Constitution of Nepal of 2007, which was agreed by all political parties of
Nepal, and the indigenous peoples’ movements. As the government, led by theCommunist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), in coalition with
Nepali Congress and other smaller political parties, has not taken any initiative toamend the constitution in order to address the demands of the Tharus and theMadhesis, successive governments led by the CPN Maoists, in coalition with the
Nepali Congress and other smaller political parties, made efforts to table a bill in
Parliament to amend the constitution. Opposition parties, namely the CPN-UML

SOUTH ASIA

407

and political parties of Madhesi and indigenous peoples took it as necessary but
not sufficient.

Predatory restructuring of local bodies
As part of the process of implementing the new constitution, the government hasestablished the Local Body Restructuring Commission (LBRC). This commission
is mandated to suggest a restructuring of local bodies due to an urgent need tohold elections for these. It began its work on 17 March 2016 and was mandated
to recommend the number and format of local bodies by 15 December 2016,
which it did not do. The most problematic issue in the commission’s work is thatmany indigenous peoples are worried about the suggested division of their local
ancestral lands and communities into two or more village institutions known as
Gaunpalika (“Village Councils”). The Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum, a political partyof the Madhesi and Hill indigenous leaders, has had strong objections to the workof the LBRC on the grounds that local bodies should be decided by the respective
provinces and not by the current central government. It should be noted that nofree, prior and informed consent was sought from the indigenous peoples in question, as required by the UNDRIP and the WCIP Outcome Document.

408

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Establishing the commissions
The Constitution of Nepal has provided for the establishment of two commissions:
one for indigenous peoples and the other for the Tharus. While the idea is commendable, in reality it looks as if these two commissions will be powerless, withno judicial or other significant power or authority besides looking after some development work, such as income-generating activities, interactive programs, and capacity building of indigenous peoples’ organizations. Former Prime Minister K. P. Oli
expressed a view that the National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous
Nationalities (NFDIN) should be shut down. Further, as the constitution states thatthe government shall review the need for these commissions 10 years after theirestablishment, it is very likely that it will be discontinued after this review.

Consultation on enhancing the participation of indigenous peoples
in the General Assembly
As a part of the follow-up to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples Outcome Document of 2014, a four-member advisory body formed by the UN Secretary-General to advise on enhancing indigenous peoples’ participation in the
General Assembly (GA), consultations on venue, modalities, representation andselection criteria are ongoing. Krishna B. Bhattachan, representing LAHURNIP,
participated in a consultation held at the UN headquarters on 14-15 December
2016 and made statements focused on granting unique, permanent observer status to indigenous peoples. Concerning the criteria by which to define indigenous
peoples, LAHURNIP suggested, in the Nepalese and South Asia context, including those who do not belong to the Hindu fourfold Varna and caste systems.4

Protests against aggressive developments
Protests against aggressive developments being pursued by the central and local
governments of Nepal, many in collaboration with the World Bank and the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), especially in hydropower projects, electricity transmission lines, road expansion and hunting ground reserve areas, intensified duringSOUTH ASIA

409

2016. More than 100 indigenous and local individuals signed a memorandum onroad expansion in the Kathmandu Valley: “The memorandum calls for scrappingof the criteria drafted without consultation and consent of indigenous Newars andother locals as per their rights guaranteed in the Local Self Governance Act 1999
as well as International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 and United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The memorandum further states that any development program should be undertaken onlywith Free, Prior and Informed Consent of indigenous peoples in the municipality
and warns of protests if the demands are not addressed”. 5 A total of 23 committees of indigenous Newars were formed in 2016 to protest against road expansion projects being implemented by the Kathmandu Metropolitan City. The committees stated they would close down the Kathmandu Valley on 4 January inprotest.

Abuse of “Organized Crime Act”
New legislation known as the Organized Crime Act of 2014 reared its ugly head
this year with the arrests of 13 political cadres associated with the Mongol Mulbasi Rastiyra Force. Generally, organized crime denotes drug lords, the illegalarms trade and trafficking but, in Nepal, any organized efforts by an organization,
including political, not registered with the government and which engages in the
disruption of communal harmony would be considered organized crime, as denoted by the government. The activities of organized groups’ whose mission is toachieve political goals should not be treated as organized crime but, unfortunately, this is the case in Nepal.

Climate change
Some key tasks on climate change and REDD+ were undertaken by the government in 2016. Nepal signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016 and ratified iton 5 October 2016. The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) was initiated by the
Ministry of Population and Environment (MoPE) in 2016. The country’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) was submitted by the Ministry of
Population and Environment. Nepal’s REDD+ Readiness Package (R-Package)410

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017(prepared by the REDD+ Implementation Center/ RIC under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MoFSC)) was approved by the World Bank’s Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). The Emission Reductions Program Document (ERPD) for 12 districts of the lowlands (Tarai) was commenced by RIC under the MoFSC. The National Forest Reference Level (FRL) was submitted to
UNFCCC. The government and international aid agencies continued to focus oncarbon, ignoring the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples and equal sharing of benefits.
All of these climate-change related actions have to be informed by, and be inline with, the UNFCCC Paris Agreement, which acknowledges the rights of indigenous peoples. Importantly, the Paris Agreement does not contradict any of the
UN conventions or international instruments on indigenous peoples’ rights, including the UNDRIP. However, there are still challenges facing Nepal’s indigenous peoples in terms of participating in these programs and policy formulation
processes due to a lack of awareness, access to information, advocacy, and thehegemonic mind-set of the policy makers. With the objective of ensuring indigenous peoples’ issues and rights, the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities(NEFIN), through its Climate Change Partnership Program, has been following
climate-change related matters. NEFIN has been providing its input to the country’s REDD+ Readiness, including the National REDD+ Strategy and FRL. It has
raised many issues, including capacity building, information dissemination andobtaining the FPIC of indigenous peoples on matters which affect them, duringsubmission of the R-Package to FCPF. Secondly, NEFIN submitted a position
statement on ERPD urging the government and relevant actors to ensure thecollective rights of indigenous peoples in Emission Reductions Programs. So far,the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) development process has nine different Thematic Working Groups (TWG) in which indigenous peoples do not yet have any
meaningful participation. NEFIN is in one TWG and is calling for more opportunities to engage. The INDC included very few indigenous peoples’ inputs, whichruns the risk of including “false solutions” to climate change, such as mega hydropower projects. Furthermore, the government, INGOs, NGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies are all working on climate change but have so far neither consulted with indigenous peoples nor dealt with indigenous peoples’ issues in an
appropriate manner. 					SOUTH ASIA

411

Notes and references
1

2

3

4
5

Hindu cosmology divides the population into hereditary caste groups who are ranked according to ritual purity and impurity. The Dalit castes form the lowest tier of the caste system, andare highly marginalized to this day. (Ed. note)
Six indigenous peoples were initially officially recognized in Nepal through the ordinance, Rastriya Janajati Bikas Samiti (Gathan Adesh) 2054. Indigenous peoples have been officially andlegally recognized by the government since 2002 (2059 B.S.) through the National Foundation
for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities Act (known as the NFDIN Act), which lists 59
distinct indigenous communities in the country.
LAHURNIP (2016) Adibasi jajati Adhikarko Sandrvama “Nepalko Sambidhan”ko Adyayan tatha Bisleshan (“A Study and Analysis of the ‘Constitution of Nepal’ in the Context of Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights”). Kathmandu: Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMQ2T-Ll_4Q
http://aippnet.org/nepal-indigenous-newars-in-kirtipur-demand-free-prior-and-informed-consent-for-road-expansion-in-the-municipality/

Krishna B. Bhattachan is indigenous Thakali. He is one of the founding faculty
members and former Head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at
Tribhuvan University in Nepal now recently retired. He has published several
books and articles on indigenous issues.

THE MIDDLE EAST414

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ISRAEL
Israel’s Arab Bedouin are indigenous to the Negev-Naqab desert. Centuries ago, they were semi-nomadic. Bedouin combined herding with agriculture in villages linked by kinship systems, which largely determined
land ownership. Prior to 1948, about 90,000 Bedouin lived in the Negev.
After 1948 most were expelled to Jordan and Sinai. Only about 11,000
survived in Israel. In the early 1950s, the Israeli government concentrated
this population within a restricted geographical area that was about ten
percent of the Bedouin’s former territory, with a promise of return to their
original lands within six months. This promise has yet to be fulfilled. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (2009), currently around 75,000
Bedouin live in 35 “unrecognized villages”, which lack basic services andinfrastructure. Another 150,000 Bedouin live in seven townships and 11
villages that have been “recognized” over the last decade. However,these townships and villages hinder the traditional Bedouin way of life andprovide few employment opportunities. The Bedouin are today politically,socially, economically and culturally marginalised and experience many
forms of discrimination. Their representatives regularly attend and address UN bodies on indigenous peoples’ issues, but their indigenous status is not officially recognised by the State of Israel. Israel has not ratified
ILO Convention No. 169 and has violated many of its provisions. Additionally, Israel did not participate in the vote on the UN Declaration of theRights of Indigenous Peoples and has failed to meet this Declaration’s
provisions.

2016 was marked by the Israeli Supreme Court (SCT) refusal to reconsider its
2015 ruling in the Atir-Umm al-Hiran case and the Israeli government’s continued
policy of house demolitions and crop destructions aimed at forcing the Bedouins
to settle in the few existing townships and recognized villages.

415

MIDDLE EAST

1 Al-Araqib
2 Rakhanah village
3 Umm-Al-Hiran4 Hura13• • •4

•

•2

1

3
4

2

416

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Atir-Umm al-Hiran caseOn 17 January the Israeli Supreme Court (SCT) refused to have an extraordinary
second hearing on the Atir-Umm al-Hiran case. It thus not only definitely closes
the case for the 1,000 residents of Atir-Umm. It is also seen as giving the state abroader legal scope for destroying other Bedouin communities.
The 2015 court ruling involves the demolition of a Bedouin village and theestablishment of a Jewish town and pasture for cattle on its ruins. It will entail theforced displacement of its inhabitants to the overcrowded and impoverishedtownship of Hura.
By allowing the forced displacement of Atir-Umm al-Hiran the court disregarded the fact that two arguments generally made by the state in demolition andevacuation cases were disproved during court hearings. One argument was thatthe Bedouins were “illegal trespassers”. This was disproven since they had been
moved to Atir-Umm by Israeli military order in 1956 after having being relocatedtwice since 1949 when they were first forced to leave their original village Khirbet
Zubaleh where they had lived for centuries. The other argument - that the land on
which they were living was not suitable for construction or residential use – wasalso disproved since the land on which Atir-Umm sits is zoned for residential use,
forming part of a larger residential area in the plan for a new Jewish town (Hiran)
set to be built on its ruins.
Nevertheless the SCT ruled in 2015 that the people of Atir-Umm could be
evicted, on the grounds that the state had merely allowed the Bedouin citizens to
use the land which was state land and that the state had the right to take it backand do with it what it wished even after 60 years of continuous land use and residence.1 Thus, according to SCT the residents of Atir-Umm had acquired no ownership status or property rights to their land over the course of their decades ofresidence and land use.
By refusing to reconsider its ruling from May 2015, the Israeli SCT gave its
final say in the case, which effectively means that the eviction and demolition of
Atir-Umm can go ahead, and in November, the Israeli Land Authority announced
its plans of demolition to start in 2017.

MIDDLE EAST

417

The wider implications of the SCT’s decision
By concluding that the state is within its rights to destroy Atir-Umm and forcibly
displace its Bedouin residents when there does not exist an essential public needand for the explicitly purpose of building in its place the Jewish town of “Hiran”, theSCT decision constitutes a dangerous precedent since it potentially implies thatthe residents of most unrecognised villages also can be evicted for a clear discriminatory purpose in violation of their constitutional rights to property, dignity
and equality.2

Israel’s policy of harassment of Bedouin communities
On January 6, the mosque in the unrecognised village Rakhamah was demolished. Five days later, tractors came to plough the village fields and destroy thecrops. At the end of January, the mosque that had been more or less reconstructed was demolished once more and so were the crops. In August the village’s agricultural dams were destroyed.
Rakhamah is just one example of the ruthless and persistent efforts by thestate of Israel to evict the Bedouin from their land. Throughout the year there havebeen numerous incidents involving the demolitions of houses and structures,animal pens, water tanks, uprooting of trees, crop destructions, confiscation ofdomestic animals, etc. The Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality (NCF)
has reported a total of 77 incidents during 2016, each one of them causing innumerable sufferings and losses to Bedouin families and threatening their livelihoods. House demolitions even occurred in townships and recognised villages.3
In most cases, these raids and abuses are met by peaceful protests. Villagers
try to stop the tractors by standing in front of them and many have been detained.
Their determination to remain on their land makes many of them return and starterecting new structures as soon as the Israeli authorities leave. This is the casein Al-Araqib, a settlement that has been the target of numerous demolitions since2010. In 2016, the remaining residents experienced interventions by Israeli authorities every single month. Although the Al-Araqib case (see The Indigenous
World 2015) is still being discussed in court, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) resumed work, planting trees on the last four lots that had not yet been cultivated.4

418

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Spatial segregation
When forced to resettle, Bedouin communities have few alternatives. They comprise 34 per cent of the population in the Negev-Naqab area, but only 18 settlements out of 144 are officially designated for them. Most of these settlements are
overcrowded since hardly any construction permits are being issued and do notoffer much in terms of infrastructure or employment opportunities.
As for settling in some of the 126 Jewish settlements, this is only possible in
11 of them since state mechanisms, such as admission committees have been
put in place in all the other ones in order to effectively prevent Arabs from moving
in. This is done in flagrant violation of the Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD), which Israel has ratified.5 				Notes and references
1

2
3
4
5

See Adalah, Position Paper “The dangerous implications of the Israeli Supreme Court decision
to allow the forced displacement of Atir-Umm al-Hiran for the remaining unrecognised Bedouin
villages in the Naqab (Negev). July 2015 – Updated February 2016, http://www.adalah.org
Ibid.
www.dukium.org
Ibid.
See NCF Report ”Segregated spaces: the spatial discrimination policies among Jewish and Arabcitizens in the Negev-Naqab, 2016, http://www.dukium.org

Diana Vinding is an anthropologist and has visited Israel several times. She
joined the IWGIA board in January 2017.

419

PALESTINE
Following Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, the Jahalin
Bedouin, together with four other tribes from the Negev Desert (al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida), took refuge in the West
Bank, then under Jordanian rule. These tribes are semi-nomadic agropastoralists living in the rural areas around Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho and the Jordan Valley. These areas are today part of theso-called “Area C” of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). “Area C”,
provisionally granted to Israel in 1995 by the Oslo Accords and which was
due to cease to exist in 1998, represents 60% of the West Bank. It ishome to all West Bank Israeli settlements, industrial estates, militarybases, firing ranges, nature reserves and settler-only bypass roads, allunder Israeli military control.

T

he situation of the indigenous1 Palestinian Bedouin refugees of 1948, some
27,000 pastoral herders living under full Israeli military control in Area C (60%of the West Bank, today home to some 400,000 Israeli settlers), is currently amajor humanitarian issue, having deteriorated significantly in 2016. Most at riskare 7,000 Bedouin (60% of whom are children) living in 46 small communities in
the Jerusalem Periphery. Structures (shelters, goat pens, water tanks, schools,etc.) funded by the donor community as humanitarian aid are being deliberately
targeted: according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA), the Israeli authorities demolished in 2016 structures for an estimatedvalue of 655,000 (US$ 698,557).

OCHA Report to UN Security Council, November 2016
Under-Secretary-General & Emergency Relief Co-ordinator Stephen O’Brien reported to the UN Security Council in November 2016 as follows:

420

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The pace of demolitions and confiscations of Palestinian property by the Israeli authorities has far exceeded any previous years on record; more thandouble this year as compared to 2015. These have occurred mainly within
herding communities in Area C, which count amongst Palestine’s most vulnerable households. Obstruction to our operations in these areas is occurring in the most egregious way - with our relief items themselves frequently
demolished or confiscated by Israeli forces; the rate of demolition or seizureof such donor-funded relief is on a trajectory to potentially triple as compared
to 2015. Affected relief items include shelters and tents, water cisterns, animal pens and other basic structures for survival and livelihoods.
More fundamentally, Palestinians in Area C are living in an increasingly coercive environment created by discriminatory planning policies, demolitions,the active promotion of plans to relocate Bedouin to new townships andother practices that generate miserable living conditions and create pressure
on people to move elsewhere. Much of this occurs in the line of sight of new
or expanding Israeli settlements, illegal under international law as reiterated
by successive resolutions by this Council. About one quarter of the structures targeted this year were in Palestinian Bedouin communities locatedwithin or near the area allocated to the E1 settlement expansion project on
the outskirts of occupied East Jerusalem.
We need a coherent international response that will enhance the protectionof civilians and deliver accountability for violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. This is especially important in theabsence of an active political process between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Israel, the main duty bearer, is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention and has clear obligations as an occupying power, and both Israel andPalestine have ratified the major human rights treaties. They are bound bycustomary international law as well, as are all countries. The members of thisCouncil have a vital role to play in motivating the parties to respect their obligations. Similarly, all parties to the Geneva Conventions have an obligation
not only to respect, but also to ensure the respect by others, of these Conventions.2

421

MIDDLE EAST

PALESTINE[..] However, these actions notwithstanding, the principles of international
humanitarian law do and must apply. This includes all members of this Council, all those in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, both the Israelis and thePalestinians, and all who have signed international legal obligations to which
they are and must be held accountable; [..] And we look to you to address theunderlying driver of Palestine’s protection crisis through a political resolve toend the occupation, now approaching its 50th anniversary.
In a similar vein, in November 2016, the UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Aid andDevelopment Activities, Robert Piper,3 condemned obstruction of relief items toPalestinian communities in the occupied West Bank:
On 7 November, the Israeli Civil Administration and the Israeli army seizednine donor-funded tents (two of which were not yet erected) in the Palestini-

422

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

an Bedouin community of Khirbet Tell al Himma in the northern Jordan Valley. The structures were all provided as humanitarian aid, following earlier
demolitions in the same community on 27 September 2016, which left theaffected families without shelter or kitchens.
[..] About one quarter of the structures targeted this year were in Palestinian
Bedouin communities located within or near the area allocated to the E1 settlement expansion project. [..]
“Through a combination of law, policy and practice, Israel is building an increasingly coercive environment in Area C of the West Bank. This is both illegal andcreating an entirely new reality on the ground,” added Mr. Piper.

The International Criminal Court
The issue has even reached the International Criminal Court. In his preliminary
report from November 2016,4 the ICC prosecutor states:
130. Alleged settlement activities: [..] This settlement activity is allegedly created and maintained through the implementation of a set of policies, laws,
and physical measures: [..] the confiscation and appropriation of land; demolitions of Palestinian property and eviction of residents; discriminatory use ofbasic infrastructure and resources, such as water, soil, grazing lands, andmarket; imposition of other forms of access and movement restrictions upon
Palestinians; and a scheme of subsidies and incentives to encourage migration to the settlements and to boost their economic development.
132. [..] In parallel to demolitions, Israeli authorities reportedly advancedplans for relocation of several Palestinian Bedouin or herder communities
located in Area C of the West Bank, including in the Jordan Valley and in thearea located immediately east of the Jerusalem municipal boundary, socalled E-1 area.

MIDDLE EAST

423

The Bedouin - the “Gatekeepers of Jerusalem”
Described by President Arafat as the “Gatekeepers of Jerusalem”, Jerusalem
Periphery Bedouin guard the strategic eastern entry to Jerusalem; as such they
are also the guardians of a Two-State Solution. Legislation currently underway toannexe Ma’ale Adumim settlement, east of Jerusalem, aims to end all prospect ofa viable Palestinian state. This emphasises the strategically political nature of theBedouin issue: their planned forcible displacement has been heralded as “the last
nail in the coffin of the Two-State Solution” which Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, is already proclaiming as officially dead with the election of President Donald
Trump.
For the Bedouin, living in a culture that is being deliberately eroded, and an
environment that is deliberately coercive such that they are increasingly impoverished and vulnerable, the future is bleak and their situation tragic. No Israeli plans
for their forcible displacement promote their free, prior and informed consent, nor
are the plans – past and present – designed to uphold the rich tradition of Bedouinsustainability, independence or cultural integrity.


Notes and references123Israel denies both indigenous status to Israeli Palestinian Bedouin citizens and their historic presence, despite evidence to the contrary. See Dr. Mansour Nasasra: The Naqab Bedouins: A Century of Politics and Resistance (In press. New York: Columbia University Press) and The Naqab
Bedouin and Colonialism: New Perspectives (2015), edited by Mansour Nasasra, Sophie Richter-Devroe, Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder, Richard Ratcliffe (UK: Routledge 2014). The issue is more
complex with regard to the indigenous status of refugee Bedouin living in the OPT since the1950s, or those who have lived there longer. Few OPT Bedouin own land, unlike those in the
Naqab, and they have no rights in Area C. However, in the new body of emerging law/academic
studies on indigenous rights for those living under the Occupation, academics are staking out thestatus of refugee Bedouin, so that they may be able to access increasing protection under theterms of IHL, IHRL and the body of indigenous rights. See also Dr. Mansour Nasasra and Ahmad
Amara “Bedouin Rights under Occupation: International Humanitarian Law and Indigenous
Rights for Palestinian Bedouin in the West Bank.” Norwegian Refugee Council, November 2015.
http://www.nrc.org
http://www.reliefweb.int/updates
http://www.ochaopt.org/content/un-coordinator-aid-palestine-condemns-continued-obstructionrelief-items-palestinian

424

4

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

International Criminal Court, Prosecutor’s Office, “Report on Preliminary Examination Activities(2016)”, 14 November 2016,
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/F0E483D9B3A89A558525806E0070B4DA

Angela Godfrey-Goldstein is Director of Jahalin Solidarity, a Palestinian organization she set up to support Jahalin Bedouin with capacity raising and advocacy,
especially as to their forcible displacement, and to advocate against the Israeli
Occupation. She was for many years Action Advocacy Officer with ICAHD – The
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, and Advocacy Officer for Grassroots Jerusalem, having previously been an environmental activist in Sinai,
Egypt. In Sinai, she lived for four years with Bedouin; she has been in relationshipwith Sinai Bedouin for over 20 years, including helping 100+ women handicraft
producers to market their products both in Egypt and internationally over a periodof many years.

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

426

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

MOROCCOThe Amazigh (Berber) peoples are the indigenous peoples of North Africa. The most recent census in Morocco (2016) estimated the number ofTamazight speakers to be 28% of the population. However, the Amazighassociations strongly challenge this and instead claim a rate of 65 to 70%.
This means that the Amazigh-speaking population may well number
around 20 million in Morocco, and around 30 million throughout North
Africa and the Sahel as a whole.
The Amazigh people have founded an organisation called the“Amazigh Cultural Movement” (ACM) to advocate for their rights. It is a
civil society movement based on universal values of human rights. There
are now more than 800 Amazigh associations established throughout thewhole of Morocco.
The administrative and legal system of Morocco has been highly Arabised, and the Amazigh culture and way of life is under constant pressure
to assimilate. Morocco has for many years been a unitary state with acentralised authority, a single religion, a single language and systematic
marginalisation of all aspects of the Amazigh identity. The Constitution of2011 officially recognises the Amazigh identity and language. This could
be a very positive and encouraging step forward for the Amazigh peopleof Morocco but unfortunately its official implementation is still pending
enactment of the organic law that would establish rules as to how
Tamazight is to be officially implemented, along with methods for incorporating it into teaching and into life generally as an official language. Work
to harmonise the legal arsenal with the new Constitution has not, in fact,
yet commenced and no steps have been taken to implement the Constitution.
Morocco has not ratified ILO Convention 169 and did not vote in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

427

The map shown here is compiled by IWGIA, and any responsability for its accuracy lies
solely with IWGIA and not the author.

Implementing official recognition of the Amazigh language

Between 2013 and 2015, the government set out a legislative plan for finalising the organic bill of law implementing official recognition of Tamazight.
However, the government’s term in office ended in October 2016 without this law
having been adopted in line with this legislative process. This was despite theAmazigh Cultural Movement (ACM) (800 organisations) warning the governmentof the need to speed up the process for adopting this law:

428

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

“Human rights organisations, women’s rights organisations, as well as coordinating bodies of Amazigh associations at national, regional and international levelare signing this statement to make known the following: All Moroccans, men
and women, are equal in rights and duties, and it is therefore essential thatpublic policies are in place to put an end to discrimination between the two official languages, Arabic and Tamazight, by strengthening the strategies necessary for their protection and promotion. Moroccans have the right to benefit
from scientific and spiritual knowledge, literary, artistic and philosophical knowledge in the Amazigh language, and the struggle to defeat illiteracy in this language requires its institutionalisation and rehabilitation along with the provisionof modern media resources in this regard. It is the State’s duty to respond to
the demands of Morocco’s citizens, to provide them with the conditions necessary for investing in their Tamazight skills in order to use the language anddevelop it, making it one of the main ways of exercising their duties. The official
Amazigh language must be included in the different sectors of public life, in linewith a global vision, taking into account changes in discriminatory allocations,
whether in education, the media or other areas. Tamazight is indissociable fromthe Amazigh cultural values system and forms an integral part of justice, equalityand dignity, all of which form an essential lever for the successful transition todemocracy in our country, inescapably and tightly linked to the democratic project. Moroccans, men and women, await these organic laws as procedural measures with which to build the rule of law, to respect the minimum without which
neither human dignity nor global development can be envisaged…
The statement recommends to:Give priority in organic laws to implementing the official status of the Amazighlanguage, respecting its primacy, and to all other organic laws stipulated in
the Constitution.
Explicitly recognise the fact that the Amazigh and Arabic languages areequal but different in form, communication and advocacy, in all State institutions and in the different spheres of public life.
Strengthen the official bilingualism that characterises Morocco in its different
sectors and areas of public life.

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

429

Insist on the fact that the Arabic and Amazigh languages enjoy equal accessto financial and qualified human resources in different areas and sectors.
Create appropriate institutions to guide and support the implementation of
the different stages of organic laws on Amazigh identity in the different ministries and government sectors.
Improve educational gains, particularly those related to the standardised
Amazigh language, compulsory at all levels of education, and transcribed
into its original “Tifinagh” alphabet; create departments and sectors, establish specialisations and training in the different universities and faculties,
training centres and in different national institutes with programmes that are
in line with the Constitution, particularly those linked to a reconsideration of
the teaching of Morocco’s history from a new scientific and objective reading.
Set precise deadlines and anticipate planning within a reasonable delay witheffective rules in all government and semi-public sectors, in order to implement
the official status of the Amazigh language and evaluate its application (…)
As a result of all of the above, we ask that you take all your responsibilities inaccordance with your duty to the Constitution, within the framework of theofficial missions that have been assigned to you, and that you work for theparticipation of civil society associations active in the field of defending language and cultural rights and for their involvement in all stages of the advancement of the law in order to progress towards the construction of therule of law and a successful and peaceful transition to democracy”.1
Just before the end of the government’s term in office, it published a draft bill oflaw on Tamazight.2 This was despite the fact that its legislative mandate wastechnically already at an end, which raises a constitutional problem. This bill oflaw has elicited strong reactions from the Amazigh Cultural Movement (ACM). A
coalition of 370 Amazigh organisations published a memorandum describing thisbill as a methodological instrument for burying the Amazigh language.3
The ACM has denounced the Prime Minister’s approach to the Amazigh language and his indifference to implementing official status for the Amazigh language through this bill, as recommended by the Constitution. The text of the law

430

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

proposed by the head of government just prior to the legislative elections wasproduced hastily, without the involvement of either civil society or the Amazighorganisations and without being put out for public consultation.4
A large meeting took place in Nador, in the north of Morocco. The memorandum made by the Amazigh organizations5 was sent to King Mohamed VI in orderto get him to review the bill. The Amazigh organisations’ criticisms relate to several points: in the first place, the methodology of the consultation, which was
limited solely to the Prime Minister sending an email calling for proposals for thedraft bill of law. The ACM rapidly rejected this approach. They also rejected thefact that the teaching of Tamazight is not compulsory in the government’s draft billof law, thus highlighting the discrimination existing between the two official languages: ​​Arabic, which enjoys all the resources of the State and Amazigh, which
is simply a secondary language.
This lack of any requirement to teach Tamazight at secondary school level
underscores the government’s negative attitude towards both the Amazigh identity and language, given that Arabic is compulsory at all levels of the Moroccan
education system. The terms used in the draft bill of law do not reflect a strong or
clear commitment from the government to implement Article 5 of the Moroccan
Constitution. For example Article 6 of the draft law says that “it is possible” (andnot mandatory) to create courses and departments for Amazigh in higher education facilities, ed. note).6 The ACM has denounced the government’s failure torespect the Constitution by not submitting the draft bill within the normal deadlines, thus demonstrating the Prime Minister’s ill will and indifference towards the
Amazigh identity. The draft bill of law was rejected by the ACM, who called on theKing to step in and arbitrate as Head of State.

Amazigh language teaching: a blocked project
Teaching of the Amazigh language is of paramount importance to the ACM as a strategic
and inalienable demand. It was introduced into the Moroccan education system in 2003
but a decline has been noted in its progress since 2008. The Minister of Education has,in fact, taken a hostile position with regard to the teaching of this language in the 2030
plan produced by his cabinet, in which Tamazight was not even mentioned.
This teaching seems to have been neglected, awaiting enactment of the organic law. According to the report submitted by the Amazigh associations to the

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

431

118th session of the Human Rights Committee at the Palais Wilson in Geneva
from 24 to 25 October 2016, which was devoted to considering the 6th periodic
report of the Government of Morocco, the Amazigh language is currently taught
to only 12.9% of primary school pupils. In addition to a major shortage ofTamazight-speaking teachers, further obstacles have been created by the government. Trainee teachers went on strike for several months in protest at thedecisions of the Minister of Education.

Land, a problematic issue
Like most African countries colonised by France, there has been a land problem
since independence where France expropriated hundreds of hectares of land fromthe Amazigh tribes. Following independence, these tribes were never able to recover their land despite their demands and protests. The government now considers these lands to be State lands. In his speech to participants of the National
Conference on “The State’s Land Policy” on 8 December 2014, King Mohamed VI
did, however, issue instructions to review the situation of the lands, i.e. the lands
managed by the tribes. The problem has not yet been resolved, however.

Amazigh media in retreat
The Amazigh language has been officially recognised since the 2011 Constitution. Instead of making progress in its expansion throughout the media, however, it has been in
decline. There are currently 10 TV channels broadcasting in Arabic in Morocco, andonly one in Tamazight. This latter broadcasts only six hours a day, although the terms
governing the audio-visual field anticipated 24 hours from 2013 on. Broadcasting hours
in Arabic total some 195 hours per day while the Amazigh language exceeds no morethan six, even though both languages are official languages of the State.7

The Morocco of the future is plural
Although 2016 was a year of waiting with regard to laws on implementing the official status of the Amazigh language and identity, some symbolic actions were

432

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

achieved on behalf of Tamazight. This relates to its appearance, in its Tifinagh
script, on some signs (boards) outside ministries as well as on State administrative buildings and in some public places.
Moreover, on the occasion of the COP22 on climate change, hosted by Morocco, the whole world noted the existence of the Amazigh language on the posters and all signage for the event, which painted Morocco in a favourable light withregard to recognising the identity of the Amazigh people and implementing its
commitments to promoting the Amazigh language and identity.
It seems that the history of Morocco, the flexibility of its system of governance, King Mohamed VI’s desire to reconcile his country’s past and present andto build a modern kingdom based on linguistic, cultural and political plurality, andon law and tolerance, all offer a hope of seeing Morocco become a reference
point for Amazigh rights in the Mediterranean region. 		


Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

http://www.e-joussour.net/fr/memorandum-des-associations-sur-lidentite-amazigh-au-maroc/
www.medias24.com for the full text of the organic law.
http://www.huffpostmaghreb.com/2016/09/09/memorandum-roi-amazigh_n_11933782.html
www.tamurt.info
http://www.huffpostmaghreb.com/2016/09/09/memorandum-roi-amazigh_n_11933782.html
Ibid.
Abdelwahab Bouchtart; Tamazight dans le champ audio visuel du Maroc in http://www.//aljanoub24.com/?p=19183

Mohamed Handaine is the President of the Confederation of Amazigh Associations of South Morocco (Tamunt n Iffus), Agadir, Morocco. He is a university
graduate, historian and writer, and board member of the Coordination Autochtone
Francophone (CAF). He is a founder member of the Amazigh World Congressand has published a number of works on Amazigh history and culture. He is the
President of the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordination Committee (IPACC),
the IPACC North African Regional Representative as well as a member of thesteering committee of the ICCA Consortium in Geneva. He is Director of the Centre for Historical and Environmental Amazigh Studies.

433

ALGERIAThe Amazigh are the indigenous people of Algeria, as well as of othercountries of North Africa and the Sahara, and have been present inthese territories since ancient times. However, the Algerian government does not recognise the indigenous status of the Amazigh. Because of this, there are no official statistics concerning the number of
Amazigh. Based on demographic data relating to the territories inwhich Tamazight-speaking populations live, associations defending
and promoting the Amazigh people estimate the Tamazight-speaking
population to be around 11 million people, or 1/3 of Algeria’s total
population.
The Amazigh of Algeria are concentrated in five large regions of thecountry: Kabylia in the north-east (50% of Algeria’s Amazigh), Aurès inthe east, Chenwa, a mountainous region on the Mediterranean coast to
the west of Algiers, Mzab in the south (Taghardayt), and Tuareg territory
in the Sahara (Tamanrasset, Adrar, Djanet). Many small Amazigh communities also exist in the south-west (Tlemcen, Bechar...) and in otherplaces scattered throughout the country. It is also important to note thatlarge cities such as Algiers, Blida, Oran, Constantine, etc., are home toseveral hundred thousand people who are historically and culturally
Amazigh but who have been partly Arabised over the years, succumbing
to a gradual process of acculturation.
The indigenous population can primarily be distinguished from otherinhabitants by their language (Tamazight) but also by their way of life andtheir culture (clothes, food, beliefs…). After decades of demands andpopular struggles, the Amazigh language was finally recognised as a “national and official language” in the Constitution in 2016. Despite thisachievement, the Amazigh identity continues to be marginalised and folklorised by State institutions. Officially, Algeria is still presented as an “Arabcountry” and anti-Amazigh laws are still in force (such as the 1992 Law ofArabisation).
Internationally, Algeria has ratified the main international standards,
and it voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

434

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Peoples in 2007. However, these texts remain unknown to the vast majority of citizens and, thus, not applied, which has led to the UN treaty monitoring bodies making numerous observations and recommendations toAlgeria in this regard.

Amazigh language recognised as national and official languageT

he Algerian parliament adopted a new Constitution in March 2016, Article 4of which states that “Tamazight is also a national and official language.”1 Article 3, however, indicates that “Arabic is the national and official language. Arabic
remains the official language of the State.” For many observers, the way in which
Articles 3 and 4 are formulated demonstrates the lack of equality between the two
official languages. The primacy given to Arabic is clear and also confirmed in the
Recitals to the Constitution which state that “Algeria is an Arab country”, in contradiction with the country’s historic, social, cultural and linguistic reality.
Moreover, Article 4 adds that “the methods for applying this article shall be set
out in an organic law” but it fails to specify any deadline for this. Considering thatthe government and the vast majority of parliamentarians are of an Arabo-nationalist persuasion, Algeria’s Amazigh are convinced that their language will nevereffectively become an official language. The poor example of Morocco, which
granted Tamazight the status of official language in 2011 but which has adopted
no implementing regulations since, only reinforces the scepticism of Algeria’s
Amazigh population.
Algeria’s Amazigh organisations further note that Tamazight’s status of “national language” since 2002 has resulted in no concrete progress in favour of thislanguage and that there is no recognition or rehabilitation of the indigenous
Amazigh identity in the new constitutional text, where their identity remains largely marginalised in relation to the Arabo-Islamic identity. Article 212 of the newConstitution reinforces the supremacy of the Arabo-Islamic component of Algerian identity by noting that “no constitutional revision may jeopardise Islam, asState religion, or Arabic, as national and official language”. The Amazigh language is not mentioned in this article, evidence that it is not protected in the same
way as Arabic within the Algerian Constitution.

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

435

Algerian legislation therefore remains seriously discriminatory given that there is
one priority language, Arabic, and one secondary one, Tamazight, and consequently a hierarchy of citizens: Arabs, full citizens and Amazigh, second-level
citizens. The Amazigh organisations have firmly and unanimously denounced
this.

Police repression in M’zab and Kabylia
There were fewer acts of violence in the M’zab region (Amazigh region 600 km
south of Algiers) in 2016 than noted in the previous three years. The police, however, who have a high presence in the region continued to make arbitrary arrestsof Mozabite2 citizens and to ban all forms of public expression or demonstration.
Phone and internet communications were also placed under heavy surveillance.
During the year, more than 20 Mozabites were arrested and imprisoned, bringing

436

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

the total number of Mozabite political prisoners to around 140. They are being
held in prisons in Taghardayt (Ghardaya) and El-Ménéa in the south of Algeria.
Most of them have been incarcerated for more than 18 months now without trial,
which is completely unlawful. In fact, Article 125 of Ruling 15/02 of 23 July 20153
stipulates that “preventive detention may not exceed 4 months” and that, in caseof need, it may be extended “once only for a further 4 months”. In protest at theircontinuing unlawful detention and their inhuman detention conditions, the Mozabite prisoners have resorted to repeated hunger strikes, resulting in a serious
deterioration in their health, particularly that of the older detainees and those affected by chronic illness (diabetes, asthma...). Youcef Oulad Dadda was releasedin March 2016, having spent two years in prison for posting a video on the internet
showing Algerian police stealing goods from a shop. Salah Dabouz, President of
the Algerian Human Rights League and lawyer representing the M’zab prisoners,
was arrested and then released in February and again in July 2016 in an attempt
to force him to drop their cases. He is currently under judicial supervision, which
requires him to report to Algiers every week to sign an attendance sheet eventhough he lives in Taghardayt (600 km away).
In Kabylia, the activities and traditional events of Amazigh non-governmentalorganisations (Yennayer, Amazigh New Year, Amazigh Spring…) are disrupted,
banned or forcibly prevented by the police. Members of the Amazigh World Congress (CMA) living in Kabylia have been arrested, questioned and then released
time and again over the past year. At the police offices, they are threatened withprison and violence against their families if they do not halt their activism. The President of the CMA has been out of work since 2015 and now finds himself without any
source of income, reliant on the solidarity of family and friends. Members and supporters of the Movement for Kabyle Self-Determination (MAK), a political movement
not recognised by the administration, are particularly harassed by the Algerian authorities: arbitrary arrests, threats, bans on public events, etc. The Algerian administration hinders public and private investment in Kabylia while encouraging it inother parts of the country. Private Kabyle businesspeople suspected of being close
to the MAK are placed under surveillance by the authorities and find themselvesfacing abnormal administrative and regulatory difficulties.
On 6 September, Slimane Bouhafs, a Christian living in Ait-Wartilane (Kabylia) was sentenced to three years in prison by the Sétif Court of Appeal for “jeopardising the precepts of Islam”. According to the Algerian Human Rights League,
this was an extremely harsh punishment given that “Slimane Bouhafs was mere-NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

437

ly expressing his opinion by belonging to another religion” and that “freedom of
religion is recognised by the Algerian Constitution and guaranteed by the international human rights conventions ratified by Algeria”.4
On the occasion of International Human Rights Day, the Amazigh World Congress and numerous other associations called on the people to gather symbolically in support of human rights in Algeria and around the world. These gatherings
were banned and prevented by a strong police presence. Anyone who did manage to get to the meeting points was arrested and detained all day at a police
station, particularly those in Tizi-Wezzu and Vgayet in Kabylia.
Under the pretext of the war on terror and drug trafficking, Algeria keeps its
border with Morocco closed (since 1994) and has even been reinforcing it byconstructing a wall and putting increased means of control in place. It is the samefor the border with Libya. As for its borders to the south, with Azawad (NorthMali) and Niger, these are closely monitored and often closed. Such obstacles tofree movement prevent traditional exchanges between indigenous populations,depriving them of family and community relationships. Worse still, life itself isquite simply threatened in these arid regions when basic necessities such as foodand medicines cannot move around freely. 			


Notes and references
1
2

3
4

Official Journal of the Algerian Republic, http://www.joradp.dz/HEN/Index.htm
The Mozabites (At-Mzab) are Amazigh people living in the Mzab region (600 km south of Algiers). They form a community of 300,000 people who live in small towns which they themselves
built, the most important of which is Taghardayt (Ghardaya), which was declared a World Heritage Site by Unesco in 1982. The Mozabites are predominantly religious Muslim but of rite Ibadite,a rite not recognized and not accepted by the Algerian State. Since the independence of Algeria(1962), the government has sought to implant Arab populations in the territories of the Mzab, withthe aim of destructuring the At-Mzab civilization in order to domesticate this people. As a result,with the support of the Algerian authorities, the Arabs forcibly occupy the At-Mzab territory andthreaten their traditions and way of life. This is the source of the current problems in Mzab.
Official Journal of the Algerian Republic, http://www.joradp.dz/HEN/Index.htm
www.la-laddh.org

Belkacem Lounes is a Doctor of Economics, university teacher (Grenoble University), and author of numerous reports and articles on Amazigh rights.

438

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

TUNISIAAs elsewhere in North Africa, the Amazighs form Tunisia’s indigenous
population. There are no official statistics regarding their number in the
country but Amazigh associations estimate that there are around 1 million
speakers of Tamazight (the Amazigh language), being around 10% of thetotal population.1 It is in Tunisia that the Amazigh have suffered the greatest forced arabisation. This explains the low proportion of Tamazight
speakers in the country. There are nonetheless many Tunisians who,
while no longer being able to speak Tamazight, still consider themselves
to be Amazigh rather than Arab.
The Amazighs of Tunisia are spread throughout all of the country’s
regions, from Azemour and Sejnane in the north to Tittawin (Tataouine) in
the south, passing through El-Kef, Thala, Siliana, Gafsa, Gabès, Djerba
and Tozeur. As elsewhere in North Africa, many of Tunisia’s Amazighs
have left their mountains and deserts to seek work in the cities andabroad. There are thus a large number of Amazighs in Tunis, where they
live in the city’s different neighbourhoods, particularly the old town (Medina), working primarily in skilled crafts and petty trade. The indigenous
Amazigh population can be distinguished not only by their language(Tamazight) but also by their culture (traditional dress, music, cooking,Ibadite religion practised by the Amazighs of Djerba).
Since the fall of the Ben-Ali regime in 2011, numerous Amazighcultural associations have emerged with the aim of getting the Amazighlanguage and culture recognised and used. The Tunisian state does not,however, recognise the existence of the country’s Amazigh population.
Parliament adopted a new Constitution in 2014 that totally obscures thecountry’s Amazigh (historical, cultural and linguistic) dimensions. In its
recitals, the text refers to the Tunisians’ sources of “Arab and Muslim
identity” and expressly affirms Tunisia’s membership of the “culture andcivilisation of the Arab and Muslim nation”, committing the State to working to strengthen “the Maghreb union as a stage towards achieving Arab
unity…” Article 1 goes on to reaffirm that “Tunisia is a free State, (…), Is-NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

lam is its religion, Arabic its language” while Article 5 confirms that “theTunisian Republic forms part of the Arab Maghreb”.2
On an international level, Tunisia has ratified the main international
standards and voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. However, these international texts remain unknown to the vast majority of citizens and legal professionals, and are notapplied in the domestic courts.

439

440

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Amazighs of Tunisia deniedT

he State and its bodies continue to conceal and totally marginalise Amazighissues, denying Tunisia’s history and human and socio-cultural reality.
Amazigh cultural heritage is exploited only in the form of local folklore to attract
foreign tourists. There is consequently no legislative text in Tunisia, nor any public
institution, dedicated to promoting the cultural, economic and social rights of thecountry’s Amazigh population. The Amazigh language is barred from use in the
public administration and schools, and indigenous Amazigh history is absent fromschool textbooks. Even civil society organisations ignore or boycott Amazigh issues. In their annual reports from the last five years, for example, neither the
Tunisian Human Rights League nor the Higher Committee for Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms have made any mention of the violations of the fundamental rights of the Amazigh population.
To justify this negation of the Amazigh people, the Tunisian government –through the Minister responsible for relations with the constitutional institutions,civil society and human rights – declared in September 2016 that “no-one is stating or claiming their Amazigh identity in the country”.3
This is clearly not the case, as witnessed by the blossoming of new Amazighassociations, the Amazigh protests outside Parliament, their public statements,and so on. Moreover, some Amazigh do not dare to demand their fundamental
rights, in particular as an indigenous people, because of a feeling of inferiority incomparison to the Arabo-Islamic identity that has been imposed for centuries,
and for fear of the ensuing stigma, rejection and repression. The Amazighs ofTunisia consequently dare not even state freely and without fear that they are
Amazighs and so they go as far as to stop themselves from speaking their own
language in public. They thus protect themselves from danger at the cost of theirsilence and the suppression of their identity.
The Amazigh identity in Tunisia is therefore completely proscribed, and theonly authorised – proclaimed - identity that each citizen is required to defend is
the Tunisian identity, based on Islamism and Arabism. Any declaration or claim of
any other identity, particularly the Amazigh identity, may be classified as an act oftreason by the authorities.
Thanks to the political changes that have taken place in Tunisia since 2011,
Tunisian Amazighs from different regions have, however, decided to take matters

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

441

into their own hands and create the conditions for a revival of their language andculture. There are now ten or more Amazigh associations established with a mission to defend and promote the Amazigh language and culture in Tunisia. They
regularly organise awareness raising activities consisting of traditional events,
conferences and festivals with a local dimension. Steps have also been taken toconvince some parliamentarians of the need to change Tunisian legislation in favour of recognising the Amazighs rights in the country.

UN recommendations on Amazigh rights
Following the alternative reports presented by the Amazigh World Congress(CMA), in partnership with the Tunisian Association for the Amazigh Culture (ATCA) and other Amazighs rights associations in Tunisia, the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed its concerns and madethe following recommendations to the Tunisian government when examining Tunisia’s report at its 59th session (19/09-7/10/2016):4“– the Committee is concerned at information received regarding the discrimination suffered by the Amazigh minority, in particular when exercising their cultural rights and that a lack of data broken down by ethnic andcultural belonging makes it impossible to assess the real situation of theAmazighs,– the Committee notes that the State Party’s definition of the Arab andMuslim identity could lead to violations of the cultural and linguistic
rights of the Amazigh minority, particularly by imposing Arabic as thesole language of teaching in public education. The Committee also
notes and regrets the lack of funding allocated to the culture and protection of the cultural heritage of the Amazigh population,– the Committee recommends that the State Party recognise the language and culture of the Amazighs indigenous people and provide
them with the protection and promotion required by the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2009.

442

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Furthermore, the State Party should:
a. collect, on the basis of self-identification, statistics broken down by ethnic
and cultural belonging,b. take administrative and legislative measures to ensure teaching of theAmazigh language takes place at all levels of education and to encourage a knowledge of the Amazigh history and culture,c. revoke Decree No.85 of 12/12/1962 and enable the registration of
Amazigh first names in the civil registry,d. facilitate the smooth running of cultural activities organised by the
Amazigh cultural associations”.
No UN body has never before made observations and recommendations of thismagnitude to the Tunisian State. The Amazighs of Tunisia feel this is a striking
victory for the Amazigh cause. It remains to be seen whether the Tunisian government will implement these recommendations or whether they will fall on deaf
ears. Given the weakness of the Amazigh movement in Tunisia, continuing international pressure will be decisive if progress is to be made on Amazigh rights inthe country. 						Notes and references
1
2
3

4

The number of Amazighs is estimated on the basis of demographic statistics from areas where
the Amazigh language and culture are practised.
Constitution de la Repulique Tunisienne 20 April 2015, http://www.legislation.tn/sites/default/
files/news/constitution-b-a-t.pdf
Speech by Mr Mehdi Ben Gharbia, Minister for Relations with Constitutional Institutions, Civil
Society and Human Rights, at the 59th session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 22 September 2016, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12 / TUN/CO/3, www.ohchr.org

Belkacem Lounes is a Doctor of Economics, university teacher (Grenoble University), and author of numerous reports and articles on Amazigh rights.

443

MALI
Mali’s total population is estimated at around 17.8 million inhabitants. The
Tuareg or Tamashek-speaking people today represent approx. 3.5% of
the population.1 They live mainly in the northern regions of Timbuktu, Gao
and Kidal, which together cover 2/3 of the country’s area of 1,241,021
km2. The Tuareg, the Songhaï, the Fulani (Peul) and the Berabish Arabs
represent the largest groups in northern Mali, and are historically andeconomically opposed to each other.2
Traditionally, Tuareg are semi-nomadic pastoralists, rearing dromedaries, goats and sheep. They occasionally engage in trade, bartering
game and dromedary meat, along with rock salt, in return for dates, fabrics, tea, sugar and foodstuffs.
Tuareg living in Mali belong mainly to three different traditional political entities called “confederations”: the Kel Tademekat, living around andto the north of Timbuktu; the Iwellemeden, living east of Gao and having
Ménaka and In Gall in the state of Niger as their main urban centres; andthe Kel Adrar living around the Adrar Massif and the city of Kidal. Each ofthese political entities has a paramount chief, or Amenokal in Tamashek.
Each confederation is subdivided into a web of sub-clans (or tribes) traditionally belonging to one of the five classes of Tuareg society: the imazaghen or nobility, the ineslimen or religious experts, the imghad or vassals, the inaden or handicraft workers and the iklan or servants/slaves.
Today, the rigid difference between these classes is disappearing but the
Kel Adrar (Iforagh) and the Iwellemeden are still the most influential imazaghen clan, with differing interests. The imghad clans are often opposed to the imazaghen clans. Today these social and political structures
and alliances are reproduced in the membership of the different armed
groups and political orientations in Mali.
The Constitution of Mali recognises cultural diversity and the National
Pact recognises the specific nature of the Tuareg-inhabited regions. In
addition, legislation on decentralisation gives local councillors, including
some Tuareg, a number of powers although not the necessary resources
with which to exercise them. Mali voted in favour of the United Nations

444

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). However, thestate of Mali does not recognise the existence of indigenous peoples on
its territory as understood in the UNDRIP and ILO Convention No 169
concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.

Insurrection and peace agreementsM

ali has been deeply affected by violent insurrections, inter-ethnic clashes
and attacks by Jihadi groups3 in the northern regions since 2012. On 20
June 2015, the Malian government, the Algiers Platform (a coalition of pro-government armed groups) and the CMA (Tuareg-led Azawad Movement Coalition)4
signed the Algiers Peace Agreement (see The Indigenous World 2014 and 2016).
By the end of 2015, inter-communal peace agreements had been signed, first by
Ifoghas and Imrad Tuareg leaders, then by the Tuaregs and the Berabish Arabs.
With these inter-communal agreements, Mali moved closer to a lasting peace.

Implementation of the peace agreement
Despite the peace agreements, however, the violence continued. Jihadist groups,
not included in the Algiers Agreement, intensified their attacks, and old hostilities
and mistrust flared up between the different ethnic-based armed groups (see The
Indigenous World 2014).
In January 2016, a high-level consultative meeting of the members of theAgreement Monitoring Committee (AMC) was held in Algiers. The CMA and theAlgiers Platform expressed frustration over the slow implementation of the agreement, and the shortcomings in the government’s engagement. They also expressed hesitation at the idea of proceeding with the cantonment process5 while
progress on political and institutional reforms remained limited. During the consultative meeting, the Malian parties6 agreed to move forward with the security aspect of the agreement, and to accelerate the implementation of other crucial provisions of the agreement such as decentralisation and institutional reforms, disar-

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

445

mament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), security sector reform, national
reconciliation and development in the north.
The establishment of interim authorities in the north and the implementationof DDR for combatants was the priority of the signatory armed groups. The CMA
and the Algiers Platform agreed on an implementation timeline focusing on theestablishment of interim authorities for the north, progress in security conditions
and provisions related to the preparations for the upcoming communal elections.
The prerequisite for a distribution of seats in the different commissions andunder-commissions7 stated in the Algiers Agreement remained a point of contention. In June, however, the Malian parties reached a new agreement on the modalities for establishing interim administrations in the five northern regions. Gov-

446

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ernors took office in Gao, Ménaka and Timbuktu, while the governors for Kidal
and Taoudenni stayed in Timbuktu because of the security situation in the regions. However, progress in the gradual restoration of State authority in the north,and the cantonment and integration of armed groups remained limited.8 By September, only a third of State officials for the northern regions had been deployed
to their regions.
To support the government and to calm the situation, MINUSMA (UN peacekeeping forces) facilitated inter-communal dialogue and, in partnership with local
NGOs and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), implemented 44
community violence reduction projects reaching 30,000 community members,
especially youth, around the cantonment sites.9

Insecurity
The slow implementation of the Algiers Agreement continued to fuel the volatile security environment in central and northern Mali which, in turn, further
prevented progress in its implementation. Attacks by criminal groups and Jihadist groups10 became ever more intensive and widespread throughout thecountry. There was a significant increase in attacks on the Malian defence
and security forces and the peacekeeping forces (MINUSMA) but the signatory armed groups (CMA and the Algiers Platform) and the humanitarian organisations were also targeted.11
The armed confrontation between the MNLA (National Movement for the
Liberation of Azawad) and GATIA (Groupe d’autodéfense des Touaregs imghad et alliés)12 continues to aggravate the conflict between the CMA and theAlgiers Platform. Tensions over the control of Kidal13 had been latent since
the agreement in October 2015. MINUSMA intervened to calm the situation,
and an agreement was signed by the two groups on the joint management of
Kidal and other measures to reduce tensions.
At the 10th Agreement Monitoring Committee (AMC) meeting held in Bamako on the 25 July, the CMA and the Algiers Platform reiterated the need tourgently establish interim administrations in the five northern regions. The
government announced at the meeting that resources had been allocated forthe interim administrations and asked the CMA and the Algiers Platform tonominate their candidates for appointment. The parties agreed to adjust the

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

447

timeline for establishing the interim administrations, and to accelerate theprocess of DDR. Delays continued, however, and significant challenges remained in advancing political and security measures due to the continued
mistrust among the signatory parties.
In the central region, the Jihadist groups reinforced their strongholds and inter-communal violence increased between the Bambara, Fulani and other groups.
Old tensions over land rights and water resources flared up in the wake of the
Asawad conflict. The radicalisation of young people continued not only in Kidal,
Gao, Ménaka and Timbuktu but also spread to the region of Mopti. Facing a future with no jobs and no education, the young people constitute an easy target forrecruitment by the Jihadist groups.
A very high number of UN peacekeepers and soldiers from the Malian army
were killed or injured during 2016. One year after the Algiers Agreement, there
had been 191 attacks with at least 385 dead (civilians, Malian soldiers, peacekeepers, assailants and combatants).14

Elections
The deficit in interim authorities became a huge challenge for the preparation of
the commune-level elections. On 20 November 2016 the voters were invited toelect 12,000 councillors throughout the country in the first municipal elections
since the insurrection in 2012. Both the opposition parties and the signatory
armed groups had criticised the planned election, expressing strong concerns
over the challenges facing the elections in the north due to the lack of interim
administrations, the weak presence of the State authorities, high insecurity andthe difficulty in including refugees and displaced people. The CMA expressed
support for local opposition to elections stating that, in accordance with the peaceagreement, no elections should be held before the interim authorities had been
established.
Polls were cancelled in at least seven districts in the north for security reasons. In Timbuktu, ballot boxes were burnt, and one candidate was kidnapped
during the elections. Many people boycotted the election, and a Jihadist group
allegedly killed five soldiers transporting ballot boxes. Low turnout was reported
in most parts of the country outside of the capital, Bamako.15 The results of theelection are still not known.

448

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Humanitarian situation
Ongoing inter-communal violence, attacks and suicide bombings have left the population of northern and central Mali in a situation of lawlessness and insecurity,
threatening the livelihoods of the population and affecting their access to market,
communication lines, education, food and water.16 The situation has been exacerbated by reduced access to grazing lands for animals and increasing numbers offarmers abandoning their fields for fear of attacks by armed groups. Armed men
have driven off entire herds of livestock, while traders describe being robbed on
their way to local village markets, without any action from the government.
The increase in violence has further aggravated the situation of displacement,
destabilised local communities and prevented people from returning to their homes.
On the Malian-Niger border, a number of well-coordinated attacks have been carried out, destabilising the refugee hosting areas of Tahoua and Tillabery in Niger,
where soldiers were killed and a UNHRC health centre looted.
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA)17 more than two million people are currently suffering from food insecurity.
Furthermore, the violence severely undermines the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Access to basic services remains low. Many schools are still closed in the Gao,
Kidal and Timbuktu regions, with 380,000 children between 7 and 15 years of age
remaining out of school in the north. The worsening security situation in the central
region has led to further closures of schools in the Mopti and Ségou regions. Landmines, improvised explosive devices and the explosive remnants of war are also
threatening the health and life of the population, especially the children.
By the end of 2016, around 36,690 internally displaced people were still living
in host communities or camps. Some 139,000 refugees remained in neighbouring
Burkina Faso (32,295), Mauritania (42,867), Niger (60,813) and Algeria (up to
15,000).18 Many of these are Tuareg, Berabish Arabs and Fulani who have losttheir cattle, crops or shops in looting and revenge attacks.

Human rights
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have released several reports
concerning human rights violations committed by both sides in Mali.19 HumanNORTH AND WEST AFRICA

449

rights violations have increased since the insurrection in 2012. MINUSMA has
documented several hundred cases of violations and abuses of human rights andinternational humanitarian law, also including children, during 2016. The cases
involved instances of executions or attempted killings, amputation, ill-treatment or
torture, illegal detention, extortion or looting, attacks against humanitarian orpeacekeeping personnel, abduction, recruitment of child soldiers, sexual violence, military use of a hospital, forced displacement, illegal taxation etc.20 The
violations have allegedly been committed by government forces, the CMA, theAlgiers Platform and other armed groups, mostly in the northern and central partsof Mali; however, the UN peacekeeping forces have also been involved.
The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights launched 12 investigations aimed atreviewing and addressing the human rights violations documented by MINUSMA.
Limited progress has been made in combating impunity for serious violations andabuses, however, including conflict-related sexual violence. Investigations and theeffective capacity of regional courts are blocked by a lack of material and humanresources. In December, the UN Independent Expert on the situation of humanrights in Mali expressed deep concern at the time taken to investigate and bring totrial cases of war crimes and human rights violations committed during the conflict.21
Recently, however, an Islamic extremist pleaded guilty at the International
Criminal Court (ICC) to destroying shrines and damaging a mosque in the ancient
city of Timbuktu.

Women’s issues
The National Assembly adopted a quota law on 12 November 2015 which requires that at least 30 percent of elected or appointed officials be women. In
September 2016, a new electoral law was signed emphasising the need for aminimum 30 percent of female candidates on the electoral lists. Implementation
remains limited, however. Despite the fact that women’s organisations, especiallyin northern Mali, have played a key role in reconciliation processes between the
Tuareg movement and the Malian government, women’s representation in theimplementation phase of the peace agreement is still very low.22
Progress in the investigation and prosecution of sexual violence has been
limited owing to death threats against local monitors and the limited capacity ofnational justice institutions. 					450IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references
1

The Tuareg (pastoralists) and the Songhai (sedentary traders and agriculturalists from Gao andTimbuktu) represent the largest groups in northern Mali. Other significant populations are theFulani (pastoralists), Berabish Arabs (pastoralists), Arabs (traders) and smaller numbers of
Dogon (agriculturalists), Bozo (fisher nomads) and Bambara (majority in the south).
2 The Tuareg and the Songhai have been in conflict over the caravan trade in Sahara since the 17th
century. As the Songhai Empire declined, it was overrun by Moroccans and, later, by the Tuareg.
The Fulani and Berabish Arabs have also been opposed to the Tuareg as well as to each other.
3 At the end of the 2012, the rebellion drastically changed its character. From the MNLA (National
Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) fighting a campaign against the Malian government forindependence or greater autonomy for the northern region in Mali known as Azawad (Kidal,
Timbuktu, Gao) the political and military offensive was taken over in April 2012 by the Jihadistgroups of Ansar Eddine, AQMI (Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb), MUJAO (Movement for Onenessand Jihad in West Africa) and the Belmoctar group, now united in Al-Mourabitoune. While thegoal for the MNLA was to fight for an independent, secular, multi-ethnic homeland for the Azawad
people, the goal for the Jihadist groups was to fight for an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law.
Furthermore, militias from different ethnic groups such as the FNLA (National Liberation of
Azawad) (Arab group supported by the Malian government), Ganda Koy (Songhai) and Ganda
Izo (Fulani) were opposed to the MNLA vision of the partition from Mali. They saw the project asa Tuareg project and therefore supported the Jihadist groups against the MNLA.
4 Pro-Azawad coalition formed of the HCUA (High Council for Unity of Azawad), MNLA (National
Movement for the Liberation of Azawad), MAA (Arabic Movement for Azawad) and MAA dissidents.
5 Internment of the combatants in secure camps (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration).
6 The Malian government, CMA (Pro-Azawad coalition) and the Algiers Platform (pro-government
coalition).
7 The Agreement Monitoring Committee (AMC), Technical Security Committee (CTS). The Truth,
Justice and Reconciliation Commission. Commissions on DDR (disarmament, demobilisation
and reintegration), the National Council for Security Sector Reform, Operational Coordination
Mechanism etc.
8 UN Security Council, Statement, 3 November 2016, http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/
cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_prst_2016_16.pdf
9 United Nations Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Mali. 29
September 2016.
10 Ansar Eddine, AQMI (Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb), MUJAO (Movement for Oneness and Jihadin West Africa), Boko Haram (Nigeria terrorist group), Al-Mourabitoune (comprises MUJAO andthe Belmoctar group), the Macina Liberation Front (latest franchise of Al Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb).
11 United Nations Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Mali, 29
September 2016.
12 GATIA (Groupe Autodéfense Touareg Imghad et alliés) is a pro-government militia supported by
the government and member of the Algiers Platform. Their leader is an Imghad Tuareg, General
Gamou, who has been serving in the Malian Army and who is responsible for many attacks
against Tuareg camps and villages. He is considered a traitor by the Tuareg community. He

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

451

broke the ceasefire in 2012 many times, and has continues to break the Algiers Peace Agreement since 2015 by attacking MNLA strongholds such as Anafi, Ménaka, Kidal etc.
In northern Mali. Centre and stronghold for the MNLA and Ifoghas Tuareg.
Le Républicain /Maliink Investigative Reporting Group 04/07/16/
African News 24/11/16 and DW (Deutsche Welle) http://www.dw.com/en/violence-mars-localelections-in-mali/a-36466388
UNCHR regional update, Mali Situation, November 2016.
OCHA, Humanitarian Bulletin Mali, October –November 2016.
UNHCR, Operational Update Mali November 2016.
Human Rights Watch: World Report 2017, Mali.
United Nations Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Mali, 29
September 2016.
Report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali, UN Human Rights
Council, January 2017.
The Ministry for the Advancement of Women, Children and the Family is not represented on thenational committee of coordination for the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation.

Ingrid Poulsen is a Social Anthropologist from the University of Copenhagen.
She specialises in Tuareg issues and has studied pastoral societies for more than
20 years. From 1999 – 2012 she worked in West Africa: as Danida adviser in Niger, at the Danish Embassy in Burkina Faso and as Country Director for
Børnefonden in Benin.

452

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

BURKINA FASO
Burkina Faso has a population of 14,017,262 (4th General Census ofPopulation and Housing, December 2006) comprising some 60 different
ethnic groups. The indigenous peoples include the pastoralist Peul (alsocalled the fulbe duroobe egga hoɗɗaaɓe, or, more commonly, duroobe or
egga hoɗɗaaɓe) and the Tuareg. There are no reliable statistics on theexact number of pastoralists in Burkina Faso. They can be found throughout the whole country but are particularly concentrated in the northern
regions of Séno, Soum, Baraboulé, Djibo, Liptaako, Yagha and Oudalan.
The Peul and the Tuareg most often live in areas which are geographically isolated, dry and economically marginalised and they are often thevictims of human rights abuses. Burkinabe nomadic pastoralists, even if
innocent of any crime, have thus been subjected to numerous acts of violence: their houses burned, their possessions stolen, their animals killed
or disappeared, children and the elderly killed, bodies left to decay andtheir families forbidden from retrieving them.
Peul pastoralists are gradually becoming sedentarised in some partsof Burkina Faso. There are, however, still many who remain nomadic,
following seasonal migrations and travelling hundreds of kilometres intoneighbouring countries, particularly Togo, Benin and Ghana. Unlike otherpopulations in Burkina Faso, the nomadic Peul are pastoralists whose
whole lives are governed by the activities necessary for the survival of
their animals and many of them still reject any activity not related to extensive livestock rearing.
The existence of indigenous peoples is not recognised by the Constitution of Burkina Faso. The Constitution guarantees education and healthfor all; however, due to lack of resources and proper infrastructure, thenomadic populations can, in practice, only enjoy these rights to a very
limited extent. Burkina Faso voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

453

The nomadic Peul pastoralists of Burkina FasoT

he culture and way of life of the nomadic Peul pastoralists of Burkina Faso
continued to be the object of discrimination and scorn in 2016. Over the year,
thousands were forcibly displaced both inside and outside the country and, as inprevious years, the overriding issue for the nomadic Peul pastoralists remained
their security. Indeed, their most basic rights are still being violated, whether in
Burkina Faso or abroad.
Within Burkina Faso, the events in the rural commune of Guiaro in Nahouri
province are among the most noteworthy. In this commune, the Peul living in thecamp in Koeniassa neighbourhood of Bouya village were, in July 2016, the victims of serious human rights violations committed by the resident farmers. Suchviolations included: the demolition of huts, burning of grain stores and other assets, and dispersion and dispossession of livestock. 127 people became homeless and this brought about an emergency. Some victims were temporarily housedin classrooms at the commune’s school although others cannot currently be located.1

454

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Outside Burkina Faso, Peul pastoralists are no safer. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, Peul from Burkina Faso, most of them livestock herders, had to flee theviolence that took place in the area surrounding Bouna commune. Indeed, as of
Tuesday 5 April 2016, according to Yaya Sanou, High Commissioner of Noumbiel
Province, there were 2,168 persons displaced from Bouna to Burkina Faso, while
another 567 went up to Ghana.2 In other parts of Burkina Faso, however, the Peulpastoralists have been less disturbed, thanks to the emergence of the Koglweogo
or village associations, aimed at ensuring the safety of all people and their property in the whole area.

The Koglweogo self-defence group
In recent years, whenever nomadic pastoralists have been attacked, no-one fromthe other village communities has come to their rescue, and the authorities havearrived very late. Pastoralists have suffered badly from theft of their livestock andthis has, to a large extent, been happening with impunity as those responsible
have not been brought to justice. This has led to the emergence of local self-defence groups known as Koglweogo, aimed at helping to ensure the security of thenomadic pastoralists.3
It is clear that, during 2016, the pastoralists have enjoyed greater security inthe province of Mossi Plateau, where the Koglweogo have been established. Thisis because there is no more stealing in the villages. Indeed, the thieves and thoserunning criminal networks, who were previously very well-organised and able to
make people believe that the nomadic pastoralists were responsible, have all
been neutralized.
The Koglweogo are very well-organised and much appreciated by the rural
populations, particularly the Peul pastoralists from the Mossi Plateau. Theiremergence confirms yet again that the numerous injustices and other forms ofcorruption experienced by individuals in Burkina Faso have been due to an
absence of justice. The Koglweogo include the nomadic pastoralists, vulnerable populations, in all their activities. This will clearly have an influence on pastoralism in years to come if the Koglweogo become full militia, undermining theauthority of the State.4

NORTH AND WEST AFRICA

455

Towards nomadic pastoralists’ self-organisation
There are Peul who are called Fulɓe durooɓe egga hoɗɗaaɓe or “durooɓe” byother Peul. These people, whether they are settled or transhumant with their animals, also call themselves “durooɓe”.
Until now, the “durooɓe” have been considered the only indigenous Peul
population under the terms of the ACHPR’s definition, i.e. “particular groups who
have been left on the margins of development, who are perceived negatively bydominant mainstream development paradigms and whose cultures and lives are
subject to discrimination and contempt”.5 Numerous not-for-profit associations
have been helping provide them with training for many years (adult literacy, raising awareness of child education, specific technical training…). More recently,
however, the Peuls’ most fundamental rights have been so violated that evensettled Peul, far from being “durooɓe”, have paid a high price. Indeed, the settled
Peul who were chased out of their villages in 2015 and who sought refuge in the
Ziniaré gendarmerie station were forced to leave the compound at the start of2016 with nowhere to go but into the bush. Markers are now being put down intheir village, clearly to allocate plots of land to new purchasers. This kind of injustice brings both the settled and nomadic pastoralists closer together in the same
battle, that of their rights to land and life. The nomadic pastoralists’ indigenous
movement is thus currently in the process of rebuilding itself.
The nomadic pastoralists’ indigenous movement in Burkina Faso has also
been marked by the emergence of a group of pastoralist leaders known as Rugga. The Rugga are nomadic pastoralist leaders elected by the pastoralists themselves with responsibility for pastoralism within their community. All Rugga are
Peul pastoralists. Around 40 of them took part in a Congress that was organisedin Ouagadougou from 22 to 24 October 2016. They all come from the north-east,
east and centre-east of Burkina Faso. Aged between 25 and 60, none of themcan read or write. The ruggaaku or Rougga vision, which focusses on achieving
peaceful pastoralist societies by drawing on internal pastoral specialists, is muchappreciated by the livestock herders. As this movement also exists in other countries, such as Niger, it can be considered a truly indigenous movement, aware of
the challenges facing pastoralism and organised solely by pastoralist leaders.
And it is now emerging in Burkina Faso.

456

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Conclusion
The situation of Peul pastoralists in 2016 shows how, as in previous years, wealthy men
and women living dignified lives can find themselves destitute overnight. So many Peulfamilies who were previously very happy have had their lives completely destroyed: no
cattle, no land, no social security, just accusations from all sides. Perhaps President Roch
Marc Christian Kaboré’s new government will show more concern for their fate,as he seems committed to fighting injustice and its consequences.


Notes and references
1
2

3

4

5

http://www.abcburkina.net/fr/nos-dossiers/vu-au-sud-vu-du-sud/938-509-conflits-entre-agriculteurs-et-eleveurs-dans-le-nahouri
Le Monde Afrique. “Au Burkina Faso, avec les déplacés du conflit entre Peul et Lobi”, Le Monde
Afrique, http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2016/04/06/au-burkina-faso-avec-les-deplaces-duconflit-entre-peul-et-lobi_4897041_3212.html
Prof. Albert Ouédraogo partly justifies the birth of the Koglweogo in these terms: “The people
have suffered thefts of their livestock. They have become a daily occurrence but when the perpetrators are caught and brought to justice, they are often released either at the gendarmerie, thepolice station, or the court house. So this shows how seriously those responsible for handing
down justice have failed. And it is this failure that is at the root of some people’s need to organise
independently.” (Dimitri Kaboré, 2016).
With the emergence of the Koglweogo, the police stations and gendarmeries are losing ground in rural
areas, and the people on the ground seem to feel that the Koglweogo provide justice and security. The
corruption of the State security services in Burkina seems to have turned police officers and gendarmes into hated people, and for the moment, the Koglweogo are the epitome of justice. But thequestion is whether this will last or not. And it is also questionable as to whether non-statutory forces
should play this role. And what if the Koglweogo end up more corrupt than the State forces? For the
moment, however, the nomadic pastoralists are well protected, and this is thanks to the Koglweogo.
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa. Indigenous peoples in Africa: the forgotten peoples. ACHPR and IWGIA, Copenhagen. Also found at: http://www.ilo.org; http://www.ohchr.org; http://www.ipacc.org.za.

Issa Diallo is senior research fellow at the National Center for Scientific andTechnological Research in Ouagadougou. He is also president of the Association
for the Protection of the Rights and the Promotion of Cultural Diversities of Minority Groups (ADCPM), officially recognised by the Government of Burkina Faso
since 2005. ADCPM’s objective is to promote human and cultural rights, especially for people from minority groups.

CENTRAL AFRICA

458

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

CAMEROON
Among Cameroon’s more than 20 million inhabitants, some communities
self-identify as indigenous. These include the hunter/gatherers (Pygmies), the Mbororo pastoralists and the Kirdi mountain communities. The
Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon uses the terms indigenous andminorities in its preamble; however, it is not clear to whom this refers.
Nevertheless, with the developments in international law, civil society andthe government are increasingly using the term indigenous to refer to theabove-mentioned groups.
Together, the Pygmies represent around 0.4% of the total populationof Cameroon. They can be further divided into three sub-groups, namely
the Bagyeli or Bakola, who are estimated to number around 4,000 people,
the Baka - estimated at around 40,000 - and the Bedzan, estimated ataround 300 people. The Baka live above all in the East and South regionsof Cameroon. The Bakola and Bagyeli live in an area of around 12,000
square kms in the south of Cameroon, particularly in the districts of Akom
II, Bipindi, Kribi and Lolodorf. Finally, the Bedzang live in the Central region, to the north-west of Mbam in the Ngambè Tikar region.
The Mbororo people living in Cameroon are estimated to number
over 1 million people and they make up approx. 12% of the population.
The Mbororo live primarily along the borders with Nigeria, Chad and theCentral African Republic. Three groups of Mbororo are found in Cameroon: the Wodaabe in the North Region; the Jafun, who live primarily in
the North-West, West, Adamawa and East Regions; and the Galegi,
popularly known as the Aku, who live in the East, Adamawa, West andNorth-West Regions. The Kirdi communities live high up in the Mandara
Mountain range, in the north of Cameroon. Their precise numbers are notknown.
Cameroon voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 but has not ratified ILO Convention 169.

CENTRAL AFRICA

459

Legislative changes, national policies and programmesNo major legislative changes took place in 2016. There was no progress in anyof the laws that are under revision. These laws include the laws on forestsand fauna, the law on land tenure and the pastoralist code, to which indigenous
peoples and civil society have made important contributions. Through their respective organisations, indigenous peoples have participated in the activities of
CISPAV (Comité de Suivi des Programmes et Projets Impliquant les Populations
Autochtones Vulnérables). This committee was created by the Ministry of Social
Affairs on 6 August 2013 and, among others, its roles include:460

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

•
•

•
•

Identifying the need for the socio-economic inclusion of indigenous peoples in Cameroon,
Identifying and evaluating the human, technical and financial resources
available and required to be able to put major development activities forindigenous peoples into action,
Coordinating and supervising all programmes within the different sectoraladministrative bodies, NGOs and CSOs in favour of indigenous peoples,
Making proposals on how to improve all actions so that they can better
serve indigenous peoples.

The committee holds its annual session in August to take stock of all the various
initiatives for indigenous peoples.
In terms of programmes carried out for indigenous peoples in Cameroon by
the government in 2016, the PNDP (Programme National de Development Participatif) provided potable water, community halls and equipment for 47 schools in
the East region aimed at hunter-gatherers. The FEDEC (Fondation pour environment et le Developpement au Cameroun) - an NGO that was put in place by theWorld Bank to support indigenous peoples affected by the Chad Cameroon Pipeline project - carried out sensitization campaigns related to health for Mbororo
pastoralists around the Yoko-Tibati Park as well as immunisation campaigns fortheir children. They also provided some classrooms and scholarships for Mbororo
children and distributed Bracaria seeds (a type of improved grass for animals) tohelp the Mbororo around the park improve the state of their pastures.
PACA, a World Bank-financed project, constructed four community halls forindigenous peoples in the East, North-West, South and Coastal regions of thecountry. Through the Ministry of Basic Education, five primary schools were created for Mbororo pastoralists in the Adamawa Region, which is renowned forhaving a very low rate of school enrolment. The creation of these schools was
accompanied by the recruitment of four Mbororo teachers.

REDD+ and climate change
The REDD+ process in Cameroon is still in its national strategy development
phase. The first draft of the national strategy was supposed to be finalised by
September 2016. Unfortunately, all the important studies which were meant toCENTRAL AFRICA

461

feed into the national strategy could not be completed due to administrative bottlenecks. This subsequently led to the World Bank’s team, during their evaluation
meeting in October 2016, extending the timeframe by 18 months. Nevertheless,most of the important studies have been launched and are now expected to be
finalised in June 2017. These studies include an analysis of the factors of deforestation and forest degradation, including a study on the design and implementation of a mechanism for conflict management, a study on benefit-sharing mechanisms and, finally, a study on environmental and social strategies for REDD+.
The indigenous peoples are important stakeholders in the REDD+ process
and are therefore seeking to participate in all the process activities. During May
2016, indigenous peoples’ leaders from the forest and pastoralist communities
were trained in institutional and organisational capacity building in order to bebetter equipped to participate in the REDD+ process in Cameroon. They received
laptops and Internet keys which should permit them to access and share information on the REDD+ process. The training was organised by the African Indigenous
Women’s Organisation-Central African Network (AIWO-CAN) and many feedback meetings were held on the REDD+ process within indigenous communities
in three regions of the country.
It is also important to note that several indigenous peoples’ leaders from Cameroon also took part in the COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco, in November 2016.

Mobilisation of indigenous peoples
Under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Affairs, over 1,000 Mbororo pastoralists gathered on 9 August 2016 in the West region of Cameroon, more precisely
in Didango, a Mbororo locality in Noun Division. The purpose of this mobilisation
was to celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. In
2008, the Government of Cameroon passed a decree officially recognising International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and, since then, the government
and indigenous peoples have organised many activities during the month of August, culminating in the celebration of the day itself. An indigenous community is
selected for the official ceremony on International Day, most often alternating
between hunter-gatherer and Mbororo communities. When the celebration is heldin hunter-gatherer communities, the Mbororo travel to these places to participate
but when the day is celebrated in the political capital of Yaoundé, both communi-

462

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017ties are invited to attend. This notwithstanding, under the banner of the Mbororo
Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA), indigenous peoples
in other regions of the country also celebrate this day as it has become a popular
ceremony with numerous festivities, speeches, dancing, horse races, exhibitionsof cultural artefacts and sporting activities. It has also become an opportunity forthe government to announce what they intend to do for indigenous peoples.
On 5-6 December 2016, the pastoralists’ cultural festival was organised in the Meiganga town, Adamawa Region. The festival has become a social jamboree in which
thousands of Mbororo people gather for two days to celebrate and revive their culture,including activities such as horse racing, dancing and folklore, traditional games, exhibitions of arts and crafts, and also the election the festival’s beauty pageants.

Indigenous representation and participation in decision-making
On the special instructions of the President of the Republic of Cameroon, whichstate that indigenous peoples should be appointed to government positions, anMbororo leader (Dr. Ibrahim Manu) was appointed as Officer of Special Duties in
2016, in the department of the Prime Minister. This appointment follows that of the
National President of MBOSCUDA (Mr. Manu Jaji) as Secretary General of the
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries in early 2016. These appointments haveraised expectations among the Mbororo people that their situation may improvein relation to accessing jobs, being admitted into professional schools and having
their human rights abuses resolved.

Civil strife and its effects on indigenous peoples
From what began in November 2016 as social demands by teachers’ and lawyers’ unions from the two English-speaking regions, the South-West and NorthWest regions, the situation has developed into civil strife with a demand for autonomy. As a result, school activities have since been grounded and economic
activities have been paralysed in these regions. This situation, which has caused
a fall in the demand for beef, has affected the Mbororo people, who depend on
the sale of cattle as a source of revenue. The Mbororo in the two regions are worried about their situation as the dominant communities are accusing them of not

CENTRAL AFRICA

463

participating in the protests or showing support for their struggle for regional autonomy. Another negative impact of this situation is the decline in school enrolments among Mbororo children, which had recently been on the rise, thus thwarting MBOSCUDA’s two-decade-long efforts to promote education.

Development projects affecting hunter-gatherers
Large infrastructure projects such as the Lom Pangar Hydro Electricity Dam in the
East region, and the Kribi Deep Sea Port and the Memvele Hydro Electricity Damin the South region, are in their final stages. These projects are located on the
territories of the Baka and Bagyeli peoples and will come into operation in the
coming months. The indigenous communities of these regions have not benefited
from these projects either in the form of social projects or in the form of jobs. The
compensation, social projects and jobs all went to the dominant communities.
In June 2016, an important project entitled “NGOs Collaborating for Equitable
Community Livelihood in the Congo Basin Forests”, funded by UK developmentaid (DfID) was launched in Yaoundé. It is an ambitious project with a coalition ofinternational NGOs who will use local organisations on the ground for project
implementation. The organisations are: the International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED), Rainforest Foundation, Client Earth, FERN, Forest Peoples Programme and Well Grounded. In Cameroon, the Centre for Environmentand Development (CED) and OKANI (a Baka-based organisation) will partnerwith Forest Peoples Programme to help carry out the project in the hunter-gatherer communities. The Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communitiesof the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is on the board of theconsortium to ensure that the rights of the indigenous peoples in the Congo Basinare respected and that they will effectively benefit from the project.
Hawe Bouba is an expert in human rights and humanitarian action. She is thenational Vice-President of MBOSCUDA, expert member of the Working Group on
Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human andPeoples’ Rights, member of the Cameroon National Commission of Human
Rights and Freedoms and, finally, president of the African Indigenous Women’s
Organisation-Central African Network (AIWO-CAN).

464

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

THE REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Located at the heart of the second-largest mass of forest cover in theworld, the Republic of Congo covers 342,000 km2 of Central Africa. At thetime of the last census, the country had 3,697,490 inhabitants (2007 General Census of Population and Habitat - RGPH). The Second Survey(Second Congolese Household Survey / ECOM 2011) provided an update to these figures, with an estimated 2011 population of 4,085,422.
The Congolese population comprises two groups: the indigenous
population and the Bantu. The indigenous population are hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the region since time immemorial while the Bantu
are farmers descended from people who arrived in the region more recently and who became a dominant majority through conquest, occupation and other means.
The names of Congo’s indigenous peoples vary from department to
department. They may be known as: Bakola, Tswa or Batwas, Babongo,
Baaka, Mbendjeles, Mikayas, Bagombes, Babis, etc. They are officiallyestimated at some 50,000 individuals, or around 1.2% of the total 2007
population. However, a report published in 2008 (Analysis of the situationof indigenous children and women, UNICEF 2008) suggested that they
make up a far greater proportion of the population, as much as 10%. According to the different available sources, the indigenous population is
one of the poorest and most marginalised sectors in the country.
In 2011, the Republic of Congo became the first country in Africa toenact a specific law on indigenous populations. There has been virtuallyno enforcement of this law, however, due to a lack of implementing regulations. The Republic of Congo has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169,but did vote in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples in 2007.

CENTRAL AFRICA

465

Constitutional reformProtection of the rights of indigenous peoples has been constitutionally enshrined since October 2015. Article 16 thus stipulates that: “The law guarantees and provides promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples”.
The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights is responsible for promoting indigenous
rights. It has an advisor on promoting the rights of indigenous peoples until a text
establishing the General Department for Promoting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be passed.

466

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Process of implementing regulations on the Law promoting andprotecting the rights of indigenous peoples
The President of the Republic of Congo enacted Law No 5-2011 of 25 February
2011 on promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples in the Republic of Congo following a participatory process that lasted nearly eight years. Thislaw, which is the first law of its kind in Africa, is much needed legislation in termsof overcoming the marginalisation and discrimination suffered by indigenous
populations. And yet several obstacles need to be surmounted for it to be effective:••

Awareness raising of all involved, particularly those responsible for enforcing the law, and the indigenous peoples themselves. They must takeownership of it if they are to be able to demand its enforcement.
Publication of the implementing regulations for this law. This process iscurrently suspended. The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights is giving
no response to the different requests being made by civil society and theindigenous populations in this regard.

Process of revising the Forest CodeA decade on and the Congolese legislative and regulatory framework on forests
is facing new challenges: changes in sustainable forest management and therealities on the ground, the demands of the FLEGT-VPA (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreements), REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), climate change,
the involvement of indigenous populations and local communities in forest management and so on.
The Ministry for Sustainable Development, Forest Economy and the Environment (MDDEFE) thus decided to revise Law 16-2000 of 20 November 2000 on
the Forest Code. To do this, the government requested the support of the French
Development Agency (AFD). Civil society organisations, including indigenous
rights organisations through the Platform for Sustainable Forest Management(PGDF), organised a number of activities to produce their contribution document,

CENTRAL AFRICA

467

which was sent to the appropriate officials. A series of departmental consultations
was held, along with multi-actor validation workshops, culminating in the production of a draft bill of law in 2014. This was sent to the General Secretariat of theGovernment for consideration before submission to Parliament. However, theGeneral Secretariat of the Government recommended that this bill be accompanied by its implementing regulations. Throughout 2016, civil society, including indigenous rights organisations, therefore contributed to producing these implementing regulations through the Forests and Economic Diversification (PFDE)
project, with the financial support of the World Bank.
The MDDEFE has informed civil society that it intends to organise a national
validation workshop for the draft Forest Code and its implementing regulations
before sending these texts on to the government for validation and submission to
Parliament for adoption.

The Forests and Economic Diversification (PFDE) projectWith the support of the World Bank, the government (through the MDDEFE) is
implementing the Forests and Economic Diversification (PFDE) Project. Commencing in 2012, this five-year project aims to build the capacity of the MDDEFE,
to promote implementation of forest legislation and to create an environment favourable to the involvement of the private sector, indigenous populations and local communities in sustainable forest management and reforestation.
In terms of supporting the involvement of indigenous populations and local
communities in natural resource management, several activities were undertaken
in 2016. The Republic of Congo has been experimenting with forest management
since 2000. This structuring of the space sets aside part of the forest concessions
for indigenous populations and local communities (Community Development Series - SDC). During 2016, the PFDE implemented support activities for indigenous
populations and local communities aimed at producing simple management plans
for these SDC. In addition, it organised capacity building activities and information
and awareness raising campaigns on indigenous populations’ and local communities’ rights and duties in relation to natural resource management.

468

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andForest Degradation (REDD+) programme
The Republic of Congo was chosen, by the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in 2009 and the UN-REDD Programme in 2010, to contributeto implementing the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) Programme.
In the context of implementing the national REDD+ strategy, the DedicatedGrant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (DGM) was
instituted in 2016. The DGM is a financing mechanism, a special initiative designed and developed as a special window in the context of the Forest Investment
Programme (FIP), aimed at placing funds in the hands of the indigenous peoples(IP) and local communities (LC) with a view to improving their capacity to contribute to initiatives and thus strengthen their participation in the FIP and other local,
national and international REDD+ processes. The amount allocated to the Republic of Congo is US$ 4,500,000, which is held by the World Bank and is intended to support three project components:•••

Component 1: Strengthening the role of indigenous peoples and local
communities in the REDD + process.
Component 2: Support for the development of income-generating activities, and the economic and sustainable management of natural resources.
Component 3: Coordination, communication, monitoring and evaluation.

Village level consultations thus took place from 16 to 27 June 2016, conducted bymembers of the GTT- DGM-CONGO (Technical Working Group-DGM-Congo) inorder to establish national bodies.

The indigenous movement
Created in 2007, the National Network of Indigenous Populations of the Congo(RENAPAC) is a platform aimed at representing indigenous civil society. RENA-

CENTRAL AFRICA469

PAC has been involved in most of the political processes affecting indigenous
peoples. Nevertheless, the network is challenged in terms of capacity among its
organisers and, there is furthermore a need to strengthen their ownership of thelaw promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples. Despite the law,
the indigenous population continues to suffer discrimination and marginalisation,
which explains the need for a more dynamic civil society.
Roch Euloge N’ZOBO studied law at the Marien Ngouabi University in Brazzaville. After obtaining a Master’s in private law, he specialised in human and indigenous rights. He has been working for civil society organisations since 1998 andis currently the National Coordinator of the Human Rights and Development Association (Cercle des droits de l’Homme et de développement / CDHD). An expert
in forest community rights, he has coordinated a project enabling civil society tocontribute to enacting the law promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous
peoples in the Republic of Congo.

470

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF CONGO
The concept of “indigenous peoples” is accepted and endorsed by the government and civil society organisations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The term indigenous peoples in the DRC refers to the Mbuti,
Baka and Batwa peoples who consider their generic appellation of “pygmies” as derogative and discriminatory.
The exact number of indigenous peoples in the DRC remains unknown.
The government estimates that there are around 600,000 (1% of the Congolese population), while civil society organisations argue that there are up
to 2,000,000 (3% of the population). They live in nomadic and semi-nomadic groups in almost all the country’s provinces. The life of indigenous peoples is closely linked to the forest and its resources: they live from hunting,gathering, collecting and fishing and they treat their illnesses with the helpof their pharmacopoeia and medicinal plants. The forest forms the heart oftheir culture and their living environment.
The situation of the indigenous peoples in the DRC remains of great
concern. Their ancestral lands and natural resources are facing increasing
external pressure; they are being forced to relinquish their traditional economy and live on the margins of society in extreme poverty. Indigenous peoples are not represented in decision-making at all levels and their access tobasic services, including health and education, remains below the national
average.
Unless their rights, as guaranteed under international standards, areduly protected, indigenous peoples’ living space will shrink yet further, depriving them of the resources on which they depend for their survival andresulting in the disappearance of their culture and their traditional knowledge. The human rights situation of indigenous peoples is alarming. In Katanga region, there are growing numbers of indigenous Batwa people killed
in an ethnic conflict with neighbouring dominant communities. In the meantime, the process of adopting a specific law aimed at providing special protection for indigenous peoples is still stalled in Parliament, despite recent

WEST AFRICA

471

efforts to move it forward. The DRC endorsed the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its climate change-related programmes
refer to indigenous peoples’ rights.

First ever Policy Dialogue on indigenous peoples in the DRC

F

rom 14-16 June 2016, the first ever multi-stakeholder Policy Dialogue on indigenous peoples in the country was held in the DRC. The initiative wasfunded by both the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD)
and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR/Geneva),

472

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017and implemented with the collaboration of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and a national umbrella organisation called Dynamiquedes Groupes des Peuples Autochtones (DGPA). The Policy Dialogue was aimed
at fostering implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, as outlined in the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples held in 2014.
The Policy Dialogue was aligned with the IFAD Engagement Policy with indigenous peoples and the United Nations 2015 Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), which seek to ensure that no one is left behind, including by paying
particular attention to those furthest behind, most notably indigenous peoples inmany countries. The meeting brought together over 100 representatives of indigenous communities from across the country, and representatives of the Congolese state, civil society organisations (CSOs), parliamentarians, UN agencies,
bilateral and multilateral partners. The participants also included senior representatives from the Presidency, several ministries and key state institutions.
Among the presentations, featured a state of implementation of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Recommendations by the Congolese Ministry of Justice. The
participants in the Policy Dialogue identified two major priority areas for immediate follow-up activities, notably (1) the drafting process of a specific law on indigenous peoples’ rights and (2) devising a global intervention framework on indigenous peoples in the DRC.

Launch of the Dedicated Grant Mechanism for indigenous peoples
Alongside the Policy Dialogue, the World Bank launched the Dedicated Grant
Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (DGM), which “is aglobal initiative that was conceived and developed as a special window under the
Climate Investment Funds’ (CIF) Forest Investment Program (FIP) to provide
grants to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) intended to enhance their capacity and support initiatives to strengthen their participation in FIP
and other REDD+ processes at the local, national and global levels”.1 There areeight pilot countries for this mechanism, including the DRC with an endowment of
6 million USD.
The event coincided with a reflection on the World Bank’s engagement withindigenous peoples in the DRC over the last years, following the historic World

WEST AFRICA

473

Bank’s Inspection Panel decision on DRC in 2005. Following the World Bank’s
funding of a Congolese reform of the forestry sector that failed to pay particularattention to the rights of Batwa indigenous peoples in the DRC, a complaint was
lodged with the World Bank Inspection Panel, which decided in favour of thecomplainants. Following this decision, the World Bank management revised its
operations in the Congolese forestry sector and required the Congolese government to develop an indigenous peoples’ development plan, as required by thethen Operational Policy (O.P.4.10) on indigenous peoples.
Congolese indigenous peoples have engaged the World Bank on the need toassess the progress made 10 years after the decision of the Inspection Panel andthe DGM is considered a part of that dialogue.

Killings of Batwa indigenous people continue unabated in Katanga
regionOver the last four to five years, the lethal conflict between the dominant Luba
community and Batwa indigenous peoples in Katanga province has continued
unaddressed. The causes of this persisting conflict include disputes over natural
resources, lands and customary practices, whereby indigenous Batwa communities have been subjected to human rights violations over the years. On one occasion in 2016, the more than 10 Batwa indigenous people were killed due to an
unfair customary practice that requires them to give part of their collected forest
produce (caterpillars, considered a local delicacy) to their Bantu (Luba) neighbours, who consider themselves masters of the lands and resources and therefore entitled to a share of anything collected by the Batwa. Over the years, CSOs
have been educating Batwa indigenous communities to resist such illegal taxes
and this is exactly what happened in October 2016, when the Batwa refused tocontinue to bear the burden of this discriminatory practice of paying the “caterpillar tax”. This led to a conflict that left over 16 people dead, most of them indigenous community members.
Many independent reports from human rights organisations and media houses have continued to highlight the plight of the Batwa peoples of Katanga, including IWGIA’s own latest report “The Indigenous World 2016”. So far, conflicts in
Katanga have led to over 200 deaths, more than 13 villages have been burned
down and there are an estimated 100,000 internally displaced persons.2 In its

474

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 20172016 report, the internationally recognised organisation, Human Rights Watch,
indicates that in one single incident: “… in Nyunzu, in the north of former Katanga province, … assailants killed at least 30 civilians from the marginalized
Batwa community, known as ‘Pygmy’ with machetes, arrows, and axes andburned down the camp. Dozens of others remained missing and feared dead.
The attack followed deadly raids on Luba by Batwa militias”.3 In May-June 2016
alone, a UNICEF assessment estimated there were up to 2,000 internally displaced households, “the largest conflict-related population movements reported
in Haut Katanga since the Luba-Pygmy conflict during the spring of 2015”.4 The
United Nations-funded Okapi Radio in the DRC has also continued to report on
the Batwa-Luba conflict in Katanga, including detailed media accounts of repeated attacks.5
The Government of the DRC has done very little to address the situation.
Despite numerous calls for particular attention, there has been no Parliamentary Commission inquiry into this situation. Nor have the security forces or political elites taken any significant measures to address the conflict. An indigenous peoples’ umbrella organisation, the DGPA, has recently engaged numerous UN agencies, including UNHCR, OHCHR, UNICEF and UNFPA, with aview to triggering concerted actions or interventions aimed at addressing theroot causes of this conflict, which appear to enjoy scant political attention fromthe government.

Undue delay in the law on indigenous peoples in the DRC
During its 2014 UPR examination, the Democratic Republic of Congo agreed
with the following recommendations, which it considered already implemented
or in the process of being implemented:
Continue working towards the recognition of indigenous peoples at the national level… Ensure land rights of indigenous communities within protected natural parks, in particular Pygmies. Likewise harmonize projects ofgreenhouse gas reduction, deforestation reduction and forest degradationin line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.6

WEST AFRICA

475

A process of adopting a specific law on indigenous peoples has been underway
in the DRC for several years. This endeavour was initiated by a consortium of
non-governmental and indigenous peoples’ organisations coordinated by the
DGPA in 2003. Following countrywide consultations, including with indigenous
communities, the first draft of the law was submitted to Parliament in 2015.
A Group of Parliamentarians has since then joined and owned the process,including through several targeted advocacy activities, with a view to ensuringthat the law is place on the parliamentary agenda for debate and eventually
passed. To this end, in June 2016, the Parliamentary Caucus in question presented several technical challenges faced by the draft law to the participants of
the IFAD-supported national policy dialogue on indigenous peoples, including
persistent questions regarding its rationale coming from other Members of Parliament and certain quarters of government.
In collaboration with the OHCHR, IWGIA, IFAD, DGPA and Rainforest
Foundation Norway, the same Parliamentary Caucus on indigenous peoples
organised a parliamentarian interactive dialogue on the draft law on indigenous
peoples in September 2016, bringing together dozens of Members of Parliament. As keynote speaker, a senior representative of the Congolese government gave a presentation highlighting the government’s support for the draft
law, which is considered a means of implementing the government’s UPR-related commitments on indigenous peoples. The meeting also enabled several
Members of Parliament to seek clarification on international standards regarding indigenous peoples, most notably the United Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.

Justice still delayed for indigenous peoples
The Batwa indigenous peoples of the Kahuzi-Biega in South Kivu continue towait for justice in relation to their ancestral lands, which became a protectedarea in the 1970s and then a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980, following
their brutal and uncompensated expulsion.
In 2008, the affected peoples decided to seek justice through the Congolese courts and lost, including at the Court of Appeal. In 2013, they went to theCongolese Supreme Court but the case has not been heard since then. Deciding that the Congolese justice system was unable to deliver justice, and with the476

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017support of local NGOs and Minority Rights International the concerned Batwa
of Kahuzi-Biega forests lodged their case, including for land restitution, before
the Banjul-based African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in November 2015. In 2016, they heard initial procedural arguments but it has yet tomake a decision on the admissibility of the case.7

Conclusion
The situation of indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of Congo is yet toachieve any key milestones, despite several efforts and initiatives. There are tangible actions being taken by civil society and other actors, including international
partners such as the World Bank, IFAD, OHCHR and so on. There is also a fineline of initiatives from certain quarters of government, including through the
REDD+ process and UPR-related engagements. Persistent conflicts affecting
indigenous communities have, however, delayed justice and the continuing lackof any legal or policy framework specifically targeting indigenous communities
prevents all initiatives from delivering real and sustainable change.
Notes and references
1
2

3
4
5
6
7

See World Bank DGM Global page: http://www.dgmglobal.org/about-us/
See on United Nations Radio in DR Congo (OKAPI): http://www.radiookapi.net/actualite/2015/05/20/katanga-martin-kobler-choque-par-le-degre-des-violences-entre-pygmees-bantous-nyunzu
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016 - Democratic Republic of Congo, 27 January
2016, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/56bd9946c.html
See more at: http://reliefweb.int/report/democratic-republic-congo/drc-humanitarian-situation-report-may-june-2016
See more Okapi media reports at: http://www.radiookapi.net/2016/11/02/actualite/securite/tanganyika-kabalo-et-nyunzu-se-vident-apres-le-conflit-entre-pygmees
Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Universal Periodic Review: Democratic
Republic of Congo, A/HRC/27/5, 7 July 2014
See more updates on this case at the MRG website: http://minorityrights.org/law-and-legal-cases/minority-rights-group-international-et-environnement-ressources-naturelles-et-developpement-au-nom-des-batwa-du-parc-national-de-kahuzi-biega-rdc-v-republique-democratique-ducongo-rdc/

CENTRAL AFRICA

477

Albert K. Barume is an African-trained lawyer with a Ph.D. in international human rights law from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. He also holds
a Master’s degree in Environmental Management from Yale University in theUSA. Dr. Barume has worked on issues of indigenous peoples’ rights and theenvironment in Africa for over 20 years, including as a Geneva-based Senior
Specialist on indigenous peoples at the International Labour Organization (ILO)
for five years. He has been an Expert Member of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Working Group on Indigenous Peoples since 2007. He
is also the current Chair of the United Nations Experts Mechanism on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP). Dr. Barume has written and published books andarticles on indigenous peoples’ rights.

EAST AFRICA

480

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ERITREA
Since independence in 1991, and aggravated by a political crackdown in
2001, Eritrea has been a closed country run by an extremely repressive
government. Reliable data on the exact numbers of ethnic groups, including disaggregated data on the socio-economic situation of indigenous
groups, is hardly available. The approximate percentage of indigenous
peoples is estimated at between 5% and 7% of the total population. The
references to indigenous peoples in this article are first and foremost basedon the claim of indigeneity made by some Eritrean ethnic groups, such as
the Afar and Kunama. Eritrea is a State party to the CERD, CEDAW and
CRC but not to ILO Convention 169. There is, however, a huge gap between the commitments undertaken through these treaties and the government’s actual practice. Eritrea has not adopted the UNDRIP as it was absent during the voting. Eritrea does not have a national legislative or institutional framework that protects the rights of indigenous peoples. The country
does not have an operative constitution or a functioning parliament. It has
never held free and fair national elections. Rights to freedom of associationand expression are severely curtailed. The rights of indigenous peoples are
not formally acknowledged, nor are there any representative organisations
advocating for the rights of indigenous peoples.

A situation of crimes against humanityE

ritrea suffers from gross human rights violations. In June 2016, a Commission of Inquiry mandated by the UN Human Rights Council published a landmark report which stated that the human rights situation in Eritrea amounted tocrimes against humanity. At the time of writing, Eritrea is the only country in Africa
in which there is an ongoing situation of crimes against humanity officially verified
as such by a fact-finding mission mandated by the UN.1

EAST AFRICA

481

Reviews by relevant UN bodies
Eritrea’s international obligations are frequently reviewed by the relevant UN
treaty monitoring bodies or processes, such as the UPR, the CEDAW and the
CRC committees. None of these reviews have adequately addressed the plight ofindigenous peoples in Eritrea. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples is also yet to come up with a formal report on the situation of indigenous peoples’ rights in Eritrea.2 In contrast, the UN Commission of Inquiry on
Human Rights in Eritrea and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea (Ms Sheila B. Keetharuth) have made a number of observations on the rights of indigenous peoples in Eritrea. The first Keetharuth report, forexample, singles out abuses committed against two minority ethnic groups: theAfar and Kunama. The Afar ethnic group is predominantly pastoralist and nomadic while the Kunama ethnic group is agro-pastoralist. Both groups are marginalized in a number of ways. The rights of these groups are said to have been

482

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

violated by the government’s policy of: a) encouraging highlanders to settle onland traditionally belonging to lowlanders; b) turning land into State property,
thereby undermining clan-based traditional land tenure systems, and leading tocompetition between agro-pastoralists and new settlers, and c) displacing people
from their ancestral land.3

Repression of ethnic group identities
There are nine officially recognised ethnic groups in Eritrea, listed here in alphabetical order: Afar, Blien, Hidareb, Kunama, Nara, Rashaida, Saho, Tigre, and Tigrinya. Other claims to official recognition of group identity, such as that of the Jeberti and Tekurir, have been denied.4 The core values and policies of the government or the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) – which is the rulingand only political party – are nationalistic and fiercely hostile to ethnic or socio-cultural autonomy, given the PFDJ’s history as a national liberation movement.
Eritrea does not have any form of independent civil society organisations letalone organisations advocating for the rights of indigenous peoples. All special interest groups or associations are effectively controlled by the government. There
are institutionalised “mass movements” which represent key sectors of society, suchas the national associations of women, youth and workers, all of which function as
the respective wings of the PFDJ. Even in this context, there are no organisations
or mass movements representing indigenous peoples or minority groups.
As noted above, claims of indigeneity or other claims to group identity havenever been officially acknowledged by the Eritrean government. One of the earliest claims to group identity to have been made inside Eritrea was that of the Jeberti, articulated by some representatives of the group in the early 1990s. The
Jeberti share the same language as the largest ethnic group, which is Tigrinya. In
Eritrea, the language and official name of each ethnic group is the same. The
Tigrinya is an entirely Christian community. The Jeberti group is distinguishable
by its religion, which is Islam, and the distinct socio-political status traditionallyattached to this.5 The claim to distinct group identity made by the Jeberti in theearly 1990s was met with draconian persecution against its representatives andno such claim has been entertained inside the country since. All other similar
claims, including claims of indigeneity, are now made by exiled activists and political groups.

EAST AFRICA

483

Among the well-documented claims of indigeneity made from exile are thoseof the Afar and Kunama ethnic groups, represented by their respective politicalorganisations. To our knowledge, the most articulate claim has been that made by
the Eritrean Afar State in Exile (EASE), which is an exiled political organisation of
the Eritrean Afar people advocating self-rule for the Eritrean Afar. The Afar ethnic
group transcends three national borders, namely Djibouti, Eritrea and Ethiopia,
inhabiting the area known as the “Afar Triangle”.6
EASE asserts that the Afar people of Eritrea meet the essential requirements ofindigeneity, listed by EASE as being: prior occupation of a defined territory; voluntary
perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; self-identification and identification by others
as a distinctive community, and a situation of non-dominance.7 EASE goes as far as
to articulate its claim by referring to the Afar homeland as the “cradle of humanity”, inwhich the well-known “Lucy”, one of the oldest humanoid skeletal remains in history,
was discovered. In support of its claim, EASE also makes reference to a more recent
scientific discovery in June 2016, in the Afar region, of 800,000-year-old footprints
believed to belong to a key predecessor of modern man.8
The most visible violation suffered by two of the potential indigenous groups inEritrea, the Afar and Kunama, is their inability to maintain a peaceful life with their
kin across the national borders of Eritrea and Ethiopia and, in the case of the Afar,also across the national border with Djibouti. There has been no physical contact
between the said ethnic groups living on the borders between Djibouti, Eritrea andEthiopia, including normal exchange of trade and other social activities, since 1998.
This is true in particular since Eritrea remains in a prolonged situation of conflict with
Ethiopia and Djibouti, necessitating a complete blockage of their common border.
Moreover, due to the extremely repressive political situation in Eritrea, and like otherethnic groups situated along the border, a considerable segment of the Afar andKunama ethnic groups have been forced to flee to Ethiopia and other countries – inthe context of Eritrea’s well-documented mass exodus of population.
In the area of natural resources, the government has entered into long-term
mining agreements with foreign companies such as the Australian South Boulder
Mining and the Canadian Nevsun Resources Ltd., which are exploiting natural
resources on land belonging to potential indigenous groups, such as the Afar andKunama. Mineral extraction is taking place in circumstances that do not respect
the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Of particular importance to thisdebate is a pending court case on corporate social responsibility at the Supreme
Court of British Colombia in Canada, aimed at challenging the alleged complicity

484

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017of Nevsun Resources Ltd. in the perpetration of human rights violations committed at the company’s mining site in Eritrea. The main allegation relates to a broad
range of violations allegedly committed in the process of extracting minerals but
not necessarily related to infringements of indigenous peoples’ rights. A partial
landmark judgement, against the Canadian company, was pronounced on 6 October 2016.9 A final verdict on the case is still pending. There are potential issues
that could be raised in similar court cases on violations resulting from an infringement of the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent.


Notes and references
1

2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9

Second Report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, A/HRC/32/47, 8June 2016, paragraphs 59-95. See also in general K. Tronvoll and D. R. Mekonnen, The African
Garrison State: Human Rights and Political Development in Eritrea (James Currey, 2014; second
revised edition 2017); K. Tronvoll, “Eritrea,” in M. Ember and C. R. Ember (eds.), Countries andTheir Cultures, Vol. 2 (Macmillan Reference, 2001), pp. 724-732.
No UN special rapporteur or other treaty monitoring body has been allowed into Eritrea for investigations.
First Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea, Sheila B.
Keetharuth, A/HRC/23/53, 28 May 2013, paragraphs 43 and 77.
Eritrea: Constitutional, Legislative and Administrative Provisions Concerning Indigenous Peoples(a joint publication of the International Labour Organization, the African Commission on Humanand Peoples’ Rights, and the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, 2009).
Ibid, p. 3.
Eritrean Afar State in Exile (EASE), Indigenous Rights Policy (2016), http://dankalia.org/easepolicy/ease-indigenous-rights-policy/.
Ibid.
“Earliest Footprints of Homo Erectus Found in Eritrea,” 15 June 2016, https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.ch/2016/06/earliest-footprints-of-homo-erectus.html#AsELpR8hMCGxjtc7.97.
Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd. 2016 BCSC 1856.

Daniel R. Mekonnen is a guest writer at the “Writers in Exile Programme” of the
Swiss-German PEN Centre or DeutschSchweizer PEN Zentrum (DSPZ).
Kjetil Tronvoll is Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Bjørknes University
College.

485

ETHIOPIAThe Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopia make up a significant proportion of thecountry’s estimated 95 million population. Around 15% are pastoralists andsedentary farmers who live across Ethiopia, particularly in the Ethiopian
lowlands, which constitute around 61% of the country’s total landmass.
There are also a number of hunter-gatherer communities, including theforest-dwelling Majang (Majengir) and agro-pastoralist Anuak people wholive in the Gambella region. Ethiopia is believed to have the largest livestock
population in Africa, a significant amount of which is concentrated in pastoralist communities living on land that, in recent years, has become the subject of high demand from foreign investors. The political and economic situation of Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia is a tenuous one. The Ethiopian
government’s policy of villagization has seen many pastoralist communities
and small-scale farmers moved off of their traditional grazing lands, andIndigenous Peoples’ access to healthcare provision and to primary and secondary education remains highly inadequate. There is no national legislation that protects them, and Ethiopia has neither ratified ILO Convention
169, nor was it present during the voting on the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Government policy and legislation:a threat to indigenous peoples’ rights
2016 saw a further deterioration in the human rights situation in Ethiopia, including the imposition of a six-month long state of emergency that came into operation on 8 October, in what has been called the “worst political and human rights
crisis since the government of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic
Front came to power in 1991”.1 Between October 17 and 20 alone, over 2,600
people were reportedly arrested as a result. The new laws imposed during thestate of emergency included a ban on the use of social media and on participationin, or organization of, protests, unless authorized by the government. Such meas-

486

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017ures were aimed at addressing a developing culture of protest in Ethiopia, including demonstrations organized by Amhara and Oromo people, the two largest
ethnic groups. The Oromo people have been protesting a government plan toexpand the capital city, Addis Ababa, into neighbouring Oromo land since 2015.
Moreover the situation for Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia continued to deteriorate in 2016. Once again there was no improvement in any national legislationthat could offer protection to Indigenous Peoples and Ethiopia’s obligations underthose international human rights mechanisms that it has ratified - e.g. the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, andwhich call for special attention to be paid to Indigenous Peoples - continues to beunfulfilled. Human rights groups – including the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Human Rights Watch (HRW); Minority Rights GroupInternational (MRGI) and the Oakland Institute – continue to express their significant concerns: concerns that have only increased given the continued impact of
the Ethiopian government’s alleged use of anti-terror laws to curtail freedom ofspeech, as well as the state of emergency.
For Indigenous Peoples, the situation became acute with the arrest in Addis
Ababa of seven activists heading to a food security workshop in Nairobi in March2015. Although of the seven activists originally arrested only one, Pastor Omot Agwa, continues to face the possibility of an extended prison term, his situation, andthe situation of Okello Akway Ochalla, a Norwegian citizen and indigenous land
rights defender who was kidnapped in South Sudan in March 2014 and subsequently “renditioned” to Ethiopia, continue to cause grave concern amongst humanrights defenders both within and outside the country, as well as in a number of leading human rights organizations. In addition, the Ethiopian government’s continued
imprisonment of six Anuak leaders, including Bakwach Mamo, Philemon Kwot Agidand Ojulu Thatha, despite the high court ruling that acquitted them, continues toconcern the Anywaa Survival Organization (ASO) and Anuak community.

Land grabbing and the policy of villagization
A key element in the deteriorating situation for Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia is
the ongoing policy of “land grabbing” where companies lease large tracts of land
from the Ethiopian government in return for significant levels of foreign investment. Since 2008, when widespread concern about the possibility of a potentially487

EAST AFRICA

2

1 Gigel Gibe III Dam

1

2 Omo National Park

global food crisis increased demand for agricultural land, the Ethiopian government has leased millions of hectares of land throughout the country to agricultural investors, both foreign and domestic. The Ethiopian government says thatinvestments like this are important for guaranteeing food security and, in particular, for addressing the vulnerability of pastoralist communities to drought. The
policy is also seen as an important element in Ethiopia’s development strategy
because it means that land that is categorized as “under-utilized” can be usedproductively. However, much of this land is not in reality under-utilized but instead
is used by pastoralists whose customary rights to the land are being consistently
violated. Moreover, the way in which the land is used under the new leasing arrangements arguably does little for food security as there is little food produced.
Instead, it is chiefly used for an array of non-food products such as flowers or for
growing food products destined for the export market. In the case of the fertile
region of Gambela, Anuak farmers have also reported that investors from Addis
Ababa have purchased large plots of land using bank loans and then proceed toleave the plots vacant, using the money for alternative business purposes. There
has been little reaction from the government to these fraudulent practices.

488

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Ethiopian government continues to highlight the employment opportunities of such investment for those living in lowland areas but much of the employment in these areas has gone to “highlanders” from the central and northern areas of Ethiopia who have moved there to find work. The latter has also increased
the possibilities of ethnic tensions, something that has been seen in the Gambela
region and in the lower Omo valley in particular. In the latter case, the building of
the Gilgel Gibe III Dam, which was officially opened by Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn on 17 December 2016, has significantly impacted water security in
the Omo valley region. According to publicly available data, water levels are falling in the Omo River, a source that is vital for the 500,000 indigenous people living in that region. This has meant a heightened threat to food security and, in turn,increased conflict over existing resources. Reports from external sources havesaid that the lives of those Indigenous Peoples living in the region have been“fundamentally and irreversibly” changed by the building of the dam, making itvery difficult for the half a million indigenous people living in the area and sustaining their traditional livelihoods. According to the Dam’s Public Consultation andDisclosure Plan, only 93 members of four indigenous communities were consulted and this happened only after construction of the dam had already begun.2
In the Gambela region, the deteriorating political situation in South Sudan has
resulted in an influx of Nuer refugees, further marginalizing the Anuak and fundamentally altering the region’s demography, as well as causing increased pressure
on land and other resources. Violence in the region has increased, with crossborder attacks including the kidnapping of children and livestock in Anuak andNuer villages in Ethiopia by attackers from South Sudan.
Part of the Ethiopian government’s policy on land management includes the
pursuit of a policy of villagization which aims to resettle those who live in rural
areas - often Indigenous Peoples - into communities with improved access tobasic amenities, such as clean water, medical services and schools. In reality,
however, such amenities have not been provided, and many of the communities
have too little food for the population that now exists there. Many people find thatwhen they try and return to the land that they have left in order to resume theirprevious way of life the land has been leased and they no longer have access to
it. Indigenous communities thus find themselves displaced and deprived of theirtraditional livelihoods and of access to their natural environment, including accessto water, grazing and fishing grounds, arable lands and forest resources.

EAST AFRICA

489

Moreover, the Ethiopian government’s lack of a specific policy or programme toaddress Indigenous Peoples’ special needs and status has further aggravated theirsituation. Ethiopia is a key political actor in Africa, and the second most populous
country in the continent. It is a glaring omission that such a significant political actor
has not attempted - in consultation with the country’s Indigenous Peoples and theirrepresentative institutions - to develop policies and programmes that are in accordance with guidelines from the UN and other relevant bodies and that would bridge
the social and economic gaps that are currently causing such distress. Indeed thedeclaration of the state of emergency only served to curtail further any hopes formoving the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia forward. The Ethiopian government is therefore failing to address widely reported concerns regarding the humanrights of indigenous people in Gambela, the lower Omo valley, Benishangul Gumuz,
Afar, Somali, and Oromia regions – all areas that have been part of the government’s land lease policy and villagization programme.
It remains important, in considering the future for Indigenous Peoples’ rights inEthiopia, that there be a country-wide, inclusive and participatory movement in the
country that would be able to ensure that pastoralist and agro-pastoral peoples’
concerns are considered as part of key government policies and programmes. The
country’s lack of formal mechanisms in which to consider such issues, as well as
legal restrictions on freedom of association and speech, appear to preclude this.
This is despite the fact that the Ethiopian constitution - though lacking in clear provisions directly related to Indigenous Peoples – does include a provision for dealing
with the development needs of pastoralist communities. However, despite this, theoverall outlook for a nationwide Indigenous Peoples’ movement is promising. Consensus is underway amongst various groups that - with the support of internationalorganizations and a more positive government view – could enable the country’s
marginalized communities to face a more positive future.

Violence in Gambela
Gambela region, which hosts 330,211 refugees and asylum seekers,3 mainly
Nuer from South Sudan, has seen violent conflicts between migrants and hostcommunities. In January 2016, 11 Anuak prisoners were killed in a systemic massacre organized by Nuer4 prison guards at the central prison in the town of Gambela. According to a witness, Nuer prison guards sent Anuak and Majang col-

490

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

leagues home for the day and then proceeded to arm Nuer prisoners with knives,
machetes and cudgels. Nuer prison guards and prisoners began systemicallyseparating Anuak prisoners from their Majang and Habesha peers into an isolated group and began killing them. According to a witness, the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Democratic Front arrived at the prison after the guns had stopped
firing to halt the massacre. Two Anuak prisoners attempted to escape the prisonby climbing over the wall but were allegedly killed by a Nuer crowd that had gathered outside the prison. It is suspected that the EPRDF, a leading coalition political party and some members of its senior regional leadership, allowed the attack
to occur. In February 2016, four Nuer were killed at the prison in the town of
Abobo during a retaliatory attack for the Gambella prison massacre. The rising
ethnic tensions between the Anuak and Nuer are exacerbated by the porous
border between South Sudan and Ethiopia, allowing for free movement of people
and arms, as well as the refugee crisis. Along with the increased Nuer population,
tensions and violence have escalated with Anuak communities over claims to
traditional lands and access to jobs. Meanwhile, the EPRDF and federal government have remained partisan to this violence, often disarming the indigenous
Anuak population while Nuer arms continue to cross the border, fuelling inter-regional political tension. The EPRDF also continues to imprison Anuak humanrights activists on terrorist charges, to jail, torture and harass Anuak youth withoutcause or due process, and to intimidate Anuak refugees in Kenya and South
Sudan. The unsettled political dynamics and violent conflicts between the migrants and Indigenous Peoples in the region have strained the capacity of numerous NGOs operating in Gambella. 				Notes and references
12
3
4

http://allafrica.com/stories/201610130912.html
http://firstpeoples.org/wp/a-dam-brings-food-insecurity-to-indigenous-people/#more-1199
http://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/region.php?country=65&id=36
The Nuer is a pastoralist ethnic group largely found in South Sudan.

EAST AFRICA

491

Bennett Collins is the Policy and Research Director at the Third Generation
Project, a Scottish think tank based at the University of St Andrews that promotes
research and advocacy on collective human rights around world.
Nyikaw Ochalla is the Director of the Anywaa Survival Organization - working on
indigenous peoples’ land rights and protection of their fundamental human rights
and dignity.
Alison Watson is Professor of International Relations and Executive Director of
the Third Generation project based at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

492

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

KENYA
In Kenya, the peoples who identify with the indigenous movement are
mainly pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, as well as some fisher peoples
and small farming communities. Pastoralists are estimated to comprise
25% of the national population, while the largest individual community ofhunter-gatherers numbers approximately 79,000. Pastoralists mostly occupy the arid and semi-arid lands of northern Kenya and towards theborder between Kenya and Tanzania in the south. Hunter-gatherers include the Ogiek, Sengwer, Yiaku, Waata and Aweer (Boni), while pastoralists include the Turkana, Rendille, Borana, Maasai, Samburu, Ilchamus, Somali, Gabra, Pokot, Endorois and others. They all face land andresource tenure insecurity, poor service delivery, poor political representation, discrimination and exclusion. Their situation seems to get worse
each year, with increasing competition for resources in their areas.1
Kenya’s indigenous women are confronted by multifaceted social,
cultural, economic and political constraints and challenges. Firstly, by belonging to minority and marginalized peoples nationally; and secondly,
through internal social cultural prejudices. These prejudices have continued to deny indigenous women equal opportunities to rise from the morass of high illiteracy and poverty levels. It has also prevented them fromhaving a voice to inform and influence cultural and political governanceand development policies and processes, due to unequal power relations
at both local and national levels.
Kenya has no specific legislation on indigenous peoples and has yet
to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) or ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169. However, Kenya has ratified the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention
on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Chapter Four of the Kenyan Constitution contains a progressive Bill of Rights

493

EAST AFRICA

that makes international law a key component of the laws of Kenya andguarantees protection of minorities and marginalized groups. Under Articles 33, 34, 35 and 36, freedom of expression, the media, and access to
information and association are guaranteed. However, the principle ofFree, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) remains a pipedream for indigenous peoples in Kenya.

1

1 Tullow Oil exploration sites

494

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Even with a new constitution, it’s still a man’s world for
Kenya’s indigenous womenD

iscrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in the 2010 Kenyan Constitution.2 In practice, however, indigenous women in Kenya continue to face numerous forms of discrimination and are confronted by a gender gap that denies
them opportunities to pursue their ambitions and potential, especially in terms of
seeking leadership opportunities within decision-making frameworks at all levels,from local to national.3 A majority of Kenya’s indigenous women still remain unaware of their rights because of discriminatory social practices, low levels of education and inequitable participation in economic and governance spheres. This
perpetuates the current gender gap and jeopardizes the contribution of indigenous women to overall development issues in Kenya.
As Kenya prepares, in August 2017, for the second elections under a devolved system of governance, concerted efforts need to be made to support andfacilitate indigenous women’s full participation in the electoral process by seeking
decision-making positions in partial fulfilment of: Article 10 (2) (a) of the Constitution on the right to participation of the people (including women) in all processes
affecting them; Article 21 (3) that directs all State organs and all public officers toaddress the needs of vulnerable groups within society, including indigenous women, members of minority or marginalized communities e.g. pastoralists, and members of particular ethnic, religious or cultural communities; Article 27 (3) that safeguards the rights of women to equal treatment, equal opportunities in political,
economic, cultural and social spheres; Article 27 (8) that directs the State to takelegislative and other measures to implement the principle that not more than twothirds of the members of elected or appointed bodies shall be of the same gender;
Article 40 (1) on the protection of rights of women to property (land and non-land);
Article 60 on women’s right to access land; Article 56 on the rights of minorities
and marginalized groups; Article 91(f) on respect for and promotion of humanrights and fundamental freedoms, gender equality and equity; and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).4 Empowering
indigenous women fuels thriving economies, spurs productivity and growth andpromotes peaceful co-existence and community wellbeing.
Financial ability plays a pivotal role in Kenya’s electoral processes because
large amounts of money are required for electoral campaigns. The fact that indig-

EAST AFRICA

495

enous women lack access to substantial financial capital therefore forms one of
the major impediments to indigenous women’s aspirations for political leadership.
The Kenya Women Parliamentary Association (KEWOPA) seeks to influencelegislation to be more responsive to women’s issues, consolidating the voices ofwomen leaders and advocating for the general welfare of Kenyan women. KEWOPA is advocating for support for women from minority and marginalized communities in terms of consolidating the requisite resources to enable women to
realize their political aspirations in the August 2017 elections. In addition, the
KEWOPA caucus is lobbying for political parties and both national and county
governments to secure nominated positions for women, especially those frommarginalized regions of the country and minority communities. However, it is notclear how KEWOPA intends to ensure that indigenous women achieve their constitutional rights to representation and participation in the August 2017 elections.

New Community Land Law adopted
In the six-plus years since the promulgation of the 2010 Kenyan Constitution, indigenous peoples have witnessed interesting interplays between their interests
as members of communities whose lands fall within the constitutional “community
land” classification and the interests of other external actors, ranging from commercial livestock ranchers to local and multilateral corporations, national government, conservation agencies and other private individuals - with each sector
pushing its own agenda targeted at community land.
It is a fact that land is a key aspect of the new constitution, aimed at righting
the pre-colonial and post-colonial land-related grievances that have continued tocast long shadows, especially over indigenous peoples. The key principles governing land issues in Kenya are embedded in Article 40 (1) of the Constitution andinclude: equitable access; security of land rights; sustainable and productive
management of land resources; transparent and cost effective administration;and elimination of gender discrimination in law, customs and practice related toland and property.
After many years of debate and consultations, a Community Land Act was
finally adopted in 2016, giving effect to Article 63 (5)5 of the new Constitution.6 The
Community Land Act came into effect on 21 September 2016, thereby legally
recognizing community tenure and officially marking the transition from Trust496

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017Land and Group Ranch tenures. The Community Land Act is potentially a very important piece of legislation for indigenous peoples in Kenya due to the fact that mostcommunities under the community land regime are pastoralists and hunter-gatherers.
Land deals in community lands have been and continue to be a major issue
and problem for indigenous peoples and this was thoroughly documented in the2004 Paul Ndung’u Commission Report on irregular and illegal alienation andallocation of land in Kenya.7
The new Constitution bans land deals in community land until a specific law
on community lands has been developed and adopted. However, this ban has
been largely ignored. The new Community Land Act reiterates the prohibition
against disposal of unregistered community land; however, this hardly limits compulsory acquisition for public purposes, to which all landholders - especially indigenous peoples - are vulnerable. In this event, the Community Land Act instructs
county governments to hold compensation for the affected community until it secures formal title. This means that the Government of Kenya can take over community land for use that is to the benefit of the public; however, in such cases
when a community is not registered during the takeover/compulsory acquisition,then the county government acts on behalf of the community as a trustee andholds the compensation for the community until such time when they are duly
registered and can therefore receive the compensation.

Lack of clarification of community lands
One of the key challenges with the Community Land Act8 is the fact that the Constitution of Kenya itself, which forms the mother law of the Community Land Act,lacks clarity over precisely what community land is - especially in areas where
there exist overlaps with public land. Despite strong recommendations from indigenous peoples during the consultation processes, the Community Land Act has
not delivered clarity on what can be registered as community lands - and whether
community lands take precedence over public lands.
Another concern is the existence of confusing provisions highlighted under
section 13 (3) (f) of the community land law stipulating that registered community
land can be reserved “for the promotion or upgrading of public interest” and that
this can be decided by the community or the national or county government. It is
unclear what level of choice the community has in this regard and it is unclear

EAST AFRICA

497

whether this reserved land then becomes public land (section 26 (2)). There isgenuine concern among indigenous peoples that this could be a veiled attempt tocoerce community members to subdivide as much community land as possible,
ultimately transferring hitherto community lands to individual lands as there canbe no incentive for a community to reserve part of its lands for communal uses if
there is a risk of such land being gazetted as public property.

Urgent need for land formalization
Another concern is that community lands will not be secure until they are safely
under formal title, and that there is every possibility that the process of registeringcommunity land and issuing titles could take a long time, especially if disputes
between communities and government agencies arise.
A key purpose of the Community Land Act is to establish a formalization procedure that requires communities to define and register themselves and await
adjudication, survey, demarcation and registration of their land. Considering that
the National Land Commission reported that over a million parcels were awaiting
title under existing adjudication exercises in 2014 (Ministry of Lands data), one
can only fear that the formalization work to be carried out as per the Community
Land Act will take a very long time indeed. When the lands and territories of indigenous peoples need to be identified, demarcated, registered and titled as community lands in a consultative and participatory manner, it is to be feared that thiswill become a very slow process. In addition, there are no formal community-levelgovernment institutions in Kenya (such as in Tanzania or Ethiopia, for instance)
and, in connection with community land titling, Kenyan communities will therefore
have to formally establish themselves, their land rules and land governance institutions from virtually nothing.

Implementation of the Community Land Act
There are legitimate concerns among communities, including indigenous peoples, as to the extent to which the national government - especially the Ministry ofLands - is committed to ensuring unhindered implementation of the Community
Land Act given the myriad of hurdles that some government actors placed in the

498

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

path of generating this law. It is the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary (minister)for Lands and Settlement to ensure that a community land adjudication programmeis launched and implemented with expediency. For this to be realized, regulations
will need to devolve key functions to county governments and empower civil society
actors to work with communities in order to fulfil all steps and resolve all local conflicts until their final adjudication and registration. Civil society, indigenous peoples
and the media will need to be extremely vigilant to ensure that delivery is taking
place in accordance with the terms and spirit of the Constitution.9

Indigenous peoples bear the brunt of ravaging drought
Drought forms one of the major disruptions and devastating natural occurrences
affecting Kenya’s indigenous peoples, who depend largely on the environment
and traditional production modes for their food security and general wellbeing. In
2016, 23 of Kenya’s 47 counties were reported to be affected by drought andfamine. The estimated population under threat of hunger was estimated at some
2.7 million.10 The counties hardest hit by drought and famine included Turkana
Marsabit, Elgeyo-Marakwet, Baringo, Isiolo, Samburu and Mandera - all inhabitedby indigenous peoples who are mainly pastoralists.
According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), an estimated
175,000 school-going children withdrew from early primary and primary schools
due to the effects of the drought and famine in the 10 affected counties, withchildren under 5 years being susceptible to nutritional deficiencies. In addition,
the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) reported that an estimated
11,000 livestock herds were at risk of imminent death due to drought, with further
gloomier projections that pastoralist communities would lose around 90 percentof their herds by April 2017.11
While the focus of the government and media in relation to the ravaging
drought is often on pastoralist peoples, it is a fact that hunter-gatherers, peasantfarmers and fishing communities also suffer the effects of these cyclical calamities because of a depletion of their sources of livelihood and incomes and thedegradation of agrarian, marine and forest ecologies.
As Kenya embarks on implementing the Vision 2030 development blueprintthat seeks to promote significant economic growth, reduce poverty and improve
food security, among other things, practical mechanisms to reduce indigenous

EAST AFRICA

499

peoples’ vulnerability to climate-related shocks, drought, flooding and diseasemust be put in place. In addition, indigenous peoples who, for more than 100
years, have paid the ultimate price during droughts must be involved in playing adecisive role in terms of coming up with strategies to combat climatic shocks andhunger, combining structural and emergency actions and making timely and preemptive interventions, especially at the county and sub-county levels.

Extractive industries and indigenous peoples’ rights
Land and natural resources are central to indigenous peoples’ existence sinceland, in addition to securing subsistence and livelihood, is considered sacred.
Internationally, there exists a standard practice that acknowledges that land owners, especially individuals and communities, have the right not only to be consulted but also fully informed and engaged when their lands are mooted for
takeover, for example for the construction of huge infrastructural projects, or the
extraction of resources such as oil, gas, geothermal energy and wind power,
among others. This standard resonates with Article 10 (2) (a) of the Constitutionof Kenya on the right of citizens to be included and to effectively participate insuch processes and the protection of marginalized lands.
In 2016, Tullow Oil Company, which is undertaking massive oil exploration in
Kenya’s Turkana, Pokot and Baringo counties, commissioned a study to establish
the applicability of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) PerformanceStandard 7 on Indigenous Peoples in the context of the following criteria: (i) selfidentification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognitionof this identity by others; (ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources inthese habitats and territories; (iii) customary cultural, economic, social, or politicalinstitutions that are separate from those of the mainstream society or culture; or(iv) a distinct language or dialect, often different from the official language or
languages of the country or region in which they reside.
In addition, during the same period, Africa Oil Corporation (AOC), a Canadian oil and gas company with assets in Kenya and Ethiopia and with interests in
exploration in the East African Rift basin system, undertook an independent review to establish whether Africa Oil Corporation and Tullow Oil Company were
performing in compliance with International Finance Corporation Environmental

500

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

and Social requirements, including involving communities in planning for emergency responses to assist in building better community relationships and incorporating a Free, Prior and Informed Consent framework into Community Stakeholder Engagement Plans and existing Land Access Procedures.12
These twin developments form an entry point for Kenya’s indigenous peoples
to monitor and engage with the companies in ensuring responsible extraction of
resources.

No justice yet for the Endorois, Ogiek and Sengwer indigenous peoples
Kenya’s Ogiek, Sengwer and Endorois indigenous peoples living in the Mau Forest, Cherangany Hills and Lake Bogoria regions of Kenya’s Rift Valley are still
waiting for justice. The Sengwer and Ogiek hunter-gatherers have been the targets of government-sponsored evictions from Cherangany Hills in the North Riftand Mau Forest in the South Rift, respectively, under the guise of protecting thecountry’s forests and achieving 10 percent forest cover in the country. The Ogiek
have taken their case to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
which has referred it to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and a
final judgement is still awaited.
The Endorois people are still waiting for implementation of the progressive decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights relating to the takeover of their land around Lake Bogoria for the establishment of a national park.
The net effect of the lack of implementation of court rulings in favour of thecommunities is a blatant violation of the right to justice and a contravention of theright to land, natural resources and livelihoods. The uncertainties surrounding thequest for justice for these indigenous peoples continue to cast long shadows overtheir collective future. 					Notes and references
1
2
3

Republic of Kenya (2011): Society for International Development Report: Pulling Apart: Facts andFigures on Inequality in Kenya 2004.
Republic of Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Heinrich Boell Foundation. Gender Gaps in Our Constitutions: Women’s Concerns in selected
African Countries. Papers presented at Women and Constitution Conference, Nairobi, 1-3 Octo-EAST AFRICA

501

ber 2011, https://ke.boell.org/2002/02/15/gender-gaps-our-constitutions-women%E2%80%99sconcerns-selected-african-countries
4 The domination of men in Kenya’s leadership and decision-making positions is contrary to the UN
target of 30 percent representation of women in politics and the Beijing Platform for Action (4thFourth World Conference for Women in 1995), where it was agreed by all governments that there
should be equal participation of women and men in decision-making bodies.
5 Article 63 (5) directs parliament to enact legislation to give effect to the category of community
land in Kenya.
6 See “Kenya passes long awaited law enabling communities to secure formal recognition of theirland rights”, Land Rights Now, 12 October 2016, http://www.landrightsnow.org/es/
news/2016/10/12/kenya-passes-long-awaited-law-enabling-communities-secure-formal-recognition-their-land-rights/
7 The “Commission of Inquiry into the Illegal/Irregular Allocation of Public Land” was a Kenya
Government Commission established in 2003, and it came to be known as the ”Ndungu Commission” after the name of its Chair, Paul Ndungu.
8 Republic of Kenya. The Community Land Act 2016. For more information please see an analysisof the Community Land Act 2016 entitled: A review of the Community Land Act with a view to
identify Gaps, Options and Policy Actions, commissioned by the Kenya Land Alliance, compiled
by Martin Oloo Onyango, who is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya.
9 Martin Ouma Oloo. “Community Land Act 2016; The Act, Gaps, Policy Options”, Nairobi, February 2017.
10 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2017. African Regional Overview
of Food Security and Nutrition 2016: the challenges of building resilience to shocks and stresses,
http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/3a98b98e-5558-4df7-91be-df4d579c7537/
11 National Drought Management Authority, National Drought Early Warning Bulletin, January 2017,
http://www.ndma.go.ke/index.php/resource-centre/send/57-drought-updates/1619-nationaldrought-early-warning-bulletin-january-2018. For further information also see: Eric Ombok “Kenya says 1,3 Million Peoples at Risk of Starvation on Drought”, Bloomberg, 17 October 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/kenya-says-1-3-million-people-at-risk-ofstarvation-on-drought; also see Katy Migiro “There is serious drought looming in early 2017”,
Reuters, 13 December 2016, www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-drought-idUSKBN1421WH and“Hundreds of thousands face hunger in Kenya”, Deutsche Welle, 21 June 2016, www.dw.com/en/
hundreds-of-thousands-face-hunger-in-kenya/a-19345933
12 See African Oil Corporation Independent Monitoring Group: HSEC Monitoring Review, 26 January 2016, www.africaoilcorp.com/i/pdf/hsec/3-IMG-Jan-2016.pdf

Michael Tiampati has worked as a journalist in Kenya and East Africa for Reuters Television and Africa Journal. He has been working with indigenous peoples’organizations in Kenya for more than 16 years, including the Centre for Minority
Rights Development (CEMRIDE), Maa Civil Society Forum (MCSF) and Mainyoito Pastoralist Integrated Development Organization (MPIDO). He is currently the
National Coordinator for the Pastoralist Development Network of Kenya (PDNK).

502

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

UGANDA
Indigenous peoples in Uganda include former hunter/gatherer communities, such as the Benet and the Batwa, also known as Twa. They also include minority groups such as the Ik, the Karamojong, and the Basongora
who are not recognised specifically as indigenous peoples by the government.
The Benet, who number slightly over 8,500, live in the north-easternpart of Uganda. The 6,700 or so Batwa, who live primarily in the southwestern region, were dispossessed of their ancestral land when Bwindi
and Mgahinga forests were gazetted as national parks in 1991.1 The Ik
number about 13,939 and live on the edge of the Karamoja/Turkana region along the Uganda/Kenya border. The Karamojong people live in thenorth-east and number around 988,429.2 The Basongora, numbering
15,897, are a cattle-herding community living in the lowlands adjacent to
Mt. Rwenzori in Western Uganda.
All these communities have a common experience of state-induced
landlessness and historical injustices caused by the creation of conservation areas in Uganda. They have experienced various human rights violations, including continued forced evictions and/or exclusions from ancestral lands without community consultation, consent, or adequate (if any)
compensation; violence and destruction of homes and property, including
livestock; denial of their means of subsistence and of their cultural andreligious life through their exclusion from ancestral lands and natural resources; and, consequently, their continued impoverishment, social andpolitical exploitation and marginalisation.
The 1995 Constitution offers no express protection for indigenous
peoples but Article 32 places a mandatory duty on the state to take affirmative action in favour of groups that have been historically disadvantaged and discriminated against. This provision, which was initially designed and envisaged to deal with the historical disadvantages of children, people with disabilities and women, is the basic legal source of affirmative action in favour of indigenous peoples in Uganda.3 The Land Act

EAST AFRICA

of 1998 and the National Environment Statute of 1995 protect customaryinterests in land and traditional uses of forests. However, these laws also
authorize the government to exclude human activities in any forest area
by declaring it a protected forest, thus nullifying the customary land rights
of indigenous peoples.4
Uganda has never ratified ILO Convention No. 169, which guarantees
the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in independent states, and it
was absent from the voting on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

503

504

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

SummaryT

he year 2016 did not bring many positive changes to the lives of indigenous
and minority peoples in Uganda. This was especially so regarding access totheir land which, during colonial and postcolonial times, was taken over for conservation purposes. Lack of land tenure security is thus a key problem. The indigenous peoples of Uganda also continue to suffer from marginalisation in terms ofrepresentation. More action is required from courts, government agencies suchas the Equal Opportunities Commission and the international community to ensure that the indigenous peoples of Uganda receive treatment equal to othermembers of the population in terms of access to social services, justice and theright to land.

The Ik community
The Ik’s major positive achievement in 2016 was that they were able to secure
election of their own Member of Parliament for the first time, enhancing their
voices in decision-making fora. Their land tenure remains fragile, however, andtheir security is at risk largely due to their position between two communities thatenjoy a cat-and-dog relationship.
The predominantly arable farming Ik people, numbering 13,939 individuals,
inhabit Kamion Sub County of Kaabong district in North-eastern Uganda. They
are referred to as the Teuso or people of the mountain by the Dodoth, who aretheir dominant neighbours. This term is considered derogatory by the Ik. Kamion
Sub County is one of the hot spots in a transboundary conflict between the pastoralist communities of the Dodoth of Uganda and the Turkana people from Kenya. The Ik often find themselves in the crossfire between the two communities,
making them very vulnerable. Violent and serious incidents of men being killed in
the wilderness, women and girls being raped and children abducted are unfortunately common in the area. In March 2016, for instance, four people were killed
at Narukeny in Kamion Parish and over 89 head of cattle lost.
The land tenure of the Ik remains insecure due to neighbouring pastoralists
and agro-pastoralists encroaching on their land. Furthermore, 70% of the Ik’s
land has been lost to conservation initiatives.

EAST AFRICA

505

The Ik have largely been left out of decision-making processes both at the
local and central government level. In 2015, however, the government created the
Ik constituency and, in February 2016, Hillary Lokwang was elected as the first Ik
Member of Parliament.5 For once, the Ik are now able to have their voices heard
directly and not through their Dodoth neighbours. One of the main Ik issues ofconcern is poor service delivery in the community. In fact, their current Member ofParliament is their first and only surviving university graduate, the other having
passed away. Much hope is therefore placed on the new and youthful Member ofParliament in terms of lobbying for the development of the Ik people.

The Benet people
The Benet people (referred to as the Ndorobo by their neighbours) are a huntergatherer community numbering 8,500 people. They are the indigenous inhabitants of Mount Elgon, situated in Eastern Uganda. The community has had alongstanding feud with the authorities over their ancestral land, which was declared a protected area in 1926 without their consent or compensation. In 2005,
the High Court ordered the government to return the protected land to the Benetcommunity but this ruling has, to this day, not yet been implemented.
During the campaigns leading up to the 2016 presidential, parliamentary andlocal elections in Uganda, the main opposition candidate visited the squalid
camps that the Benet were being forced to live in. Their poor living conditions
embarrassed the government, which responded with a campaign visit by thecountry’s Prime Minister on 11 December 2015. During the visit, the Prime Minister promised that the government was going to seek an immediate solution by
resettling the Benet people on alternative lands. Further, in a bid to gain the votesof the Benet, the community was allowed to graze its livestock in the forest andbeyond, up on the mountain. The community embraced this opportunity enthusiastically and even erected temporary huts deep in the forest. However, as soon
as the elections were over and new leaders sworn in, the government backtracked on its promise and began harassing, beating and mistreating the Benetcommunity with renewed vigour.
People found grazing in the park were arrested and some, such as Simon
Teta and Julius Cheptoyek, were killed. Cattle were impounded and hefty fines
imposed as a precondition for releasing them. It is estimated that, during the506

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

months of May and June 2016, fines of up to UGX 181,100,000 (approximately
USD 51,742.86) were paid by community members. Despite the leadership petitioning the president, arrests have continued and around 50 people who werereleased are still not truly free because they have to submit weekly reports to thepolice in Kween.
Severe human rights violations are the order of the day for the Benet people.
For instance, between the months of September and November 2016, two people
were shot dead in Bukwo district while grazing their cattle on the moorlands inaccordance with the permission that had been granted to them prior to the elections, and in the absence of a notice to stop grazing in the park. On 28 July 2016,
Chelangat Recho, a Benet woman, was raped by a park ranger who was subsequently identified. The authorities, however, took no action against the perpetrator. In a nutshell, the Benet community continues to live in fear, unsure of when
their woes will end.

The Basongora people
Another indigenous community living in fear is that of the Basongora in the lowlands close to Mt. Rwenzori in Western Uganda. They were evicted when the
Queen Elizabeth National Park was created in 1952. Today, the Basongora live inKasese district where they are a minority compared to the Bakonzo. In addition tolosing their land to the Bakonzo, who do not recognise the minority’s land rights,
the Basongora are denied the right to use their language in school. In December
2016, the Basongora filed a court case against the government demanding thereturn of their lost land.
In addition, political constituencies are divided in such a way that favours the
majority Bakonzo, and the Basongora presently have no representative of theirown in Parliament. When the government mooted the idea of subdividing Kasese
district in 2016, which would have led to the creation of a predominantly Basongora district called Katwe, the Bakonzo majority vehemently opposed the idea
and they have so far succeeded in frustrating the subdivision.
On 25-26 November 2016, conflict between the Rwenzururu Kingdom (Obusinga)of the Bakonzo people and the government reached a point where government forces
stormed the palace of the King (Omusinga), killed over 150 royal guards and arrested
over 150 people, including the Omusinga Charles Wesley Mumbere. The ongoingEAST AFRICA

507

political uncertainty in the area does not auger well for the minority Basongora, who
are perceived as being more sympathetic to the government.

The Batwa people
Batwa children continue to seriously suffer from a lack of access to education andBatwa children continued to drop out of school during 2016. On a happier note,however, two Batwa boys made it to university in 2016. 		


Notes and references
1
2

3
4
5

United Organisation of Batwa Development in Uganda (UOBDU), 2004. Report about Batwa
data. August 2004, Uganda, p.3.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2016, National and Housing and Population Census 2014: http://library.health.go.ug/publications/leadership-and-governance-monitoring-and-evaluation/population/national-population-and
Minority Rights Group International (MRG), 2001, Uganda: The marginalization of Minorities(p.9), www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=143
Land Act (1998), Articles 2, 32; and National Environment Statute (1995), Article 46.
NTV September 2016 “Hillary Lokwang is the pride of his community after becoming the first Ik
MP”, http://www.ntv.co.ug/news/local/14/jun/2016/hillary-lokwang-pride-his-community-after-becoming-first-ik-mp-12890 last accessed 6 February 2017.

Benjamin Mutambukah is the Coordinator of the “Coalition of Pastoralist Civil
Society Organisations” (COPACSO), an umbrella organisation of pastoralist civilsociety organisations in Uganda. He has a keen interest in pastoralist and minority rights issues in the country.
Contributions from: David Mukhwana (active development practitioner), Chebet
Mungech (Coordinator, Mt Elgon Benet Indigenous Ogiek Ndorobos), Yesho
Alex Arapsamson (Chairman, Mt Elgon Benet Indigenous Ogiek Ndorobos),
Loupa Pius (Project Officer, Dodoth Agro-pastoralist Development Organization), Amos Isimbwa (Elder, Basongora Group for Justice and Human Rights)
and Penninah Zaninka (Coordinator, United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda).

508

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

TANZANIA
Tanzania is estimated to have a total of 125-130 ethnic groups, falling
mainly into the four categories of Bantu, Cushite, Nilo-Hamite and San.
While there may be more ethnic groups that identify themselves as indigenous peoples, four groups have been organizing themselves and theirstruggles around the concept and movement of indigenous peoples. The
four groups are the hunter-gatherer Akiye and Hadzabe, and the pastoralist Barabaig and Maasai. Although accurate figures are hard to arrive
at since ethnic groups are not included in the population census, population estimates1 put the Maasai in Tanzania at 430,000, the Datoga groupto which the Barabaig belongs at 87,978, the Hadzabe at 1,0002 and the
Akiye at 5,268. While the livelihoods of these groups are diverse, they all
share a strong attachment to the land, distinct identities, vulnerability andmarginalization. They also experience similar problems in relation to land
tenure insecurity, poverty and inadequate political representation.
Tanzania voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 but does not recognize the existence of any indigenous peoples in the country and there is no specific national policy orlegislation on indigenous peoples per se. On the contrary, a number ofpolicies, strategies and programmes that do not reflect the interests of theindigenous peoples in terms of access to land and natural resources,
basic social services and justice are continuously being developed, resulting in a deteriorating and increasingly hostile political environment for
both pastoralists and hunter-gatherers.

New government: are indigenous peoples getting any better?

A

new government came to power in 2015 bringing great expectations amonga majority of Tanzanians that there would be a new dawn for the poor people
and the marginalized communities in Tanzania. The majority of Tanzanians (including indigenous peoples) were very optimistic and hoped that this new era

509

EAST AFRICA

3

1

2

1 Vilima Vitatu Village

2 Mvomero District

3 Hadzabe Community Forest Reserves

would put an end to atrocities, including evictions, corruption and marginalizationof the poor.
However, only a few months after the new administration took office, indigenous peoples had turned to disbelief, finding themselves the victims of the government’s actions. Since January 2016, indigenous peoples have seen no change
in their situation and they have even experienced greater violations of their rights
to their lands, including evictions in different parts of the country.

510

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Ethnic attacks on indigenous pastoralists in Morogoro Region
Indigenous peoples in Tanzania continued to suffer from human rights violations.
In 2016 such violations took place in Loliondo, Kilosa, Kilombero, Ulanga, Mbarali, Hanang and Meatu.
The human rights situation of pastoralists in Morogoro Region turned frombad to worse at the end of December 2016 and the beginning of 2017 when indigenous peoples were evicted in Kilosa, Mvomero and Morogoro Vijijini districts.
This was fuelled by a recent eviction operation declared in December 2016 by the
Morogoro Regional Commissioner, Minister of Home Affairs, and District Commissioners in the region.
The attacks on pastoralists in Morogoro Region are taking different forms.
Overall, the ongoing operation is intended to forcibly destock the region in orderto reduce the number of livestock. This destocking started in 2016. In Kilosa andMvomero districts, some village leaders and District Commissioners forced pastoralists to reduce livestock numbers allegedly in order to reduce conflicts between farmers and pastoralists. To justify this, the government used the Livestock
Identification, Registration and Traceability Act No.13 of 2010, making specificuse of very problematic sections in the Act such as Section 6, which requires
livestock owners to keep records of all their livestock and to provide these records
to various administrative bodies, located far distant from the pastoralist communities. Section 6 likewise subjects pastoralists to a sedentary life with their livestock,even during periods of drought, which seriously hampers the fundamental mobility and coping strategies of these people. The affected pastoralists mobilized astrong outcry against this, which reached the Ministry of Livestock Affairs.
Through a letter bearing reference number QA 108/509/105 and dated 28 October 2016, said Ministry subsequently asked the two districts to stop the brandingof cattle in order to allow stakeholders to discuss and identify better ways of addressing the conflicts. And yet despite this action by the Ministry, the authorities
in the two districts are still violently attacking pastoralists under the same cover.
Other tensions and sporadic clashes between pastoralists and farmers in theregion are increasing, and this is certainly being fuelled by the stigma that has
existed against pastoralists for a very long time. On 31 December 2016, the Morogoro Regional Commissioner and the Kilosa District Commissioner went toEAST AFRICA

511

Parakuyo village (a pastoralist village in Kilosa District) and declared that Maasai
pastoralists were criminals and that they had to be pacified through eviction.
Maasai pastoralists were also attacked by irate mobs, incited mainly by motorcycle riders who accused them of killing one of their colleagues. The police
later stated that the man was killed by three people and that not one of them wasa pastoralist.

Identification and registration of livestock in Morogoro and Coastal
Regions
As described above, the government implemented an identification and registration of livestock exercise in Morogoro Rural, Kilosa, Mvomero, Kilombero andUlanga districts in 2016, based on the Livestock Identification, Registration andTraceability Act No. 12 of 2010. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Fisheries, the aim was to obtain reliable statistical information on livestock interms of registration, births, deaths and vaccinations; improve control of major
animal diseases; reduce incidents of cattle theft; increase export of cattle products such as meats, hide, skins; improve breeding programmes; promote tagging
of cattle and provide the unique identification required of modern day-to-day stock
management. This exercise was undertaken with the support of the FAO, which
is providing both financial assistance and technical support to facilitate the development, customization and operationalization of the Tanzania Livestock Identification and Traceability System’s (TANLITS) computerized central database, inline with international standards. So far, the FAO has issued an amount of USD
475,000 for a project entitled: TCP/URT/3303- “Support for development of the
Tanzania Livestock Identification and Traceability System”.
The pastoralists opposed this exercise from the start. They stated that there
had been a lack of involvement and participation on their part. The pastoralists’major complaints were that, if implemented, the Act would seriously limit their
possibilities of selling and exporting their livestock. Importantly, the pastoralists
perceive the exercise as an attempt to evict them, limit their livestock numbers
and thereby undermine their entire livelihood as each pastoralist is only allowed
to register 50 cattle and is required to dispose of the rest. With a serious campaign and complaints made by the pastoralists, the exercise was halted (as described above) although no permanent solution has yet been found.

512

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Drought and conflicts
Severe and prolonged drought hit Tanzania hard in 2016 and the beginning of2017 and, in the drylands in particular, the situation is calamitous. It is so dry thatanimals are dying. Unlike other parts of the continent, however, only domestic
animals are dying. So far the wildlife is safe. News reports of domestic animals
dying through hunger and starvation have become the order of the day. The exact
number of livestock deaths in the whole country may never be known. The deathof livestock and the resulting losses suffered by pastoralists will, however remain
a dreaded nightmare for them for a long time to come. Lack of access to pasture,especially in ownership-contested lands bordering protected areas, has increased
the negative effects of the drought, with the state machinery using force to evict
people from such areas, which are normally used as “fall back” areas in times ofdrought.
It has thus been hard for indigenous peoples to practise their unique coping
and adaptation strategies due to government restrictions on their mobility. And, as
the drought bites harder, indigenous peoples find themselves in an increasingly
desperate situation. Panicked pastoralists and farmers alike are at each other’s
throats as they compete for fundamental natural resources such as land andwater. In some districts, these conflicts have reportedly claimed lives. Unsurprisingly, accusing fingers are levelled at innocent pastoralists.

Eviction in the name of Kilimanjaro Airport
Plans to enlarge Kilimanjaro Airport from the present 460 hectares to nearly
12,000 hectares will lead to the forcible eviction of over 20,000 villagers, mainly
Maasai pastoralists and their nearly 100,000 livestock, from seven villages bordering the airport. The land, including the property on which the airport stands
today, has been Maasai land for as long as anyone can remember. When the
airport construction began in the late 1960s, the community lost the 460 hectaresof land, which is now fenced off. The government did not seek, and far less obtained, free, prior, informed consent 3 from the Maasai pastoralists before constructing the airport on their ancestral land. As expected, the Maasai resisted.
President Julius Nyerere appealed to a Maasai healer who was highly respected

EAST AFRICA

513

by the community and, subsequently, the community vacated the 460 hectares ofland to make room for the airport.4 The Land Acquisition Act No. 47 of 1967
clearly lays down procedures for land acquisition. Article 11 (1) stipulates that
adequate compensation must be paid. No compensation was paid. Article 11 (2)insists that alternative land of the same value and size must be allotted. No suchland was given to the Maasai. And yet today, to justify the eviction of pastoralists
from the 12,000 hectares of land for the enlargement of the airport, the government is resorting to all sorts of propaganda, including the allegation that theMaasai have trespassed into the area. The Maasai have been in this area sincewell before recorded history. Endoinyo oo Ilmoruak, “Hill of Elders,” is around 30
minutes’ drive from Kilimanjaro Airport. To the Maasai, this place is a very important holy place, and Professor Issa Shivji describes it thus:
This area is considered by the Tanzanian and Kenyan Maasai communities
a sacred area where at intervals of every 6-7 years hundreds of Maasai
representatives from different groups meet for a series of religious and cultural ceremonies around the initiation of Maasai youth (or morani) into elders. The ceremonies last for between one to two months.5
Prof. Shivji adds:
Maasai believe that this is the area where ‘Naiterokop’, the Lady (Mother)from whom the whole Maasai community derives its existence and ancestry,originated.
The highest free-standing mountain on earth, Kilimanjaro, is called Oldoinyo Oibor in Maa language, which means “White Mountain”. Mount Meru is called Oldoinyo Orok, meaning “Black Mountain”. There are countless other surviving
Maasai indigenous place names in the area.
Legally-speaking, the land in question is village land. The seven villages on
the contested land were registered under the Villages and Ujamaa Village (Registration Designation and Administration) Act No. 21 of 1975. The Act made eachvillage into a single corporation responsible both for the administrative functionsof local government and the commercial functions hitherto carried out by cooperatives. Everybody in the village was automatically a member. The Registrar of
Villages6 later registered these villages as corporate bodies under Local Govern-

514

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ment Act No. 7 (District Authorities) of 1982. Registration gives the “village council jurisdiction to exercise powers within boundaries of the registered area”.7 Section 7 of Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999 unambiguously defines the land of thevillages in question. According to this section, a land certificate is immaterial. Thissection further states that village land includes:7) (c) land, the boundaries of which have been demarcated as village land
under any law or administrative procedure in force at any time before this Act
comes into force, whether that administrative procedure based on or conducted in accordance with any statute law or general principles of either received or customary law applying in Tanzania and whether that demarcation
has been formally approved or gazetted or not;Loliondo in a dilemma again
There were different media reports of the eviction of Maasai people from legally
registered villages in Loliondo in northern Tanzania in 2016. Evictions have reportedly taken place in villages situated in an area covering 1,500 square kilometres toallow the government to establish a Game Controlled Area (GCA). These village
lands are seasonally used by the Ortello Business Cooperation (OBC) for hunting
and they are demanding exclusive occupancy. OBC has been trying to persuade
the government to allocate the 1,500 square kilometres of village land to them forover 20 years but, in the end, they failed following the comprehensive advocacy
campaign conducted nationally and internationally. The conflict is globally known for
its human rights violations in 2008 whereby homes were reportedly burned andcommunity members tortured and treated in inhuman and degrading ways.
The plan to grab the 1,500 square kilometres of land has thus been widely
opposed by the community and their representatives and by human right organizations internationally for years. The advocacy led the Prime Minister, then the
Hon. Mizengo Kayanda Peter Pinda, to pay a visit to Loliondo in 2013 where heassured the people that the land belonged to the people as villages, and that the
government was finding a way of balancing the interests of both the pastoralists
and investors. This calmed the conflict down until 2016 when the demand forevictions emerged again through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
People rose up again to oppose the announcement and call for national and in-EAST AFRICA

515

ternational support. Given that the land belongs to the people, the government
subsequently came up with a new approach whereby they said that they needed
to involve the people in a discussion on ways of using the 1,500 square kilometres of land. The Prime Minister, Hon. Kasim Majaliwa, visited Loliondo in early
December 2016 when he asked the Arusha Regional Commissioner, Mrisho
Gambo to lead the discussion.
The whole situation is surrounded by fear since the pastoralists are afraid oflosing their land because the government is demanding that the area should beturned into a Game Controlled Area (GCA). This will, according to the current
legislation, prohibit human activities in the area and would thus mean that the
pastoralists can no longer stay on and use the land.
While the government is insisting on establishing a GCA, the community representatives are finding that it would be a better option to establish a Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which is seen as a lesser evil, as the community would at least
be able to demand some control over the area - although there are in fact also incidents of violations of the rights of pastoralists in a number of WMAs.

Vilima Vitatu land conflict
The Vilima Vitatu land conflict involves the Barabaig indigenous community livingin the Maramboi area of Vilima Vitatu village in Babati District, Manyara Region.
In 2003, Vilima Vitatu village became a part of a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) called the Burunge WMA. The Barabaig indigenous people in the village
found that the acquisition of the village land for the establishment of the WMA wasillegal as it did not follow the procedures required by the Village Land Act, andthey therefore launched a court case in 2007 against the Vilima Vitatu Village
Council and the leadership of Burunge WMA. The contested land was used by
the pastoralists primarily for grazing and settlements. Several courts ruled in favour of the Vilima Vitatu government and the Burunge WMA. The Barabaig pastoralists finally took the case to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, however, and, in
2016, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Barabaig pastoralists. The Courtof Appeal based its decision on the reasoning that the Village Council had failed
to prove in court that the people were consulted and had consented to their land
becoming part of the WMA. The court had asked for the original minutes of meetings where the Barabaig had apparently given approval for their land to be in-

516

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

cluded in the WMA but the village council had failed to provide such documents.
The court therefore ruled that there was no consent from the people to allow theirland to become a WMA. In summary, the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2016
states as quoted below:“…. In absence of any records of the meetings of 11.12.1999 and 14.12.1999 itwill be fair to say that there is no material upon which we could safely say that theallocation of land in question was made in compliance with the dictate of the law
stipulated above. In other words, there is nothing to show that the Village Council
and the Village Assembly were involved in allocating the land in issue.”Conclusion
In conclusion, after one year of changed leadership in Tanzania, there are few
promising signs for indigenous peoples. We are still witnessing an excessive misuse of power by the districts and regional commissioners, very little involvementof indigenous peoples in decision-making as well as reported human rights violations, including negative perceptions of the livelihood of indigenous peoples. A
constantly increasing urge for conservation and investment on the part of thegovernment continues to override the interests of the people. We continue to see
indigenous peoples’ issues waved aside by political leaders who believe theyknow what indigenous peoples want - despite indigenous peoples’ attempts to tellthose leaders what their issues, demands and visions are. Over the past year, wehave also seen a less than vibrant media that seems to shy away from humanright issues and has less guts to confront and correct irregularities, especiallywhen the perpetrator originates from the government.


Notes and references
1
2

3

www.answers.com/Maasai; www.answers.com/Datoga; www.answers.com/Hadza.
Other sources estimate the Hadzabe at between 1,000 – 1,500 people. See, for instance, Madsen, Andrew, 2000: The Hadzabe of Tanzania. Land and Human Rights for a Hunter-Gatherer
Community. Copenhagen: IWGIA.
Article 19 of the UNDRIP requires States “to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous people concerned through their own representatives institutions in order to obtain their

EAST AFRICA

4
5
6
7

517

free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative
measures that may affect them.”
The size of the fenced area was supplied by Mattijs Smith, pers.comm. 27 November 2014.
Issa Shivji, “Legal Opinion on the Right of Maasai Community to En’doinyo Ormoruak and its
Environs” (unpublished report for PINGO’s Forum, 1998).
At the Office of the Prime Minister (Regional Administration and Local Governments).
Professor Issa G. Shivji, pers.comm. 11 December 2014.

Edward Porokwa is a lawyer and an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania. He
is currently the Executive Director of Pastoralists Indigenous NGOs Forum (PINGOs Forum), an umbrella organization for pastoralists and hunter-gatherers in
Tanzania. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Law (LLB Hon) from the University of
Dar es Salaam and a Master’s Degree in Business Administration (MBA) from
ESAMI/Maastricht School of Management. He has 15 years’ experience of working with indigenous peoples’ organizations in the areas of human rights advocacy,
policy analysis, constitutional issues and climate change.

SOUTHERN AFRICA520

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ANGOLAThe indigenous peoples of Angola include the San and Himba, potentiallyother Khoe-san descendent groups (including Kwisi and Kwepe), andthose with similarities to the Himba (including Kuvale and Zemba). Situated in Angola’s southern provinces, together they represent approximately 0.1% of Angola’s estimated population of 25 million.
The San of southern Angola number between 9,000 and 14,000, potentially the third largest San population in southern Africa after Botswana
and Namibia, although estimates vary and little extensive data collection
has taken place. Scant population data exists for other groups.
While in the past the San, and possibly Kwepe and Kwisi, were hunter-gatherers, most now live from a combination of subsistence agriculture, informal manual work and food aid, although a number of significant
traditional livelihood practices remain. These include gathering of bushfoods and, in some cases, hunting and crafts. Herero-speaking minority
groups, including the Himba, Kuvale (often referred to as “Mucubais”) and
Zemba, are traditionally semi-nomadic pastoralists.
There are no specific references to indigenous peoples or minorities
in the Constitution, nor in other domestic law. As with many African states,
the Government of Angola does not recognise the concept of indigenous
peoples as affirmed in international law.
Despite this, the Government of Angola is still a signatory to ILO107,
the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention of 1957, which it ratified in 1976, albeit with limited reporting. The last information presented
to the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions andRecommendations (CEACR) was in 2010. The CEACR has made annual
requests for information from 2013, as well as for consultations on thepossible ratification of ILO169, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, which to all intents and purposes superseded C107 in 1989. Angola became a signatory to ICERD in 2013, and has ratified CEDAW-OP,
CRC, ICCPR and CESCR. Despite these latter treaties, a number of corehuman rights remain unrealised in Angola.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Angola has a diverse national media, although direct criticism of thegovernment is limited. There are a variety of government projects andcivil society organisations working with indigenous peoples in Angola,both independently and in cooperation with local and national government, although it appears that minorities do not have formal representative structures.

521

522

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

General overview

D

etailed information on minority groups in Angola is inadequate, especially for
those in the south-west of the country, due to restricted local resources andcapacity as well as a number of other factors including: limited state and civil society engagement with indigenous peoples on the local and international level;
the relative lack of availability of relevant government and civil society reports
outside the country; vast provinces, with Moxico and Kuando Kubango each covering roughly 200,000km2; and the difficulties of working in remote areas withlimited infrastructure, including the occasional risk of unexploded ordinance remaining from the civil war.
The San in Angola, often referred to as “Khoisan”, “vassequele” or “kamussequele”, among other terms, are found mainly in the southern provinces of Huila,
Cunene, Kuando Kubango and Moxico. San groups in Angola include the Khwe
and !Kung, who are also found in areas of Namibia and Botswana, with the majority being “Vasekele” !Kung. In general, the San appear to have subordinate socioeconomic standing in relation to neighbouring non-San groups,1 which can resultin discriminatory labour and law practices as well as social issues.
Angola’s San have a turbulent history, sharing similar social and economic
challenges and deprivation to San in neighbouring countries, as well as experiencing over 25 years of civil and cross-border conflict since 1966. Many San fled
the wars in Angola between the mid-1970s and early 1990s, with a significant
number being killed in the violence. Most San who successfully crossed the border eventually ended up in Namibia or South Africa, many having joined or been
co-opted into service with the South African Defence Force (SADF).2
The San have some public recognition on a national level and, in 2016, thenational broadcaster TPA showed at least 13 short news segments related togovernment projects with San communities.3 A TPA broadcast journalist4 wrote ashort book on the San in Angola in late 2015, although it is not available outside
the country, nor in English translation.
Other Khoe-san or Khoe-san descendent groups are found in small numbers
in south-west Angola, for whom most available anthropological and linguistic data
is limited or outdated, including the Kwepe and Kwisi. It should be noted that although the term “Kwisi” is frequently used, it is considered derogatory by thegroup, who would rather identify according to the areas in which they live, includ-SOUTHERN AFRICA

523

ing “Vátua”; however, it is used here due to the lack of other accurate terminology
available. These groups reportedly speak dialects of the Herero language, although the Kwepe previously spoke a “click” language identified as “Kwadi”,
which now appears to be extinct.

Current challenges
Angola’s economic downturn continued to severely affect the country in 2016,
with many negative effects, including a lack of basic goods in shops, severe disruption of national health services and a reduction in funding of smaller NGOs,
including those working with indigenous peoples. Some of these have closed asa result.5
After 37 years in office, President Dos Santos announced in March 2016 that
he would step down in 2018. While some doubts originally existed as to whether
this would happen, it now seems that the Minister of Defence, João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço, will stand as the presidential candidate in 2017, with José Eduardo dos Santos remaining President of the governing People’s Movement for
the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) party. Despite this likely political change, Angola
continued and increased its restrictions on civil society activists throughout theyear, especially those taking part in political protests, and freedom of the press
was limited through legal actions, detentions and reported intimidation and violence.
Local organisations in Angola continue to highlight the lack of social and economic inclusion of the San in Angola, the expropriation of their land, and theirdiscriminatory labour and social relationships with neighbouring Bantu groups. In
May 2016, allegations of forced evictions and violence towards indigenous peoples in Namibe, Cunene and Huila provinces were made by the Catholic Bishop
of Namibe province.6
During 2016, land expropriations that affected 39 indigenous peoples’ settlements were noted in Kuando Kubango province, in the areas of Savate, Mucundi
and bordering Namibia, primarily for tourism development and commercial logging. In addition, state entities in Curoca, Cunene province, reportedly expropriated land from San communities for national projects. A group of 18 NGOs thatform a human rights monitoring platform in Angola, GTMDH (Grupo de Trabalho

524

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017de Monitoria de Direitos Humanos em Angola), sent a petition to the President,
National Assembly and Attorney General denouncing these expropriations.
A report was also produced by the GTMDH over allegations made by San
communities with regard to four separate incidents in which San were falsely implicated in elephant poaching activities, including incidents that led to the deathsof community members. This information is difficult to verify due to the remoteareas in which the incidents occurred and a lack of communication, which would
improve reporting.
Other issues included the ongoing drought during 2016, which has seriously
affected all rural communities in southern Angola, and the continued need formonitoring of the development of the Kavango Zambezi Trans Frontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA), a planned transboundary conservation area spanning
Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe and including areas in which
indigenous peoples are found.
Information on the challenges facing Angolan Himba, Kuvale and Zemba is
scarce, although relevant issues will undoubtedly include land tenure and accessto services and natural resources, as also seen in Namibia with these cross-border groups. The development of the Baynes dam on the Cunene River bordering
Angola and Namibia is scheduled to begin in 2017. Many questions remain overthe Himba and Zemba communities’ loss of territory, and these peoples haveprotested against this development in previous years, including with regard to issues of ancestral graves, loss of livelihoods and compensation.

Civil society support
A number of civil society organisations continue to provide support to Angola’s
indigenous peoples. MBAKITA (Mission of Beneficence Agriculture of Kubango,
Inclusive, Technology and Environment; a member of the above mentioned GTMDH human rights monitoring group), OCADEC (Christian Community Development Support Organisation) and ACC (Associação Construindo Comunidades)
all have programmes targeting San communities in southern Angola.
In 2016 MBAKITA, working in the provinces of Kuando Kubango, Cunene,
Huila, Moxico, Bié, Huambo and Namibe, implemented various programmes targeting San groups, including civil registration, agricultural training and promotion

SOUTHERN AFRICA

525

of cultural, social and economic rights, alongside workshops and meetings withlocal authorities and civil society networks.
OCADEC has focused on agricultural training in partnership with the government, and NNC on community empowerment, democracy and human rights.
Additionally, OSISA (Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa), with co-financing from the German Embassy, funded a study on San sociocultural heritage, which will be published in 2017.

Government engagement and national inclusion
A range of government projects with indigenous peoples in Angola were reported
in the press during 2016. The Ministry of Assistance and Social Reintegration(MINARS) carried out various projects with San communities, mostly focused on
agricultural training but also on aspects of education, housing and policy development. MINARS registered over 8,000 San with a view to potentially providing social assistance in southern Angola’s Kuando Kubango province during 2016
alone.
In Huila province, the local government promoted electoral registration andagricultural training, while food donations were made to some San families. In
Kuando Kubango, San communities highlighted the lack of agricultural tools,
schools and clinics to local government officials, and also received food donations.7 								Notes and references
1
2

3
4
5
6
7

Personal communications; also see sources in footnote 3.
Brenzinger, M. “Classifying the non-Bantu click languages” in Papers from the Pre-Colonial
Catalytic Project, Volume 1, ed. Ntsebeza, L. & C. Saunders (Cape Town: University of CapeTown, 2014.)
http://videos.sapo.pt/search.ht ml?username=tpa1&word=khoisan
Jose Jaime, “Os Khoisan - A comunicação e o processo de socialização”. http://jornaldeangola.
sapo.ao/gente/a_estreia_de_jose_jaime_na_literatura
Personal communications.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/05/20/church_in_angola_condemns_forced_land_evictions/1231307
Various sources from http://www.jornaldeangola.sapo.ao and http://www.angop.ao

526

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Ben Begbie-Clench is a consultant working on San issues and former director of
the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA).

Pascoal Baptistiny is the Director of MBAKITA, an Angolan NGO that works with
San communities.

527

NAMIBIAThe indigenous peoples of Namibia include the San, the Nama, the Ovahimba, Ovazemba, Ovatjimba and Ovatwa. Taken together, the indigenous peoples of Namibia represent some 8% of the total population of thecountry. The San (Bushmen) number between 27,000 and 34,000, andrepresent between 1.3% and 1.6% of the national population. They include the Khwe, the Hai||om, the Ju|’hoansi, the !Kung, the ǂKao||Aesi,
the Naro, and the!Xóõ. Each of the San groups speaks its own language
and has distinct customs, traditions and histories. The San were mainly
hunter-gatherers in the past but, today, many have diversified livelihoods.
Over 80% of the San have been dispossessed of their ancestral lands
and resources, and are now some of the poorest and most marginalised
peoples in the country.
The Ovahimba number some 25,000. They are pastoral peoples, andreside mainly in the semi-arid north-west (Kunene Region). The Ovazemba, Ovatjimba, Ovazemba and Ovatwa communities live in close proximity to the Himba in the mountains of north-western Namibia. The Nama, a
Khoe-speaking group, number some 100,000 and live mainly in central
and southern Namibia.
The Constitution of Namibia prohibits discrimination on the grounds of
ethnic or tribal affiliation but does not specifically recognise the rights ofindigenous peoples or minorities. The Namibian government prefers to
use the term “marginalised communities”. There is no national legislation
dealing directly with indigenous peoples. Namibia sees all citizens as indigenous. Namibia voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) when it was adopted in 2007 but it has not
ratified ILO Convention No. 169. Namibia is a signatory to several otherbinding international agreements that affirm the norms represented in
UNDRIP, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights), theConvention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), andthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

528

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

In March 2015, the Division of San Development under the Office of
the Prime Minister (established in 2009) was renamed the Division for
Marginalised Communities and moved to the Office of the Vice President.
The office is mandated to focus on the San, Himba, Tjimba, Zemba, andTwa with the main objective of “integrating marginalised communities into
the mainstream of our economy and improving their livelihood”.

Participation and political representationT

here were a number of important developments for Namibia’s indigenous
peoples in 2016. Representatives of the Division of Marginalised Communities in the Office of the Vice President and the Deputy Minister for Marginalised
Communities, Kxao Royal Ui|o|oo (the only San in national government), met withmany of the marginalised communities in Namibia in 2016. The Division took partin the 15th annual meetings of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues(UNPFII) in New York from 9-20 May 2016.
In mid-2016, the Division of Marginalised Communities agreed to a programme of work with the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs to promote the rights of indigenous peoples in Namibia and, specifically, to assist in the
adoption of the White Paper on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Namibia,
drafted by the Office of the Namibian Ombudsman in 2014. Government workshops are to follow in February 2017.
In 2016, there were 46 government-recognised Traditional Authorities (TAs)in Namibia, of whom 5 are San.1 The Khwe remain without a recognised Chief,
due to political disputes with a dominant neighbouring tribe and a lack of politicalorganisation within the group.
In mid-2016, the German government resolved to recognise and formallyapologise for the genocide of Herero, Nama and other groups between 1904 and
1908. Negotiations for reparations from Germany, led by Herero and Namachiefs, were not resolved,2 however, resulting in their decision to take legal action
against the Government of Germany. This effort was still in process at the end of2016.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

529

The year was also marked by a significant slowdown in Namibia’s economy,
resulting in sizeable budget cuts to many line ministries, including those that support indigenous peoples. The effect of these cuts is expected to be felt in 2017,and may impact geographically remote communities to a greater extent due toreductions in operational scope. Namibia has also been hard hit by drought conditions in 2016, with strong negative impacts seen on rural livelihoods.

530

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

International treaty bodies
Namibia has continued its progressive approach to international treaty reporting
processes in 2016, which raised a number of issues concerning indigenous peoples. The 2016 Namibia Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council recommended: reducing discrimination against children; equal rights to water, sanitation, land, health andsocial services; improved access to education; implementation of the White Paper on the rights of indigenous peoples in Namibia, and improved access to landon the part of ethnic minority groups who have been deprived of their originallands.
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) madestrong recommendations, including: monitoring the impact of measures taken to
improve the realisation of rights for indigenous peoples, updating CERD on themeasures and the work of the Division of Marginalised Communities; implementing a range of recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on the rights ofindigenous peoples following his 2012 visit to Namibia, including action on violence against San women; political participation of indigenous peoples; access to
education; and land reform and resettlement.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recommended that Namibia adopt legislation that recognises indigenous peoples, including land tenure, livelihoods and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),
and that it should ratify ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. It specifically mentioned FPIC in light of the Baynes dam project, which affects Ovahimba, Ovatjimba, Ovazemba and Ovatwa communities, and also recommended the implementation of the recommendations in the Special Rapporteur’s report.
The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) highlighted the continuing
discrimination against indigenous peoples, and recommended that Namibia ensure that indigenous peoples have “titles over lands and territories that they traditionally occupied or resources they owned”. The recommendation also referred to
FPIC practices, especially with regard to extractive industries.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

531

Land and natural resources
In September 2016, a favourable judgment was passed by the High Court of theN‡a Jaqna Conservancy (a predominantly Kung San area) after long-running
proceedings whereby the Conservancy Committee alleged that 32 individuals
had illegally fenced land in N‡a Jaqna Conservancy and that some of them hadobtained the land illegally. The judgment ordered the removal of fences and thata number of the accused vacate land and/or be restrained from occupying land in
the Conservancy.3 Some of the defendants are currently appealing before theSupreme Court. Should the appeal be quashed, the judgment is likely to set avery positive precedent for other contested areas of communal land in Namibia
but, if upheld, further erosion of indigenous peoples’ land rights are likely.
Efforts have continued in the neighbouring Nyae Nyae Conservancy (predominantly Ju|’hoansi) to prosecute illegal grazers, although the cases have experienced extensive delays in their investigation and prosecution processes withthe police and public prosecutor. It is hoped the cases will be heard in court during
2017.
As noted in The Indigenous World 2016, the Hai||om San filed a class action
lawsuit on Hai||om land rights against the government of the Republic of Namibia
and 13 others in 2015.4 This process has continued throughout 2016, with theGovernment of Namibia responding to the collective action lawsuit in January.
The applicants were in the process of replying to the government’s response asof the end of 2016.5 A hearing is expected in the High Court during 2017, focusedin part on whether the Hai||om plaintiffs will be certified as a class – the first classaction lawsuit on behalf of an ethnic group in independent Namibia.
The degree of severity of what has been described by government spokespersons as a “poaching crisis” increased in Namibia in 2016. As a result, Namibia
intensified its efforts to counter illegal wildlife exploitation, expanding its antipoaching unit (APU) in the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, seeking andobtaining funds from both local and outside sources, engaging in training of antipoaching personnel, purchasing equipment such as unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs), and investing more heavily in community-based approaches to wildlife
conservation.6 This approach is leading to increased arrests and reduced incidences of poaching. However, a Khwe man was seriously injured in July 2016,
mistakenly being shot twice by an anti-poaching unit patrol after they opened fire

532

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

without warning on a group legally harvesting traditional plants within the Bwabwata National Park.

Gender and youth
The Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare was active in 2016 as were anumber of organisations involved with women and youth, such as Women’s Action for Development (WAD), the Women’s Leadership Centre (WLC) and the
Namibia UNICEF office. Discrimination, marginalisation, inequitable access toland and resources, high levels of food insecurity, low access to information technology, high rates of domestic violence, and mistreatment of indigenous womenand children continued to be problems in 2016, despite some progress towards
gender equality.7 WLC reported anecdotal evidence and preliminary field research showing incidences of prostitution of girls for “survival sex” in some San
communities.
The Namibian San Council and the ||Ana-Jeh San Trust (the Namibia San
youth organisation) each met several times during 2016 to discuss issues involving San men, women and youth. Some of the issues they highlighted included
what they saw as the low levels of participation of San in the socioeconomic lifeof the country, high rates of unemployment, a lack of training and educational
opportunities, and high rates of HIV/AIDS among women and youth. Representatives of both organisations attended a Women’s Rights Conference sponsored bygovernment on 11 October 2016. Sizeable numbers of San, Ovahimba, Ovatjimba and other rural Namibians continued to gain some benefits from the conservation and poverty-alleviation efforts of communal conservancies in 2016.8
Notes and references
1

2

M. Hinz with A. Gairiseb. Customary Law Ascertained: Volume 3: The Customary Law of theNama, Ovaherero, Ovambanderu, and San Communities of Namibia. Windhoek: Windhoek: University of Namibia (UNAM) Press, 2016.
AFP. “Indigenous Namibians Furious at German Reparations ‘Insult.’”, The Local, 14 July 2016;
Guardian. “Germany Moves to Atone for ‘Forgotten Genocide’ in Namibia”, The Guardian, 27
December 2016; N. Onishi, “Germany Grapples with Its African Genocide”, New York Times, 29
December 2016.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

3

4

5

6

7

8

533

High Court of Namibia 2016a. Case No. A: 276/2013, In the High Court of Namibia, Main Division, Windhoek, Thursday, 18 August, 2016 in the matter between the N/a Jaqna Conservancy
Committee, Applicant and Minister of Lands and Resettlement and 35 Others, Respondents.
Windhoek: High Court of Namibia.
High Court of Namibia 2015. Case No A 201/2015. In the High Court of Namibia, Main Division,
Windhoek, in the Matter between Jan Tsamib and 7 Others and the Government of the Republicof Namibia and 13 Others on the matter of the Hai||om People and their land. Windhoek: High
Court of Namibia.
High Court of Namibia 2016b. Case No A 201/15. First Respondent’s Answering Affidavit in theHigh Court of Namibia, Main Division, Windhoek, in the Matter between Jan Tsamib and 7 Others
and the Government of the Republic of Namibia and 13 Others on the matter of the Hai||omPeople and their Land. Windhoek: High Court of Namibia.
Nampa. “Namibia Makes Big Strides in Combating Poaching – Shifeta”, The Namibian, 21 January 2016; A. Nakale, “US pumps millions more into Namibia’s anti-poaching war”, New Era, 4August 2016.
Data from the Department of Women’s Affairs (DWA) in the Office of the President, the Legal
Assistance Centre, Women’s Actions for Development, and the AIDS and Rights Alliance forSouthern Africa (ARASA).
See www.worldwildlife.org/places/Namibia/ and www.nndfn.org/ accessed 29 December, 2016.

Ben Begbie-Clench is a consultant working on San issues in Namibia who works
with the Desert Research Foundation of Namibia (DRFN).
Robert Hitchcock is a member of the board of the Kalahari Peoples Fund (KPF),
a non-profit organisation devoted to assisting people in southern Africa.

534

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ZIMBABWE
While the Government of Zimbabwe does not recognize any specificgroups as indigenous to the country, two peoples self-identify as indigenous: the Tshwa (Tjwa, Tsoa, Cuaa) San found in western Zimbabwe,
and the Doma (Vadema) of Mbire District in north-central Zimbabwe.
Population estimates indicate there are 2,700 Tshwa and 1,250 Doma in
Zimbabwe, approximately 0.027% of the country’s population.
Many of the Tshwa and Doma live below the poverty line in Zimbabwe
and together make up some of the poorest people in the country. Available socioeconomic data is limited for both groups although baseline data
was collected for the Tshwa in late 2013. Both the Tshwa and Doma havehistories of foraging and continue to rely to a limited extent on wild plant,
animal and insect resources. Most Tshwa and Doma households havediversified economies, often working for members of other groups in agriculture, pastoralism, tourism, and small-scale business enterprises. Remittances from relatives and friends working in towns, commercial farms
or mines, both inside and outside of the country, make up a small proportion of the total incomes of Tshwa and Doma. As is the case with otherZimbabweans, some Tshwa and Doma have emigrated to other countries, including Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique and Zambia, insearch of income-generating opportunities and employment.
Though somewhat improved in recent years, realisation of core human rights in Zimbabwe continues to be challenging. Zimbabwe is party
to the CERD, CRC, CEDAW, ICCPR and ICESCR. Reporting on theseconventions is largely overdue but there have been efforts in 2016 tomeet requirements. Zimbabwe also voted for the adoption of the UNDRIP.
In recent years, Zimbabwe has also participated in the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) process of the UN Human Rights Council, the most recent
meeting of which was held on 2 November 2016. Like many African
states, Zimbabwe has not signed the only international human rights convention addressing indigenous peoples, ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of 1989.

535

SOUTHERN AFRICA

There are no specific laws on indigenous peoples’ rights in Zimbabwe. However the “Koisan” language is included in the Zimbabwe 2013
revised Constitution as one of the 16 languages recognized in the country, and there is some awareness within government of the need for more
information and improved approaches to minorities in the country.

1
2

3

1 Chewore National Park		

2 Mbire District

3 Hwange National Park

SummarySizable numbers of Tshwa, Doma and other Zimbabweans were seriously affected by drought, the economic downturn in the country and the fierce and536

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ongoing political maneuvering and crackdowns in Zimbabwe in 2016. Considerable work is necessary to ensure that the social, economic, cultural and politicalrights guaranteed in the 2013 revised Zimbabwe Constitution are protected for
disadvantaged minorities and indigenous peoples, who remain at the lowest levels of the Zimbabwean socioeconomic system.1
The Doma (Vadema) of the mid-Zambezi Valley, like the Tshwa San of western Zimbabwe, continued to face discrimination, food insecurity, low employment levels, limited political participation, and lack of broad access to social
services in 2016.

Policy and legislation
No new policies were initiated regarding indigenous peoples and minorities in
Zimbabwe in 2016. Indigenous peoples and minorities were not mentioned in the
Zimbabwe government’s report to the Human Rights Council for the Second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) meeting held on 2 November 2016.2
The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) paid a visit to San communities in Tsholotsho District from 13-17 June 2016. The Commission met with
district officials, local authorities and San communities and with the Tsoto-o-Tso
San Development Trust, (TSDT).3 Recommendations arising from that visit included the need to pay greater attention to minority issues in the country, the needto expand education and health services, and the importance of poverty alleviation. This was especially important given the food insecurity situation in Tsholotsho and Zimbabwe as a whole.
On 25 September 2016, the Tsoro-o-tso San Development Trust and the San
community were included in the Special Interest Thematic Work Group of theZimbabwe Human Rights Commission, focusing on promoting, protecting andenforcing the rights of youths, the elderly, people with disabilities, and sexual andindigenous minority groups. Progress was made for indigenous people with disabilities with the application of Zimbabwe’s National Disability Act. The Tsoro-otso San Development Trust director attended the 2016 AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, from 18-22 July 2016.
The Government of Zimbabwe declared a drought in February 2016 and, by
the latter part of the year, some 5 million people were in need of food aid in the
country. In September, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and the BBC

SOUTHERN AFRICA

537

reported on the withholding of drought relief food from opposition areas by theruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).4
Agricultural production, the livelihoods and incomes of the Tshwa and Domaand their neighbors were affected negatively by both the drought and floodingthat occurred in northern Zimbabwe in 2016.5 Of the few Tshwa households that
had livestock, 90% of them had to sell their animals, and 80% were forced toconsume the seeds they had stored for planting in late 2016. Among the Doma,
there were reports of people falling sick because of poisonous plants they had
consumed as a buffer against hunger, and water-related illnesses expanded
considerably.

Land, conservation and livelihoods
Both Tshwa and Doma faced governmental pressure from the Zimbabwe Republic Police and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management forsuspected poaching; some of the incidents involved elephants killed with cyanide.6 Arrests, detentions and shootings of suspected poachers occurred, andnew recommendations were made by government officials that the Tshwa andothers be relocated away from the boundaries of national parks, including
Hwange, Zimbabwe’s premier protected area.7 In Tsholotsho, where the majorityof the Tshwa reside, livestock losses to lions were reported in late 2016.8 In the
mid-Zambezi Valley, the Doma were also experiencing human-wildlife conflict(HWC) and were facing difficulties because their fields were being invaded byelephants and antelopes and their livestock was being killed by lions and otherpredators.9 Doma lands have already been restricted by the Chewore National
Park and Dande Safari Area, as well as by rural in-migration and population
growth.
Attention continued to focus on the Fast-Track Land Reform Programme in
Zimbabwe, which has had negative impacts on land access for indigenous andother people.10 The availability of land for settlement by Tshwa and Doma was
reduced by an estimated 10% due to the land reform efforts in 2016, even though
the pace of land reform has slowed in Zimbabwe. Access to clean water, healthservices, and educational facilities continued to be a problem for the Tshwa andDoma, and poverty and food insecurity were on the increase in 2016.

538

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Gender, youth and participation
Unlike Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, Zimbabwe does not have a San
Youth Network, in part because of a lack of access of most San to the worldwide
web. The National Gender Policy, which focuses on women’s well-being, waspresented to Tshwa in Tsholotsho in meetings held at the community level in2016. In December, the Zimbabwe government approved the teaching of the
Tjwao language in schools as from January 2017.11
Tshwa and Doma men, women and children stated in community meetings
that they continued to be concerned about issues of Tshwa and Doma children
being exposed to physical abuse and discrimination in school.
At the end of 2016, the indigenous peoples of Zimbabwe were continuing topress the government for equitable and fair treatment before the law and fullrecognition of their social, political, economic and cultural rights, especially in theface of rising political and economic insecurity in the country.
Notes and references
1

2

3

4

Hitchcock, R., B. Begbie-Clench, and A. Murwira 2016. Livelihoods, Land, and Empowerment:
The San in Zimbabwe. Copenhagen: The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Johannesburg: Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa; Educational Documentary
Services 2016. The Last Bushmen of Zimbabwe (video). Gweru: Educational Documentary Services (EDS) and Tsholotsho: Tsoro-o-tso San Development Trust; Cultural Survival 2016. Observations on the State of Indigenous Human rights in Zimbabwe prepared for the Human Rights
Council, March 2016. Geneva: Human Rights Council.
Government of Zimbabwe 2016. National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of theannex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21. Zimbabwe. Geneva: Human Rights Council,
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Twenty-sixth session. 31 October–11 November 2016. A/HRC/WG.6/26/ZWE/12.
Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, www.zhrc.org.zw; D. Ndlovu 2016. Visit to the San Community of Tsholotsho, 15-17 June 2016. Tsholotsho, Zimbawe: Tsoro-o-tso San Development
Trust.
Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission 2016. Report on Complaints of Bikita East Constituency,
Buhara North Constituency, Mazowe Central Constituency and Muzarabani North and South
Constituencies and the Ministry of Public, Service, Labour, and Social Welfare. ZHRC/
CI/23/25/26/35/44/2016. Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission; B. Hungwe 2016.
Mugabe’s Zanu-PF ‘Blocking Food Aid’ Amid Zimbabwe Drought. BBC, 8 September 2016.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

539

H. Mutasa 2016. Zimbabwe Drought: Five Million Face Food Shortage. Aljazeera, 21 May 2016.
R. Davies. 2016. Zimbabwe: Hundreds Evacuated After Floods in Matabeleland North province.
Africa News, 14 December 2016.
6 News24 2016. 4 Elephants Suspected Poisoned with Cyanide in Zimbabwe. News24, 12 September 2016; Chronicle Reporter. 2016. 4 jumbos die, cyanide poisoning suspected. The Chronicle, 26 September 2016; Herald Reporter 2016. Poachers poison 5 jumbos. The Herald, 10
October 2016.
7 Hitchcock, Begbie-Clench, and Murwira 2016:37; N. Muboko, E. Gandiwa, V. Muposhi, and T.
Tarakini 2016. Illegal Hunting and Protected Areas: Tourist Perceptions on Wild Animal Poisoningin Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Tourism Management 52:170-172.
8 W, Masara, 10 lions go for Tsholotsho livestock, The Chronicle 24 December 2016.
9 Ignatius Mberengwa field data, 2016; Evan Mawawire, posts on Twitter, accessed 24 December
2016; data from Community Development in Zimbabwe (CDDZ), www.ccdz.org.zw/ accessed 24
December 2016.
10 V.Z. Nyawo 2016. Families divided: disruption of the family in Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme. American Journal of Social Sciences 1:A18-A27. T. Jakwa 2016. Zimbabwe’s
fast track land reform programme: Beyond emancipation, towards liberation. Australasian Review of African Studies 37(1):73-94.
11 Bulawayo Correspondent 2016. Government Approves Teaching of Tjwao Language: Lessons
Start in January 2017. New Zimbabwe, 9 December 2016.
5

Robert Hitchcock is a member of the board of the Kalahari Peoples Fund (KPF),
a non-profit organization devoted to assisting people in southern Africa.
Ben Begbie-Clench is a consultant working on San issues in Namibia who works
with the Desert Research Foundation of Namibia (DRFN).
Ignatius Mberengwa is a Geography faculty member in the Bindura University of
Science Education, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Davy Ndolovu is a member of the Tsoro-o-tso San Development Trust, Tsholotsho, Zimbabwe.

540

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

BOTSWANA
Botswana is a country of 2.2 million inhabitants which, in 2016, celebrated
its 50th year of independence. Its government does not recognize any
specific ethnic groups as indigenous to the country, maintaining insteadthat all citizens of the country are indigenous. However, 3.3% of the population identifies as belonging to indigenous groups, primarily residing in
the Kalahari Desert region of Botswana. These include the San (known in
Botswana as the Basarwa) who number about 64,000, the Balala (1,750),
in the south of the country, and the Nama (2,200), a Khoekhoe-speaking
people.1 The San here were traditionally hunter-gatherers but today thevast majority consists of small-scale agro-pastoralists, cattle post workers, or people with mixed economies. They belong to a large number ofsub-groups, most with their own languages, including the Ju/’hoansi, Bugakhwe, Khwe-ǁAni, Ts’ixa, ǂX›ao-ǁ›aen, !Xóõ, ǂHoan, ‡Khomani, Naro,G/ui, G//ana, Tsasi, Deti, Shua, Tshwa, Danisi and /Xaise. The San, Balala and Nama are among the most underprivileged people in Botswana,with a high percentage living below the poverty line.
Botswana is a signatory to the Conventions on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), on the Rights of theChild (CRC) and on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD), and it voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However it has not signed the Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples Convention No 169 of 1989 of the International Labour
Organization (ILO).There are no specific laws on indigenous peoples’
rights in the country nor is the concept of indigenous peoples included in
the Botswana Constitution.

SummaryDuring 2016, indigenous people in Botswana continued to struggle to remainon their land. The current and former residents of the Central Kalahari Game

541

SOUTHERN AFRICA

2
1

1 KD2 Wildlife management Area

2 Lokgwabe

Reserve (CKGR) and the village of Ranyane in Ghanzi District have been involvedin court cases claiming the rights to remain on their land and to have services andwater restored for many years. The people living in protected areas are under constant threat of being relocated by the central government or district councils.

Possible changes in the government’s policies for the CKGR
In January 2016, it was announced that the government would restore essential
services to the CKGR as a result of discussions between President Lt. Gen.
Seretse Khama Ian Khama and the San activist, Roy Sesana. A delegation of

542

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ministers from several ministries, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi, met with representatives of five communities within the CKGR in early 2016. The plan they outlined was to restore the full range of services
that were terminated in 2002 when most San and Bakgalagadi were removed
from the reserve. By the end of 2016, however, there was little evidence of progress, although in October 2016, Roy Sesana and five other residents of Molapo
in the CKGR did win the right to compensation for the loss of their livestock due
to government actions.2

Botswana and international human rights
In February 2016 Botswana participated in the 2nd cycle of the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The country’s officials did
not mention issues relating to indigenous and minority peoples during the Review,nor did it address questions regarding the CKGR. The same was true for the
Botswana State of the Nation Address presented to Parliament on 5 December
2016 by President Khama.3
Several Botswana government officials and four San from Botswana attended
the meetings of the 15th United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues(UNPFII) in New York from 9-20 May 2016. A San representative, Keikabile Mogodu, director of the Botswana Khwedom Council, made an impassioned plea for
the introduction of mother-tongue instruction for indigenous children, a policy thatthe Botswana government opposes.4 Spirited discussions also took place between Botswana government officials and San about Botswana’s Affirmative Action Framework and how it applies to people in remote areas.5

Drought and fracking in Botswana
Botswana entered its fourth year of drought in 2016. In July, President Khama
declared a national drought emergency, authorizing food deliveries and cash-forwork programs in many parts of the country although there were no food or pension deliveries to the people in the CKGR or in the village of Ranyane, nor were
any cash-for-work programs implemented there. Water was provided to wild ani-

SOUTHERN AFRICA

543

mals in some parts of Botswana suffering from drought but little water was given
to the communities in the CKGR.6
In spite of the drought, fracking (hydraulic fracturing) was being carried out by
oil and mining companies in what is known as the Nama Basin in Kgalagadi District. Residents of the San and Bakgalagadi community of the KD2 Wildlife Management Area complained in April 2016 that the fracking had resulted in a drop in
the water table, lower access to borehole water in the village, and high levels of
toxic chemicals and salts in the water, rendering it virtually undrinkable.7

The Ranyane resettlement case
The Naro San residents of Ranyane village, which lies in the southern part of Ghanzi
District in western Botswana, were told by the Ghanzi District Council at a kgotla(government council) meeting in 2010 that they had to relocate to another place awayfrom Ranyane. As reported in last year’s Indigenous World (2016), in spite of winninga legal appeal in 2013 that should have allowed them to stay in their village, all services were terminated, including water, and many of the residents of Ranyane wererelocated to Bere, a largely !Xóõ community. After taking the government to court
again in December 2014, Ranyane waited nearly a year for a decision from High Court
Judge Terrence Rannowane, who denied their appeal on 21 November 2015. In
January 2016, Ranyane appealed for a third time.8 As of the end of 2016, 11 months
later, the Ranyane decision appeal had still not been heard in the Appeals Court.

Conservation, hunting and anti-poaching issues
Debates about the impacts of the no-hunting and anti-poaching policies in Botswana continued to intensify in 2016. Tshekedi Khama, the Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, made a number of statements to the media arguingfor the importance of this controversial policy in order to cope with threats to thewildlife base in Botswana.9
San have been pressing the Botswana government for further explanation of
its wildlife policies and seeking compensation for crop, livestock and human life
losses to wild animals, which many of them had yet to receive in 2016. Arrests ofindigenous and other people for violating hunting laws continued in Botswana in

544

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 20172016.10 In September, Tshekedi Khama, the Minister of Environment, Wildlife andTourism, announced that the ministry would review the hunting regulations as
they apply to San and other remote area dwellers, perhaps allowing them to hunt
animals for their own consumption.11
Uncertainty continued for San and other groups in the Okavango Delta andTsodilo Hills, both of which now have World Heritage Site status. Government andthe North West District Council argued for the resettlement of San and other communities outside the Okavango Delta. Questions were also raised by government
about the rights of communities to manage their own Community-based Natural
Resource Management programs. Some community trusts were told that they wereno longer in charge of their own finances and that benefits would no longer be provided to the community but rather to the private companies, some of them foreignowned, that were operating in what used to be community-controlled areas.12

Political and cultural participation
A Nama cultural festival was held at Lokgwabe in Kgalagadi District on 31 August
2016.13 The Kuru Dance Festival was held at Dqae Qare on 19-20 August 2016.
This festival brought together San, Bakgalagadi, Mbukushu, Herero, Tswana andmany others from across the country, and was an expression of cultural pride on
the part of the groups. Some San also participated in the 50th anniversary celebrations of Botswana’s independence held in Gaborone on 30 September 2016. San
organizations and other NGOs in Botswana struggled in part because of a lack offunds in 2016.14 The San Youth Network (SYNet) continued to publish papers
written by young people about women’s rights, children’s rights, and climatechange, on their website.15
At the end of 2016, the indigenous peoples of Botswana were continuing topress for equitable and fair treatment before the law and for recognition of theirsocial, political and cultural rights.16
Notes and references
1

Data obtained from censuses by researchers and from extrapolations from data compiled by theCentral Statistics Office, Government of Botswana, www.cso.gov.bw/; accessed 24 December
2016.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

2

3

4
5

6

7
8
9

10
11
12

13
14
15
16

545

T. Pheage. “Gov’t Pays Sesana and Co over P90,000”, Mmegi-Online, 11 November 2016; staff
writer “Govt Ordered to Compensate Sesana, fellow Tribesmen”, Mmegi-Online, 28 October
2016.
Republic of Botswana. Mid-Term Progress Report on the Implementation of the Agreed Recommendations from Botswana’s 2nd Cycle Review under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Mechanism of the Human Rights Council, Geneva, February 2016. Gaborone: Government of
Botswana; Human Rights Council 2016. Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Fifteenth session. 21 January – 1 February 2013. Compilation prepared by the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights
Council resolution 16/21: Botswana. A/HRC/WG.6/15/BWA/2. Geneva: Human Rights Council;
Khama, President Lt. Gen. Seretse Khama Ian 2016. State of the Nation Address to the 3rd Session of the Eleventh Parliament, 5 December 2016. Gaborone: Office of the State President,
Government of Botswana.
T. Pheage. “Basarwa Report Govt to UN”, Mmegi-Online, 20 May 2016.
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Department of Community Development,
Remote Area Development Programme 2016. Responses to the Recommendations of the Fifteenth Session of Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Gaborone: Republic of Botswana.
G. Williams. “Botswana: Wildlife Department Bowses Water for Animals”, Botswana Daily News,
23 February 2016. Statements by CKGR residents to First People of the Kalahari, November
2016.
Information from the Kgalagadi District Council, Hukuntsi, Botswana, 26 April 2016.
F. Baaitse. “Basarwa Clash with Gov’t over Human/Wildlife Co-existence”, Weekend Post, 11
February 2016.
C. Bosaletswe. ““Shoot to Kill” Anti-Poaching Policy Here to Stay – Tshekedi”, Mmegi On-Line,
12 February 2016; L. Gaofise. “Botswana steps up anti-poaching efforts”, Daily News, 5 February
2016; T. Mongudhi, J. Konopo, and N. Ntibinyane. “Deadly borders... 30 Namibians killed throughBotswana’s shoot-to-kill policy”, The Namibian, 9 March 2016; P. Mmeso 2016. “Botswana justifies border killings”, The Patriot, 5 August 2016; S. Dube. “Botswana Suspends Shoot to Kill
Policy”, The Chronicle, 1 June 2016; R. Moleofole. “China plays a role in Botswana’s anti-poaching drive”. Mmegi On-Line, 16 September 2016; African News Agency. “Botswana considers reviewing hunting ban”. African News Agency, 5 September 2016.
S. Madondo. “Ex-BCP cllr [Councilor] arrested over elephant tusks (Botswana)”. The Voice, 29January 2016. T. Pheage. “They Planned to Shoot Us”, Mmegi On-Line, 17 August 2016.
M. Keleboge. “Environment Ministry to Review Hunting Restrictions”, Sunday Standard, 2 September 2016.
B. Morokotso. “End the Culture of Impunity – Okavango Research Institute”, Sunday Standard,
29 February 2016; J. Mbaiwa. “Tourism Development, Dispossession, and Displacement of theCommunities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana”, In Political Ecology of Tourism, eds. S. Nepal
and J. Saarinen (London: Routledge), pp. 193-206.
J. Ramsay. “Ramsay Remarks at Nama Cultural Festival at Lokgwabe”, Mmegi On-Line, 31 August 2016.
Correspondence from Kuru Family of Organizations, Botswana Khwedom Council, and First
People of the Kalahari with Kalahari Peoples Fund, 11 September 2016.
San Youth Network, SYNet, https://sanyouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
K. Ontebetse. “Basarwa, Gov beating the Bushes for BOT50 Peace”, Sunday Standard, 8 September 2016.

546

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Robert Hitchcock is a member of the board of the Kalahari Peoples Fund (KPF),
a non-profit organization devoted to assisting people in southern Africa.
Judith Frost is an editor and researcher based in New York who has been involved with indigenous peoples’ issues for many years.

547

SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa’s total population is around 50 million, of which indigenous
groups are estimated to make up approximately 1%. Collectively, the various African indigenous communities in South Africa are known as the
Khoe-San/Khoisan, comprising the San and the Khoekhoe. The main San
groups include the Khomani San who reside mainly in the Kalahari region,and the Khwe and Xun, who reside mainly in Platfontein, Kimberley. The
Khoekhoe consist of the Nama who reside mainly in the Northern Cape
Province; the Koranna mainly in the Kimberley and Free State provinces;
the Griqua in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Free Stateand KwaZulu-Natal provinces; and the Cape Khoekhoe in the Western
Cape and Eastern Cape, with growing pockets in the Gauteng and Free
State provinces. In contemporary South Africa, Khoe-San communities exhibit a range of socio-economic and cultural lifestyles and practices.
The socio-political changes brought about by the current South African regime have created space for a deconstruction of the racially-determined apartheid social categories, such as “Coloureds”. Many previously “Coloured” people are now exercising their right to self-identificationand identify themselves as San and Khoekhoe or Khoe-San. African indigenous San and Khoekhoe peoples are not formally recognized interms of national legislation as a customary community; however, this isshifting with the pending Traditional and Khoisan Leadership bill 2015
which is intended to be tabled before parliament in 2017. South Africa has
voted in favour of adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but has yet to ratify ILO Convention No 169.

Second version of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Bill 2014
re-opened for public consultation

The “Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous
Knowledge Systems Bill” of 2014 provides for the protection, promotion, de-548

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017velopment and management of the indigenous knowledge systems of communities. It also provides for the establishment and functioning of a National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Office and the management of the rights of indigenous
knowledge holders. It sets out how the indigenous knowledge of local communities should be accessed. Moreover, the bill also outlines the process for registering, accrediting and certifying indigenous knowledge practitioners. A second version of this bill has been developed based on the first round of inputs, and thisnew second version was opened for public consultation in December 2016.
The South African government has proposed a sui generis legislative approachin line with the position taken by the developing countries’ at the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) intergovernmental committee meetings in Geneva. It
sets out to address the concerns of how best to protect traditional knowledge ofcommunities. Some of the Khoisan groupings have started to engage the second
version of the bill as part of the public participation processes. Provincial pilot grassroots processes have started which include certain San and Khoi communities.
These processes involve the Department of Science and Technology establishing a
National Recordal System with the aim to capture, store and manage indigenous
knowledge systems and Indigenous Knowledge Systems documentation centers in
six provinces. Consultative processes to this Bill are still ongoing.1

Traditional & Khoisan Leadership Bill 2015 update
The Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has developed a seminal report2 andpolicy approach articulating the human rights experiences of African indigenous
communities. It gives a human rights-based meaning to the challenges thesecommunities continue to experience in postcolonial Africa, and it gives a language to their particular socio-political context.3 It does not divorce indigenous
communities from the rest of the African communities nor make one community’s
concern more important than the other. It makes a case for the collective rights
violations of these indigenous continues to experience. It provides guidance on
how the rights of these communities should be included on par with fellow African
communities and equally respected when developmental initiatives are addressed. This is particularly evident in the South African context for the San andKhoi as it relates to their customary institutions, land restitution and now also, bio-

SOUTHERN AFRICA

549

prospecting. The question the broader civil society activism needs to sit with is
how to address the experiences of all African communities concerned, aroundissues of customary institutions, land and bioprospecting without negating thecollective rights struggles of the San and Khoi. The San and Khoi seem to be left
behind and in some cases marginalized by the broader civil society efforts in addressing concerns of other fellow African customary communities. This is theexact experience the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations hopes to address.
This problematique is of particular importance in relation to the Traditional
and Khoisan Leadership Bill. The South African parliamentary committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs finally introduced the Traditional
and Khoisan Leadership Bill (formerly the National Traditional Affairs Bill) before
parliament in 2016. This bill seeks to recognize the historical Khoi and San communities to be on par with the recognition already afforded to other African customary communities within South Africa. For the first time in the last 300 years, the550

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017bill could potentially provide formal recognition and open opportunities for access tojustice for the historical Khoi and San communities. Furthermore, the bill would allow the Khoi and San to be included in the governmental administrative processes
within the various ministries and enable these ministries to make specific provisions
for the Khoi and San communities’ social, economic and cultural priorities.
However, the Bill seeks not only to recognize Khoi and San leadership, butalso to revise the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (TLGFA), and its approach to this latter issue is contentious. Many in South Africa’s
civil society sector have voiced sharp criticism against the bill because of present
day challenges within the already recognized traditional leadership structures ofAfrican customary communities. The advocacy attempts by civil society actors (asimportant as it is) poses a great risk to the 17 year long journey that the historical
Khoi and San communities had to walk to ensure the bill could get to the current
enactment stage in parliament. The Khoi and San’s formal recognition through thisbill finds itself muddled by the longstanding concerns around existing traditional
leadership, and it could very well happen that the Khoi and San will experience ahuge set back in their 17-year long struggle as an unintended consequence.

Court case on the Amendment to the Restitution of Land Rights Act
In 2014 President Zuma signed into law an Amendment to the existing Restitutionof Land Rights Act of 1996. This amendment extended the land claims period
from 2014-2018, thereby providing a further opportunity for communities who
might have missed the first period which was from 1996-1998 to lodge theirclaims for land restitution. This was an opportunity for parts of the Khoi and San
communities (and others) who had been left behind in the first land restitution
process to institute land claims during the second round. However, during July
2016, civil society actors were successful in challenging the validity of this Amendment Act before the Constitutional Court by representing the interests of fourcommunities who claimed they did not have a fair opportunity to participate in the
public participation process for the Amendment to the Land Restitution Act at thetime. The Constitutional Court declared the Amendment to the Restitution of Land
Rights Act invalid, further stating that the first land claims are to be resolved prior
to processing the second land claims. Thus, parts of the Khoi and San families
and communities find their rights to land restitution further delayed.4

SOUTHERN AFRICA

551

Khoisan local government political party
During the South African local municipal elections in 2016, the Khoisan Revolution, a new political party contested the South African local municipal elections infive provinces. They successfully won one seat in the Nama Khoi Local Municipality in the Namakwa District, Northern Cape Province. Within this municipality,
they’re now in a coalition with the governing party and jointly managing the municipality. A female member of the Khoisan Revolution party also holds the speaker of council position. The party was formed in January 2015 and is registeredwith the South African Electoral Commission. Its focus is on issues such as land,
recognition and language affecting the Khoisan, San and Griqua.5
Notes and references
1
2

3
4
5

Department of Science & Technology: Protection, promotion, development and management ofindigenous knowledge systems bill 2015.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and IWGIA. Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities, 2005, http://www.
achpr.org/mechanisms/indigenous-populations/report-working-group/
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and IWGIA. African Commission on Humanand Peoples Rights Report : Indigenous Peoples in Africa, The Forgotten People, 2003,
City Press: http://city-press.news24.com/News/restitution-uncertainty-amid-constitutional-courtruling-20160729 .
Interview with Stanley Petersen, Chair of the Khoisan Revolution party.

Lesle Jansen is an African indigenous lawyer from South Africa. She holds a
Master’s degree in Indigenous Peoples in International Law from the University of
Arizona (USA). She also completed a second Master’s degree in the Rule of Law
for Development from Loyola University (Chicago) in Rome, Italy, where she now
serves as an external supervisor. She is an indigenous expert member of theWorking Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and is currently working with a teamof environmental lawyers called Natural Justice (naturaljustice.org) that work with
African communities around their relationship with natural resources and the environment. Lesle is based in Cape Town.

PART II
INTERNATIONAL
PROCESSES554

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ENHANCING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’PARTICIPATION IN THE UN
Building on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and various studies and proposals from indigenous peoples, the2014 high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly, known as theWorld Conference on Indigenous Peoples, undertook to “consider ways
to enable the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives andinstitutions in meetings of relevant United Nations bodies on issues affecting them” (A/RES/69/2, paragraph 33). There have been several notable and important steps taken and documentation prepared between
September 2014 and December 2016 to move forward the political processes necessary for the General Assembly to consider a resolution enhancing indigenous peoples’ participation in the United Nations.

IntroductionT

he United Nations General Assembly is currently considering how to enhanceindigenous peoples’ participation in United Nations meetings on issues affecting them.1 The initiative is ground-breaking in that it contemplates the opening up of
the General Assembly to non-state actors that are not international organizations.
This essay first outlines the normative background to this initiative before detailingthe process, substantive issues and areas of agreement and divergence to date.

The UNDRIP and normative justifications
The justifications for indigenous peoples’ participation in matters affecting them at
the international legal and political level are numerous and reflected today in the
UNDRIP. During negotiation of the Declaration, indigenous peoples argued
strongly and successfully for recognition of their right to participate in decisionmaking that affects them including, as mentioned, in the negotiations themselves.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES555

The overlapping justifications ranged from the essential, associated with indigenous peoples’ sovereign and self-determining character, to the instrumental, including the realization of democratic principles, to the pragmatic, that better decision-making results from inclusive processes, especially the inclusion of the potential rights holders when drafting a rights-based instrument. Indigenous participation is also consistent with growing practice in international institutions as well
as jurisprudence, which supported indigenous arguments of a right to participate
in decision-making in the Declaration negotiations.2 Many of the articles in the
Declaration express indigenous peoples’ rights to participate in decision-making
that affects them. The most fundamental of those articles is the right to self-determination in article 3. Other relevant articles include 5, 19, 20, 32, 33 and 42, witharticles 18 and 41 providing clear support for indigenous peoples’ participation in
the United Nations. Article 18 states that:Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain anddevelop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
and article 41:
The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and otherintergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of theprovisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial
cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.

The issue
Despite states’ acceptance of indigenous peoples’ right to participate in decisionmaking and the duty to establish ways and means of ensuring their participation
on issues affecting them, indigenous peoples do not enjoy participatory rights on
a par with the right to self-determination within the United Nations. Indigenous
peoples do not have participatory rights equivalent to, or specific processes toenable their participation similar to, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in556

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

institutions especially relevant and important to them such as the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the Economic and Social Council. Moreover, as the Secretary General has explained, it is difficult for indigenous peoples
to qualify as NGOs given that they are often, in fact, quite the contrary, and governing in nature and also typically organize themselves differently as peoples, ascompared to issue-focused organizations.3

Building momentum
In its two-year study in 2010 and 2011 on indigenous peoples and the right toparticipate in decision-making, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples took the first steps to initiate the current process, recommendingthat the United Nations “establish a permanent mechanism or system for consultations with indigenous peoples’ governance bodies, including indigenous parliaments, assemblies, councils or other bodies representing the indigenous peoples
concerned, to ensure effective participation at all levels of the United Nations”.4
In response to the Expert Mechanism’s study, the Human Rights Council requested that the Secretary General prepare the abovementioned paper on “theways and means of promoting participation at the United Nations of recognizedindigenous peoples’ representatives on issues affecting them.”5 In its request, the
Human Rights Council explicitly recognized that indigenous peoples are notalways organized as NGOs. After reviewing the Secretary General’s report, the
Human Rights Council requested the General Assembly consider the issue in2012.6 Around this same period, in 2013, indigenous peoples were preparing for
the UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, drafting what is known as theAlta Outcome Document. In it, indigenous peoples recommended:7
that the UN recognize Indigenous Peoples and Nations based on our original
free existence, inherent sovereignty and the right of self-determination in international law. We call for, at a minimum, permanent observer status within
the UN system enabling our direct participation through our own governments and parliaments. Our own governments include inter alia our traditional councils and authorities.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

557

In the Outcome Document to the World Conference, states then committed themselves to considering, at the 70th session of the General Assembly, “ways to enable
the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in meetingsof relevant United Nations bodies on issues affecting them” and requested that the
Secretary General report to the General Assembly with “specific proposals to enable the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions”.
Like the 2012 Secretary General’s report on indigenous peoples’ participation, the2015 Secretary General’s report notes the difficulties indigenous peoples face in participating in UN bodies of importance to them and their rights, including the Human Rights
Council, and the inappropriateness of classifying indigenous peoples as NGOs.8 Authorizing the current processes, the General Assembly subsequently resolved in
December 2015 to ask the President of the General Assembly to conduct consultations with states, indigenous peoples and relevant mechanisms, such as thePermanent Forum, the Expert Mechanism and the Special Rapporteur, in order toenable the participation of indigenous peoples in UN meetings on issues affecting
them and to prepare a compilation of views to form the basis of a text to be considered by the General Assembly.9

The General Assembly process during its 70th session
In February 2016, with the support of many states and indigenous peoples, the President of the 70th session of the General Assembly appointed four advisors to assist him
in conducting consultations and preparing the compilation: the permanent representatives to the United Nations from Finland and Ghana, and Professor James Anaya and
Dr. Claire Charters. After consultations were launched in New York, the advisors conducted an electronic consultation, requesting written inputs from states and indigenous
peoples between March and April 2016, followed by face-to-face consultations in May
and June. After each consultation, the advisors published a draft of the compilation toreflect progress and assist in further discussions.

The July 2016 compilation
The final compilation, presented during the July 2016 annual meeting of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is organized around four

558

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

principal issues: the location for enhanced indigenous participation; the modalities of such participation; the method of identifying indigenous peoples’ organizations; and the possible criteria to assist in determining whether an indigenous
peoples’ organization should be accredited.
The compilation gives an overview of the views expressed but in a way thatindicates which views have greater support and which are more isolated. It also
includes an annex setting out some of the elements that might be included in any
resulting General Assembly resolution. The compilation records the overall consensus that indigenous peoples have the right to participate in the UN in mattersaffecting them, consistent with the right to self-determination. It also expresses
the clear agreement that the process does not and should not undermine states’
membership of the United Nations or their territorial integrity as reflected in the
Declaration and the UN Charter.
There was considerable, but not uniform, support expressed for a separate
category of participation in the United Nations for Indigenous peoples, includingin the General Assembly. This was based upon an appreciation that the current
procedures and practices, such as those applicable to ECOSOC-accredited
NGOs, do not naturally or sufficiently accommodate the participation of indigenous peoples as indigenous peoples in UN bodies. A minority of states suggested
that only a strengthening of existing participation in existing mechanisms was
required. Others relatively tentatively suggested that the focus should first be on
enhancing indigenous peoples’ participation in the Human Rights Council and/or
the Economic and Social Council.
There is some agreement within the context of the General Assembly that thisshould include speaking and seating rights although there was room for moreconsideration of the exact modalities for indigenous participation. Some expressed concern at the potential practical implications of enlarging the General Assembly to include indigenous peoples’ representative organizations’ observers
although others noted that this should not form an obstacle to enhancing indigenous peoples’ participation and could be addressed practically.
There was considerable support for a recommendation by the General Assembly that indigenous participation be enhanced in the Economic and Social
Council and subsidiary and associated bodies, and in the Human Rights Council
and all subsidiary and associated bodies. There was also the suggestion that indigenous participation in these bodies might be different and possibly greater
when compared to modalities for participation in the General Assembly. ThereINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

559

was also considerable support for a recommendation by the General Assemblythat indigenous participation be enhanced in UN programmes, funds and specialized agencies as well as in conferences to the parties to UN treaties. The advisors have noted, however, that in practice the General Assembly does not usually
regulate procedure in other institutions.
Some states were concerned at difficulties in determining who is indigenous,
motivated in part by a perception that the process might incorrectly accredit somegroups as such. The view was consequently expressed that the clearer and stricter the rules and procedures to identify an indigenous peoples’ organization, themore likely there would be agreement on enhanced levels of indigenous institutions’ participation in the higher-level UN bodies such as the General Assembly.
Most proposals recommended establishing a new body to identify Indigenous
peoples’ organizations, including that the new body consist of both indigenous
peoples’ representatives and states or, alternatively, indigenous and state-appointed independent experts. Some also suggested that the Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues might fulfil the role of identification body. A minority of statesargued that the General Assembly’s final approval was necessary before an indigenous peoples’ organization could be selected or that the selection body should
be made up of states. A number of contributors recommended that membershipof the identification body should be balanced by geographic area – including
equal membership of individuals from the global North and global South - andgender representation.
There was a coalescence of opinion around the fact that selection should focus on indigenous peoples’ organizations that represent indigenous peoples, albeit with an appreciation that indigenous peoples organize themselves in a myriadof ways globally. There was considerable agreement that indigenous peoples’
representative organizations need to be distinguished from NGOs, organizations
composed of indigenous voluntary members or non-indigenous peoples’ organizations. On the other hand, questions remained at that point as to whether, forexample, indigenous women’s organizations or organizations representing indigenous individuals who are not resident on indigenous territories should qualify
for a new category of participation as indigenous peoples’ representative institutions.
With respect to determining whether an institution is genuinely representativeof an indigenous people or not, a few called for a definition of indigenous peoples’
representative institutions. Others rejected the need for a definition, although the-560

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017re was some agreement as to criteria that might be relevant, albeit flexibly applied.
These would include self-identification, possibly as an essential factor, as well as,
possibly, state recognition. However, there was some consensus that state recognition should not be the determining factor. Other factors cited as relevant include
that the institution should represent peoples who have ancestral connections with
their lands, territories and resources, who share history, language and culture,
who exercise the collective rights of the people and who have the authority topractise indigenous peoples’ self-government and, where relevant, who have entered into treaties, agreements or other constructive arrangements with states.

The General Assembly process during the 71st session
At the beginning of his tenure, in September 2016, the new President of the General Assembly reappointed the state and indigenous co-advisors to continue theconsultations. These consultations are ongoing, with the first held in December
2016 and the remaining scheduled throughout January to May 2017. The objective is to narrow down points of divergence on issues of substance so as to facilitate the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly during its 71st session, which ends in September 2017.
There is some divergence of opinion as to how the process should progress. Some, albeit a minority, would like the process to move quickly into an
exclusively inter-governmental negotiation. Other states and indigenous
peoples would like the consultation process to continue in the interests of seeking as much agreement as possible between states and indigenous peoples
before the resolution is finalized in an exclusively inter-governmental process.
It is usual practice within the General Assembly that resolution negotiations are
exclusively inter-governmental. Nonetheless, there is a precedent, including in
the negotiations on the World Conference Outcome Document, for indigenous
peoples to be included for as long as possible in so-called informal consultations, with the inter-governmental process approving any agreement reached.
Currently, indigenous-friendly states and indigenous peoples are seeking tofind agreement during the consultations in the hope that the resolution negotiation and adoption phase will simply approve agreements reached between indigenous peoples and states.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

561

December 2016 consultation
The December 2016 consultation clarified the issues on which there is considerable agreement and highlighted, and narrowed down, the issues on which further
discussion is needed to secure the passage of any resulting resolution throughthe General Assembly. To assist progress, the President of the General
Assembly’s advisors updated the annex to the compilation, referred to as the“Elements for Discussion” document. While it is not formally a draft of a resolution, the advisors have attempted to confine the document to those issues that will
be included in the resolution, incorporate those elements that have the greatest
level of consensus or agreement and set out potential options on those issues on
which there is not yet uniform agreement. At the time of writing, it is hoped thatbilateral meetings and plenary consultations will assist in finding further consensus, in the interests of expediting General Assembly approval of a resolution enhancing indigenous peoples’ participation in the United Nations.

December 2016 Elements Paper (the Elements Paper)
There are a number of statements in the introductory parts of the Elements Paper
that seek to assuage states’ concerns that enhanced indigenous peoples’ participation might undermine states’ territorial integrity or the fundamentally state-centric nature of the United Nations. It also cites indigenous peoples’ right to selfdetermination.
The Elements Paper reflects that there appears to be agreement that the issue in this process is focused on indigenous peoples’ participation in the General
Assembly and that the General Assembly will only encourage the Human Rights
Council and the Economic and Social Council to enhance indigenous peoples’
participation. It implicitly reflects the autonomy of the other institutions while also
encouraging improved participation of indigenous peoples in those institutions.
With respect to the forms of indigenous peoples’ participation, the Elements
Paper reflects the growing agreement that it should generally include opportunities to speak and to provide written contributions, albeit with the flexibility toenable adaptations to accommodate different meetings. It also seeks to guaran-

562

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tee that there is adequate scope to ensure equity between indigenous peoples
from different regions in terms of opportunities to participate.
The Elements Paper contains some options for the selection mechanism toidentify eligible indigenous peoples’ organizations, including a new body made up
of seven each of indigenous and state representatives or appointed experts. Reflecting some calls for an all-state body, it also includes that option, as well as theoption for a small body made up only of the chairs of the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
and the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples. Options for the selection process
are also presented, including that it should be open and transparent and that theGeneral Assembly should potentially have the right to approve the choices of indigenous peoples’ organizations.
The selection criteria identified in the Elements Paper emphasize that theobjective is to identify indigenous peoples’ organizations that are genuinely representative of indigenous peoples, albeit, also, that some flexibility is required in
how that might be assessed given the myriad of ways in which indigenous peoples
organize around the globe. On the question of who is indigenous, self-identification is included as a potentially essential factor and state recognition is cited as arelevant but non-essential factor. Representativeness is to be illustrated and some relevant factors suggested include authority under indigenous law and custom and democratic election as a representative body.

Conclusion
The process to enhance indigenous peoples’ participation in the United Nations
draws on almost a century of indigenous peoples’ efforts to ensure that the international legal and political system is responsive to their concerns. More recently,
it builds upon states’ recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, international institutional practice and international and domestic jurisprudence supporting indigenous peoples’ right to participate in decision-making that affects them. It reflects
indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. 			

563

Notes and references
1
2

3
4

5
6
7
8

9

GA Resolution 70/232 23 December 2015.
For a description of both practice and jurisprudence, see Claire Charters “A Self-Determination
Approach to Justifying Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in International Law and Policy Making”(2010) 17(2) Int’l J Minority and Group Rights 215.
United Nations Secretary-General Ways and means of promoting participation at the United Nations of indigenous peoples’ representatives on issues affecting them (A/HRC/21/24)
Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Progress report on the study on Indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision making A/HRC/15/35 (2010) and Final reportof the Study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/HRC/18/42 (2011), Advice para 36.
Human Rights Council resolution 18/8 (2011).
Human Rights Council resolution 21/24 (2012).
Alta Outcome Document from Indigenous Preparatory Conference to the World Conference on
Indigenous Peoples (2013).
Secretary-General report Progress made in the implementation of the outcome document of thehigh-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (A/70/84–E/2015/76).
GA Resolution 70/232 23 December 2015.

Claire Charters, Ngati Whakaue, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Nga Puhi, Tainui, Associate
Professor, University of Auckland and advisor to the President of the United Nations General Assembly on enhancing Indigenous peoples’ participation at theUnited Nations.

564

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLESThe Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples is one of the
57 “special procedures” of the UN Human Rights Council. The special
procedures are independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples has
a mandate to gather information and communications from all relevant
sources on violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples; to formulate recommendations and proposals on measures and activities toprevent and remedy violations of the rights of indigenous peoples; and towork in coordination with other special procedures and subsidiary organsof the Human Rights Council, relevant UN bodies and regional humanrights organizations.
In accordance with this mandate, the Special Rapporteur can receive
and investigate complaints from indigenous individuals, groups or communities, undertake country visits and make recommendations to governments on the steps needed to remedy possible violations or to prevent
future violations. The work of the Special Rapporteur has tended to concentrate on four principal areas: promotion of good practices; responding
to specific cases of alleged human rights violations; country assessments;
and thematic studies. The Special Rapporteur also works in collaboration
with other UN mechanisms dealing with indigenous peoples.
The first Special Rapporteur, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, was appointed by the then Commission on Human Rights in 2001, serving two threeyear periods which ended in 2008. The second Special Rapporteur, Professor James Anaya, was appointed by the Human Rights Council in
2008, and 2014 marked the final year of his mandate as Special Rapporteur. Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz from the Philippines was appointed the
new Special Rapporteur by the Human Rights Council and she assumed
her position in June 2014. She is the first woman and the first person fromthe Asia region to assume the position.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

565

The Special Rapporteur has established a website where, in addition to
the mandate page of OHCHR, her reports, statements and other activities
can be accessed.1

T

he Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria TauliCorpuz, continued to carry out work within her four principal work areas.
These are the promotion of good practices; responding to specific cases of alleged human rights violations; country assessments; and thematic studies.

Thematic studies
Each year, the Special Rapporteur presents two thematic reports, one to the UN
Human Rights Council (HRC) and one to the General Assembly (GA). The thematic report to the HRC in 2016 was a continuation of her analysis of the impacts
of international investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties and investment chapters of free trade agreements on the rights of indigenous peoples, while
her report to the GA focused on the issue of environmental conservation measures and indigenous peoples’ rights.
Ms Tauli-Corpuz submitted her thematic report to the HRC in September
2016.2 To inform the report, the Special Rapporteur organized a series of regionaland multi-stakeholder dialogues, held in New York, Lima, Bangkok and Tanzania,
throughout 2016. The report provides detailed conclusions and recommendations
regarding investment law and practice to ensure they are coherent with humanrights obligations, including the rights of indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur intends to devote a final report on this issue to investments related to climate change activities, which she will submit to the HRC in 2017.
In October 2016, the Special Rapporteur presented her report to the Third
Committee of the GA on its seventy-first session.3 The thematic section of thereport was dedicated to the issue of the impact of environmental conservation
activities on the rights of indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur summarized past experiences of conservation initiatives, including the establishment ofprotected areas, without adequate respect for indigenous peoples’ rights and its

566

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

negative consequences. She argued that sustainable use and environmental
conservation would only succeed when indigenous peoples’ lands and resources
rights, and their rights to full and effective participation, are guaranteed. The report concluded that, in spite of some progress, there is still a long way to go toensure a human-rights based conservation which protects and respects the rights
of indigenous peoples, and provided some recommendations in this direction. For
the elaboration of the report, the Special Rapporteur distributed questionnaires toindigenous peoples and conservation organizations, and organized consultation
meetings with them in New York during the session of the UNPFII.

Country visits
The Special Rapporteur submitted three country visit reports to the 32nd sessionof the HRC. Two of these visits had taken place in 2015, including the follow-up
visit to assess the situation of the Sámi People in the Sápmi region of Norway,
Sweden and Finland, and the mission to Honduras (see Indigenous World 2016).
In 2016, the Special Rapporteur conducted a visit to Brazil from 7 to 17 March2016.4 The main objective of the visit was to identify and assess the main current
issues affecting indigenous peoples in the country and to follow up on the recommendations of the 2009 country visit by her predecessor, James Anaya. In her report, the Special Rapporteur expressed her concern at the fact that, in the eight
years following the visit of her predecessor, there had been insufficient progress in
the resolution of long-standing issues of key concern to indigenous peoples, including recognition of their rights to their lands and territories. She also noted the convergence of worrying developments further endangering the rights of indigenous
peoples in the present context. The report analysed the emblematic cases of theBelo Monte and Tapajós dam projects and made observations and recommendations regarding violence and discrimination, the duty to consult, land demarcation,access to justice and the recent developments in the country, among other issues.
Some of the recommendations in her report have been implemented by the government since her visit, such as the suspension of the Tapajós dam project and theratification of the demarcated land of the Cachoiera Seca.
The Special Rapporteur has also had the opportunity of meeting with government authorities, indigenous peoples and civil society organizations when visiting
countries upon the invitation of different institutions to participate in seminars andINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

567

conferences. In February 2016, she was thus invited as a panellist to an International Meeting on investigation techniques on indigenous issues by invitation of
the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Colombia. She presented herviews on the need to increase dialogue and cooperation in order to advance in theharmonization of indigenous jurisdiction and the ordinary justice system with intercultural respect.5 She also took the opportunity to meet with some governmental institutions, the UN system in Colombia and indigenous peoples’ representatives during her stay in the country, during which she received the support of the
OHCHR in Colombia. She also met with the diplomatic community to exchange
views about the last stages of the ongoing negotiation of the peace agreements
and how indigenous peoples’ rights were to be fully incorporated, an issue she
was also able to discuss with members of the Office of the High Commissioner for
Peace.
The Special Rapporteur has received official invitations to visit the USA, Australia, Cameroon, Guatemala, Mexico and Chile. Some of these country visits willtake place during 2017. The Special Rapporteur is making special efforts to receive invitations to conduct country visits in the regions of Africa and Asia.

Communications
The Special Rapporteur continued to examine cases of alleged violations of thehuman rights of indigenous peoples and addressed the concerned countries
through the communications procedure, either independently or jointly with otherspecial procedures. Cases addressed are included in the special procedures’joint communications report, which is submitted to each HRC session.6
During 2016, the Special Rapporteur also issued over 20 press releases on
topics such as: violence and discrimination against indigenous women in Canada; the sentencing of two ex-military officials in the Sapur Zarco case in Guatemala; the human rights impacts of lead contamination in the water supply in Flint,
USA; the murder of Berta Cáceres and a call to end impunity in Honduras; theattacks against the Guarani Kiowa in Mato Grosso, Brazil; the court suspensionof the agreement between the Government of Brazil and Samarco Minería SA
regarding the mining accident in Mariana, Minas Gerais; the abolition of the amnesty law in El Salvador; the need for prior consultation regarding construction of
the Dakota Access Pipeline in the US; the call for an international commission to568

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

help investigate systematic violence against protesters in Ethiopia; and concerns
over the clampdown against human rights organizations in Ecuador.
The Special Rapporteur also delivered public messages, such as on the occasion of the celebration of UN Indigenous Peoples’ Day, focusing on education,and on the occasion of World Environment Day, emphasizing the need to protect
environmental human rights defenders, together with the Special Rapporteur onhuman rights and the environment, John Knox.

Collaboration with other specialized UN bodies and regional HR bodies
In line with her mandate, the Special Rapporteur collaborated with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII) and the Expert Mechanism on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) over this period and participated in theannual sessions and coordination meetings of both bodies. At the session of the
UNPFII, she took part in the annual interactive dialogue on the human rights ofindigenous peoples, and addressed the panel discussion on conflict and peace
negotiations and indigenous peoples.7 During the sessions of both bodies, theSpecial Rapporteur pursued the established practice of holding meetings withindigenous representatives and with interested governments attending the sessions in order to discuss issues within the scope of her mandate.
The Special Rapporteur considers it important to strengthen the collaborationand coordination with regional human rights bodies. She participated in joint
meetings with the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Francisco José Eguiguren, including the regional seminar on investments held in Lima in April and the International Colloquium on free, prior and informed consultation: international and regional standards and experiences, held in Mexico City in November 2016. 8 She also delivereda public joint statement with the Inter-American Commission on UN Indigenous
Peoples’ Day focused on their rights to effective participation and to self-determined development.
The Special Rapporteur was also engaged by the Asian Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in some of their discussions. She wasinvited by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to take part in
the meeting held in December in Yaoundé, Cameroon to present her views on theINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

569

implementation of the Outcome Document of the 2014 UN World Conference on
Indigenous Peoples.9

Other activities
The resolution establishing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur10 requests her
to consider relevant recommendations from the world conferences and other UN
meetings. In order to promote best practices and the implementation of UNDRIP,
the Special Rapporteur has attended several international meetings on climatechange and biological diversity. She thus participated in the COP 21 of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Marrakech,
Morocco, in November, and the COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) in December 2016, in Cancún, Mexico. She also delivered the keynote
address11 at a panel during the 29th session of the Intergovernmental Committee
on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in February 2016 in Geneva.
With a view to promoting good practices, and together with the other specialized UN bodies and other experts, she participated in a high-level dialogue on theWorld Bank draft environmental and social standard on indigenous peoples andthe requirement to obtain their free, prior and informed consent, held in Addis
Ababa in February 2016. The specialized bodies subsequently wrote a letter tothe World Bank to express their concern at the weakening of safeguards. The
Special Rapporteur has maintained an ongoing dialogue and meetings on thisissue with the World Bank and other interested parties.
The Special Rapporteur is also mandated to pay attention to the rights of indigenous women in her work. In this sense, in January 2016 she was invited tothe symposium Planning for Change: Towards a National Inquiry and An Effective
National Action Plan, organized by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Native Women’s Association of Canada on missing andmurdered indigenous women in order to discuss the National Enquiry into the issue which the Government of Canada had launched in December 2015. In her
intervention, she provided advice on how to develop an effective mechanism for
the Enquiry. She also had the opportunity to meet the Ministers of Justice, IndianAffairs and Social Welfare, the three bodies in charge of its implementation.

570

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

She was also a panellist in the seminar Experiences in Litigation of Cases ofViolence against Women and Women’s Access to Justice in Central America organized by Canadian Lawyers without Borders and Women Transforming theWorld Association in Guatemala. In her intervention, the Special Rapporteur provided observations on strengthening indigenous women’s access to justice andprotection against violence; on the need to understand the cultural and collective
dimensions of the violations of the rights of indigenous women; on the racialized,
gendered and sexualized violence against them, and provided some recommendations on the reparations and reforms needed to address violence against indigenous women. During her stay in the country, she met with the General Prosecutor, Ms Thelma Aldama, and had the opportunity to attend the court proceedingsof the Sepur Zarco case and meet with the victims. As mentioned, the Special
Rapporteur issued a public statement when the decision condemning the military
officials accused in the case of crimes against humanity was adopted.12 The Special Rapporteur also received information about the general situation of the rights
of indigenous peoples in the country in meetings organized by the OHCHR in
Guatemala.
The Special Rapporteur also attended a seminar with members of the Committee on Persons with Disabilities to discuss the specific needs of indigenous
persons with disabilities, and was a speaker in a Roundtable on the promotion
and protection of the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities organized by
the EMRIP in July.13
With a view to increasing the outreach and dissemination of her reports to allinterested parties, the Special Rapporteur participated in the IUCN World Conservation Congress held in Hawaii in September. There, she was invited to participate in several panels and meetings to present her report on the issue and discuss its recommendations. The IUCN Congress adopted several resolutions inline with such recommendations.14
The Special Rapporteur is also concerned about the situation of indigenous
peoples in isolation and initial contact. She held several meetings with government authorities and indigenous organizations on this issue in Lima, during her
mission to Brazil, and in New York and Geneva. She delivered a keynote videorecorded speech on this issue and the UN Guidelines on isolated indigenous
peoples and peoples in initial contact at the I Congress on isolated indigenous
peoples in Ecuador organized by several universities in the country in Novem-

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

571

ber.15 The Special Rapporteur intends to continue working on this issue during
2017.
The implementation of the State duty to consult and obtain the free, prior andinformed consent of indigenous peoples before the adoption of measures that
affect them is a principal concern of the Special Rapporteur and, in 2016, sheparticipated in several seminars and meetings on this issue, and provided comments on different legal and administrative measures to this effect. The Special
Rapporteur will continue engaging with all parties to support better operationalization of this State duty.					Notes and references
1
2

3
4

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

See http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/
A/HRC/33/42 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria
Tauli-Corpuz, 11 August 2016. The Special Rapporteur also submitted the report on her missions
to Brazil (A/HRC/33/42/Add.1), Honduras (A/HRC/33/42/Add.2), and Sápmi (A/HRC/33/42/
Add.3) to the Council.
A/70/301 Rights of indigenous peoples, 7 August 2015.
End-of-mission statement at
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/es/declaraciones-comunicados/123-end-mission-brazil, Report: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/33/42/Add.1
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/es/declaraciones-comunicados/116-indigenous-jurisdiction
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/en/casesexamined
On this issue, the Special Rapporteur gave a keynote speech at an international seminar on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Unreported Struggles: Conflict and Peace, organized by the Columbia University, New York in May. See
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/en/statements/134-conflict-peace-indigenous-rights
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/es/declaraciones-comunicados/166-consultation-andconsent
Declaration of the meeting at http://www.achpr.org/news/2015/12/d205; Final report: http://www.
achpr.org/files/news/2016/12/d268/report_of_the_regional_workshop_cameroon_eng.pdf
The mandate was extended by the HRC this year through resolution 33/23, https://documentsdds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G16/211/75/PDF/G1621175.pdf?OpenElement
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/es/declaraciones-comunicados/112-intellectual-property-wipo2016
See http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/en/statements/118-welcomed-sepurzarco
See http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/en/statements/140-emrip-2016
See http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/es
See http://www.uasb.edu.ec/web/guest/contenido?i-congreso-sobre-pueblos-indigenas-aislados­-enla-amazonia-ecuatoriana-situacion-y-problematica

572

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Patricia Borraz works as an assistant to the SR Victoria Tauli-Corpuz as part ofthe project to support the UN SRRIP.

573

UN PERMANENT FORUM
ON INDIGENOUS ISSUESThe United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (Permanent
Forum) is an expert body of the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) with the mandate to provide expert advice on indigenous issues to the Council and the UN programmes, funds and agencies,
raise awareness on indigenous peoples’ issues and promote the integration and coordination of activities relating to indigenous peoples’ issues
within the UN system.
Established in 2000, the Permanent Forum is composed of 16 independent experts who serve for a term of three years, functioning in theirpersonal capacity. They may be re-elected or re-appointed for one additional term. Eight of the members are nominated by governments andelected by the ECOSOC, based on the five regional groupings used by
the UN, while eight are nominated directly by indigenous peoples’ organizations and appointed by the ECOSOC President representing theseven socio-cultural regions that broadly represent the world’s indigenous
peoples, with one seat rotating among Asia, Africa, and Central andSouth America and the Caribbean. The Permanent Forum has a mandate
to discuss indigenous peoples’ issues relating to the following thematic
areas; culture, economic and social development, education, environment, health and human rights. Furthermore, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) mandates the Permanent Forum to promote respect for and full application of the UNDRIP and
to follow up on the effectiveness of this Declaration.
The Permanent Forum meets for a two-week session each year. The
session provides an opportunity for indigenous peoples from around theworld to have direct dialogue with members of the Forum, Member States,
the UN system including human rights and other expert bodies, as well as
academics and NGOs. The Permanent Forum prepares a report of thesession containing recommendations and draft decisions that are submitted to the ECOSOC.

574

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

International expert group meeting on indigenous languages

At its 14th session in April-May 2015, the Permanent Forum recommended athree-day international expert group meeting on the theme “Indigenous languages: preservation and revitalization (articles 13, 14 and 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)”. The meeting was approved by the Economic and Social Council and organized at UN Headquarters
in New York from 19 to 21 January 2016 by the UN Department of Economic andSocial Affairs. This was the second international expert group meeting on indigenous languages and it built upon the findings and recommendations of the firstmeeting in 2008, which had underscored the principles of cultural diversity andindigenous languages as a way of promoting intercultural dialogue and affirming
indigenous peoples’ identity.
It is estimated that there are between 6,000 to 7,000 oral languages in theworld today but that one dies every two weeks. Many of these languages are indigenous languages. Since its inception, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues has expressed concern for threatened indigenous languages and has advocated an urgent response to address this critical situation.
The expert group meeting was organized around the following themes: 1) the
context and characteristics of indigenous languages; 2) initiatives and strategies
undertaken for, with and by indigenous peoples to recover, use, revitalize anddisseminate indigenous languages; 3) lessons learned from State educational
systems to strengthen or accommodate indigenous languages; and 4) suggestions for what can be done to support the survival, revitalization, use and promotion of indigenous languages.
During the meeting, indigenous peoples demonstrated various initiatives tostrengthen, revitalize, and save indigenous languages such as language nests,
immersion programmes, advocacy for mother-tongue education, support for interpretation in legal proceedings and creative social media initiatives to raise theprofile of indigenous languages. The meeting highlighted the important role ofindigenous women as the primary transmitters of indigenous languages to future
generations and emphasized the use and management of information and communication technologies by indigenous peoples to support and promote indigenous languages, distinct identities and traditional knowledge. The meeting called
upon Member States to proclaim an international day and a United Nations dec-

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

575

ade for indigenous languages in order to raise awareness of the urgent need tokeep those languages vibrant and alive. The meeting also called upon States toimplement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,in particular the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations
the languages, histories, philosophies, cultures and oral traditions of indigenous
peoples. Experts from the seven indigenous socio-cultural regions made presentations during the meeting, and the report from the meeting was presented to the15th session of the Permanent Forum.

Pre-sessional meeting (Guatemala)At the invitation of the Government of Guatemala, the expert members of thePermanent Forum met from 11 to 15 February 2016 in Guatemala City for theirpre-sessional meeting. At this meeting, the Permanent Forum made preparations
for its 15th session and also met with representatives from indigenous peoples’organizations, the government and the UN system to discuss advances and remaining barriers for the achievements of indigenous peoples’ rights in the context
of Guatemala.

15th session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
The Permanent Forum held its 15th session from 9 to 20 May 2015 at the UN
Headquarters in New York. The Forum heard statements from indigenous peoples, UN Member States, UN agencies and other stakeholders. The discussions
covered the main theme of “Indigenous peoples: conflict, peace and resolution”
as well as other pertinent topics for indigenous peoples, including their participation in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the upcoming ten-year anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2017. The discussions also related to the follow-up on the commitments
made during the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014, including
next steps for implementation of the UN Declaration at national level - and theimplementation of the United Nations system-wide action plan on the rights ofindigenous peoples. The Permanent Forum also considered how to ensure indigenous peoples’ rights and priorities in the framework of the 2030 Agenda, includ-

576

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ing ensuring indigenous peoples’ participation in follow-up and review and developing key indicators to measure progress for indigenous peoples in reaching the
Sustainable Development Goals. The Permanent Forum furthermore initiatedsome changes in their working methods and programme of work at the session,
including conducting closed meetings with Member States, UN agencies and indigenous peoples’ organizations.
More than 1,000 indigenous peoples’ representatives attended the session as
well as representatives from States, the UN system, National Human Rights Institutions and other stakeholders. Over 70 side events were organized during theannual session on a wide range of topics. Throughout the session, participants
took the floor to make statements on their issues of concern. The report of the 15th
session of the Permanent Forum was presented to the Economic and Social
Council in July 2016 and its draft decisions were adopted by the Council. Severalof the Permanent Forum’s recommendations from the 15th session have beentaken forward. The 2016 General Assembly Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/71/178), for example, includes the decision to proclaim
2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages, which follows on from thediscussions of the expert group meeting on indigenous languages in January
2016, and the dedicated recommendations of the Permanent Forum in the 15th
session report.

Indigenous women and the Commission on the Status of Women
The Permanent Forum has adopted more than 150 recommendations that are
specifically related to indigenous women. These recommendations address awide range of issues, including education, culture, health, human rights, environment and development, conflict and political participation, with several related to
the Commission on the Status of Women. In follow-up to paragraph 191 of the
Outcome Document of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/69/2), the Permanent Forum, at its 14th session (2015) recommended that
“empowerment of indigenous women” should be considered by the CSW in 2017,
on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations
Declaration (paragraph 43 in E/2015/43). In 2016, the CSW adopted a resolution
on a multiyear programme of work 2017-2019, which includes the empowermentof indigenous women as a focus area in the 61st CSW (2017). Furthermore, theINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

577

agreed conclusions of the 60th Commission on the Status of Women include aparagraph on the contribution of indigenous women to sustainable development
and the need for policies to prevent violence and further their leadership. The 61st
session of the Commission on the Status of Women will take place from 13 to 24
March and will discuss “Empowerment of Indigenous Women” as a focus area/
emerging theme under a high-level interactive dialogue on 15 March 2017.

Indigenous peoples and the 2030 Agenda
2016 was the first year of implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, which has thus been a major priority for the Permanent Forumthroughout the year. In its capacity as an expert body to the Economic and Social
Council, the Permanent Forum plays a key role in raising awareness and providing expert advice on how to ensure the rights and priorities of indigenous peoples
in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. In its report on the 15th session in 2016, thePermanent Forum highlighted three main priorities for indigenous peoples in theimplementation of the 2030 Agenda: a) data disaggregation according to indigenous or ethnic identifiers; b) participation of indigenous peoples in developing
national action plans; and c) participation of indigenous peoples in follow-up andreview at all levels. Several of these issues have been taken up in the General
Assembly Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in December
2016 (A/RES/71/178). The Permanent Forum also issued a report with substantive inputs to the thematic discussions of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, the main UN platform for overseeing follow-up and review
to the 2030 Agenda. The substantive inputs in particular highlighted the need for
disaggregated data, participation of indigenous peoples in developing and reviewing national action plans as well as full respect for and promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights as reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples.2 Experts from the Permanent Forum were also present at
the High-Level Political Forum, which took place from 11-20 July 2016. The
UNPFII Chair, Alvaro Pop Ac, was invited to give a statement as lead discussanton the panel “Ensuring that no one is left behind – envisioning an inclusive worldin 2030” on the opening day of the High-Level Political Forum. Further, a side
event and various media outreach, including a press conference, took place during the HLPF.

578

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

System-wide action plan on the rights of indigenous peoples
The Permanent Forum plays a central role in providing guidance and inputs to theimplementation of the UN system-wide action plan on the rights of indigenous
peoples. The system-wide action plan was requested by the General Assembly in
the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014.
The plan was developed over 10 months by the United Nations Inter Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues (IASG), under the leadership of the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs. It is based on inputs and consultations with indigenous peoples’ organizations, governments, UN agencies andother stakeholders. The system-wide action plan was officially launched by the
UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, at the 15th session of the UNPFII on 9 May
2016. The SWAP has six action areas:
1. Raise awareness of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
and indigenous issues;
2. Support the implementation of the Declaration, particularly at the country
level;
3. Support the attainment of indigenous peoples’ rights in the implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
4. Map existing policies, standards, guidelines, activities, resources and capacities within the United Nations and the multilateral system to identify
opportunities and gaps;
5. Develop the capacities of States, indigenous peoples, civil society andUN personnel at all levels; and6. Support the participation of indigenous peoples in processes that affectthem.
The annual sessions of the Permanent Forum provide an ideal venue for UN
system bodies to report to indigenous peoples and Member States on the implementation of the system-wide action plan.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

579

Awareness raising on the rights of indigenous peoples
In line with its mandate, the Permanent Forum continued to raise awareness andprepare and disseminate information on indigenous issues in 2016. Lack ofawareness about indigenous peoples and their rights has repeatedly been identified as a major challenge in ensuring indigenous peoples’ full access to theirrights. To draw attention to the situation of indigenous peoples across the world,in 2016 the UN Permanent Forum engaged in outreach initiatives through public
speeches, statements at conferences and meetings, and media engagements
relevant to the Forum’s mandate, including among others: on the International
Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (9 August); the anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration (13 September); and related to current issues. The
Permanent Forum or the Chair on behalf of the Forum issued frequent press releases in 2016; press conferences were regularly hosted at the United Nations
Headquarters with expert members of the UN Permanent Forum;3 in-depth interviews with expert members were produced and disseminated through the UN
Radio4 and information was disseminated through social media (#WeAreIndigenous, @UN4Indigenous) and the Facebook Page of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
These are in addition to the numerous activities carried out by individual members of the Permanent Forum, especially at the regional and national levels. 

Notes and references
1
2
3
4“We also invite the Commission on the Status of Women to consider the issue of the empowerment of indigenous women at a future session.” (paragraph 19, A/RES/69/2)
The inputs were included and are available in the online review platform with inputs for the HLPF,
www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org.
See www.unwebtv.un.org
For a list of UN radio interviews with indigenous peoples, please see here: https://www.un.org/
development/desa/indigenouspeoples/news/un-radio-interviews.html

The Secretariat of the Permanent Forum has contributed this article.

580

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

UN EXPERT MECHANISM ON THE RIGHTSOF INDIGENOUS PEOPLESThe Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP)
was established in 2007 by Human Rights Council Resolution 6/36. Alsoin 2007, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which took over 20 yearsof negotiations, mostly between Member States and indigenous peoples’
representatives.
EMRIP is rightly considered as a successor body to the Working
Group on Indigenous Populations, established in 19821 and whose work
focused on the elaboration of a draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
EMRIP was also expected to bring additional capacity to the United
Nations and fill any gaps in the monitoring and support of the implementation of the UNDRIP. To that end, EMRIP’s first session in 2008 served,
among other things, to clarify the complementarity of its mandate with thatof other UN mechanisms on indigenous peoples, notably the Special
Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. Through its thematicstudies on specific rights enshrined in the UNDRIP, EMRIP was expected
to “contribute in a practical way to a better understanding of the relevant
articles of the Declaration”2 by providing extensive knowledge on thescope, weight and developing nature of each right guaranteed in the Declaration, including through identifying good practices, challenges and obstacles related to full enjoyment of those rights.3

Work of the EMRIPThe Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) is oneof the subsidiary bodies of the Human Rights Council (HRC),4 the Genevabased inter-governmental body of 47 Member States established by the UN General Assembly in 2006 as a substitute for the former United Nations Commission

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES581

on Human Rights and entrusted with the primary responsibility of promoting andprotecting all human rights around the globe. The HRC has other various procedures and mechanisms as its means of action, including special procedures, anAdvisory Committee and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.
EMRIP is a body of seven independent experts whose selection by the Human Rights Council is based on their technical expertise in indigenous peoples’issues, taking into consideration gender representation and geographical balance. Its mandate is to provide the Human Rights Council with technical advice
on indigenous peoples’ rights, mostly through research and studies, which arealways followed by an Advice. It has been argued that “the creation of the EMRIP
may be considered as the principal means by which the Human Rights Council
obtains proposals for implementing the Declaration”.5
To date, the EMRIP has generated 10 thematic studies on the specific rights
of indigenous peoples as enshrined in the Declaration, focusing on: (1) education;(2) the right to participate in decision-making; (3) participation in decision-making
with a focus on extractive industries; (4) the languages, cultures and identity ofindigenous peoples; (5 and 6) access to justice; (7) the rights of indigenous peoples in disaster risk reduction, prevention and preparedness initiatives; (8) cultural heritage; and (9) health.
Most of these studies are developed with the active participation and contribution of indigenous peoples, including through open written contributions, casestudies and expert workshops that bring together dozens of experts, practitioners,
indigenous peoples’ representatives and EMRIP academic friends.6 The reportwriting methodology takes into account: (1) the regional distribution of cases andhuman rights situations; and (2) evolving good practices that could be emulated
by other policy makers or indigenous communities. Each EMRIP report includes
a corresponding “Advice” to Member States, indigenous peoples and other key
stakeholders such as the United Nations and national human rights institutions.
This “Advice” is framed as action-oriented policy guidance aimed at enabling
various actors to transpose the concerned rights guaranteed in the Declaration
into the domestic sphere and thereby contribute to the enhanced enjoyment of allrights by indigenous peoples in their respective national contexts.7
It is widely agreed, including by the UN General Assembly through the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, that EMRIP will
provide important assistance to Member States “to monitor, evaluate and improve
the achievement of the ends of the Declaration”. To this end, EMRIP’s studies and582

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017advice are considered as playing “a key role in providing guidance as to how
State and corporate actors are to realize their duties and responsibilities in relation to indigenous peoples’ rights”.8
There are, however, considerable gaps in terms of implementation or followup to EMRIP’s studies and advice and their usefulness and influence in domestic
policy-making processes, which affect the daily living conditions of indigenous
peoples across the globe, is therefore questioned by some.9
In recent years, EMRIP has used its mandate in a dynamic way. It has, forinstance, been holding panel discussions on key issues relating to the humanrights situations of indigenous peoples, including on violence against indigenous
women and girls, the situation of indigenous persons with disabilities, the impact
of extractive industries and the Sustainable Development Agenda. It seems that,for most indigenous peoples, the interactive plenary sessions of EMRIP, whichtake place in the Human Rights Council chamber, are opportunities to: (1) voice
their specific concerns; (2) engage in dialogue with Member States; and (3) bringto the attention of the Human Rights Council and Member States the particular
human rights plights of certain sections of indigenous communities, such as indigenous persons with disabilities, youth and women.
EMRIP has also become more proactive in its engagement with specialised
UN agencies, seizing opportunities as they arise. It has, for instance, started taking part in the Inter Agency Support Group (IASG), initially established to workwith the UNPFII, including for the implementation of a System-wide Action Plan
developed by the UN agencies in implementation of the Outcome Document.10
EMRIP is also in dialogue with UNESCO on its work on indigenous peoples, including the “Building of a New International Mechanism for Repatriation of Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Heritage”.

EMRIP’s new mandate
The review of EMRIP’s mandate was grounded in the Outcome Document of thehigh-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly resolution 69/2), whose operative paragraph 28 called upon the Human Rights Council “to review the mandates
of its existing mechanisms, in particular the Expert Mechanism on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, with a view to modifying and improving the Expert Mecha-INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

583

nism so that it can more effectively promote respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including by better assisting Member States to monitor, evaluate and improve the achievement of the ends of the
Declaration.”
The review process of EMRIP’s mandate has taken over a year, engaging
multiple stakeholders in a participatory manner. Indigenous peoples held a number of expert meetings on the implementation of OP 28 of the Outcome Document, including in New York, the University of Arizona and Geneva. A multi-stakeholder expert workshop was then organised by OHCHR in April 2016, at which
numerous options for and elements of a new mandate were discussed. Furthermore, 15 Member States and almost 20 indigenous peoples’ organisations madewritten submissions to the process.11
Numerous direct consultation meetings were also held between indigenous
peoples and Member States on a draft resolution for the review of EMRIP’s mandate, organised by Guatemala and Mexico in their capacity as main co-sponsorsof this initiative at the Human Rights Council.
Major points of convergence that emerged from this consultation process included: keeping EMRIP as a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council, country-level engagement, and enhanced operational capacity. To this end, EMRIP’s
enhanced mandate, as per Resolution No. 33/25, is quite extensive, including thefive following major new elements:
First, the number of experts has been increased from five to seven, “one fromeach of the seven indigenous socio-cultural regions.”12 Previously, EMRIP was abody of five members representing the United Nations’ five regional groupings:
Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western
Europe and Others. This shift aligns EMRIP’s regional composition with that of
the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).
Second, in addition to its traditional annual thematic study, coupled with an Advice, EMRIP will from now on also produce a regular report on the overall humanrights situations of indigenous peoples, distilling major trends, good practices andlessons learned “… regarding the efforts to achieve the ends of the Declaration…”. The Expert Mechanism seeks not to duplicate existing annual global publications on indigenous peoples but to fill knowledge gaps and thereby contribute toMember States’ policy choices on indigenous peoples’ issues. The Mechanism is

584

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

expected to consult widely on the best way to implement this aspect of its new
mandate.
Third, EMRIP has, for the first time in its mandate, a window for country-level
engagement. Previously, EMRIP’s mandate had been criticised for being Geneva-centred with little of its reports, advice or recommendations trickling down tothe country level where they matter the most. One of the ways in which EMRIP’s
engagement at country level will be achieved is through enhanced collaboration
with key actors such as National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), which are
explicitly mentioned in Resolution No. 33/25. There are several provisions in the
new mandate Resolution on EMRIP country-level engagement, including:“2(c) Upon request, assist Member States and/or indigenous peoples in
identifying the need for and providing technical advice regarding the development of domestic legislation and policies relating to the rights of indigenous peoples, as relevant, which may include establishing contacts withother United Nations agencies, funds and programmes;
2(d) Provide Member States, upon their request, with assistance and advice
for the implementation of recommendations made at the universal periodic
review and by treaty bodies, special procedures or other relevant mechanisms;2(e) Upon the request of Member States, indigenous peoples and/or theprivate sector, engage and assist them by facilitating dialogue, when agreeable to all parties, in order to achieve the ends of the Declaration…”
Fourth, the new mandate also enables EMRIP to freely choose the theme of its
annual reports. The Human Rights Council had previously determined EMRIP’s
annual thematic studies, through Resolutions negotiated among Member States.
The EMRIP could make study theme suggestions, in consultation with indigenous
peoples’ representatives, but the Human Rights Council did not always follow
these. A number of key relevant themes suggested by indigenous peoples havethus never been studied.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

585

Fifth, under its new mandate, EMRIP is also provided with more resources, including for technical support, intersessional activities, to ensure the accessibilityof its meetings to persons with disabilities and for closer collaboration with other
UN mechanisms of indigenous peoples, notably the UNPFII, the SR and the Voluntary Fund.

Conclusion
As the world gears up for the 10th anniversary of the UNDRIP, the review of EMRIP seems not only timely but also of critical importance. The reinforcement of
EMRIP’s operational capacities and the extension of its mandate to country-level
work have the potential to fill gaps that were continuing to hinder the full implementation of the Declaration which, in many national contexts, is yet to be fully
understood, owned and translated into policies and development programmesthat provide for indigenous peoples’ rights.
However, having EMRIP’s new and strong mandate is not enough by itself.
This mandate will now have to be implemented, interpreted and operationalised,taking into account emerging opportunities, diverse national and regional contexts and resilient challenges such as a lack of capacity, strong competing interests and shifting or dynamic global agendas. EMRIP will therefore have to devise
appropriate methods of work, in consultation with indigenous peoples.
Notes and references
1
2

Working Group on Indigenous Populations 1982-2006
Julian Burger, Making the Declaration Work for Human Rights in the UN system, in 2009, C.
Charters and R. Stavenhagen, Making the Declaration work: The United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IWGIA Document No.127, Copenhagen, p.306
3 IWGIA’s video on the mandate of EMRIP and its contribution to advancing the rights of indigenous peoples (2009): http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=7
4 For a full listing of the Council’s subsidiary bodies, please visit: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/OtherSubBodies.aspx
5 Idem, p.307
6½	 EMRIP Academic Friends is a group of research centres and universities around the world thatcollaborate with the Expert Mechanism on its studies. The group is open to any willing and relevant institution and more information about it can be found at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/
IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/AcademicFriends.aspx

586

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 20177

The full list and copies of EMRIP’s advice can be found on the following website:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/EMRIPIndex.aspx
8 Cathal M. Doyle, 2015, Business and human rights, indigenous peoples’ experiences with access to remedy: Case studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America, AIPP, ALMACIGA and IWGIA,
Chiang Mai/Madrid/Copenhagen, 2015, see http://www.enip.eu/web/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Business-and-Human-Rights-Indigenous-Peoples-Experience-with-Access-toRemedy.pdf
9 Famark Hlawnching, Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, see http://www.
fes- globalization.org/geneva/documents/Presentation_HRC%20Review_6-7Oct2011_Hlawnching.pdf
10 The System-wide Action Plan (SWAP) has been developed under the UNDESA leadership witha view to achieving “a coherent approach to achieving the ends of the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”. For more information on the SWAP see:https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2016/05/20/system-wide-action-plan-on-the-rightsof-indigenous-peoples-swap/
11 See OHCHR website:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/Reviewofthemandate.aspx
12 The regions are Africa, Asia, Central and South America and the Caribbean, the Arctic, Central
and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia, North America,
and the Pacific

Albert K. Barume is an African-trained lawyer with a Ph.D. in international human rights law from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. He also holds
a Master’s degree in Environmental Management from Yale University in theUSA. Dr. Barume has worked on issues of indigenous peoples’ rights and theenvironment in Africa for over 20 years, including as a Geneva-based Senior
Specialist on indigenous peoples at the International Labour Organization (ILO)
for five years. He has, since 2007, been an Expert Member of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Working Group on Indigenous Peoples.
He is also the current Chair of the United Nations Experts Mechanism on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP). Dr. Barume has written and publishedbooks and articles on indigenous peoples’ rights.

587

THE WORK OF THE TREATY BODIESThe treaty bodies are the committees of independent experts in charge ofmonitoring the implementation by States Parties of the rights protected ininternational human rights treaties. There are nine core international human rights treaties that deal with civil and political rights, economic, socialand cultural rights, racial discrimination, torture, discrimination against
women, child rights, migrant workers, persons with disabilities and enforced disappearances.
The main functions of the treaty bodies are to examine periodic reports submitted by States Parties, adopt concluding observations andexamine complaints submitted by individuals. Concluding observations
contain a review of both positive and negative aspects of a State’s implementation of the treaty and recommendations for improvement.
Treaty bodies also adopt general comments which are interpretationsof the provisions of the treaties. So far, only the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Committee on the Rightsof the Child (CRC) have adopted general comments specifically addressing indigenous rights.

T

his article contains a summary of the developments which took place in relation to the recognition and protection of indigenous rights in the concluding
observations and general comments of five main treaty bodies during 2016.

The treaty bodies and indigenous peoples’ rights
Over the years, the treaty bodies have contributed to the progressive development of a comprehensive and solid body of jurisprudence on indigenous rights.
Unfortunately, they continue to be used by a very limited number of indigenous
peoples and organisations.

588

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the Committee on
the Rights of the Child (CRC) continued to make extensive and comprehensive
observations on indigenous peoples’ rights during 2016. Compared to the previous year, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) increased their references toindigenous rights slightly. All five committees addressed indigenous-related issues generally under specific sections.
The CERD, CRC, CEDAW and CESCR continued to refer to the provisions of the
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP1), in particular in relation to the rights to self-identification, consultation, participation, free and prior informed
consent (FPIC), lands and territories. Some committees also called upon States Parties to ratify ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No 169),2 implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples3 or enforce the decisions of regional human rights mechanisms.4
While the recognition of indigenous rights is gaining prominence in the observations of most treaty bodies, the actual implementation of these recommendations on the ground remains a major challenge. A research project was undertaken at the Indigenous Peoples Law & Policy Program, University of Arizona toassess, for the first time, the state of implementation of some 400 treaty bodies’
recommendations on indigenous rights. The findings report5 published in 2016
pointed to a very low rate of implementation.6

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
The Committee continued to underline the multiple violations and forms of discrimination faced by indigenous peoples (Argentina,7 Paraguay,8 Rwanda,9 South
Africa,10 Uruguay11) in relation to access to: education (Argentina, Rwanda, Paraguay, Namibia,12 South Africa, Ukraine13), employment and decent working conditions (Argentina, Namibia, Paraguay, Rwanda, Ukraine), basic social services(Argentina, Rwanda, Ukraine, Rwanda), healthcare (Namibia, Paraguay, Rwanda), adequate housing (Namibia, Rwanda) and justice (Argentina, Namibia,
Rwanda). The CERD also expressed concerns about violations related to participation in decision-making (Argentina, Paraguay, Namibia), representation (Argentina, South Africa), FPIC (Argentina, Paraguay), land ownership and property

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

589

rights (Argentina, Namibia, Paraguay), forced evictions (Argentina, Paraguay,
Rwanda) and acts of violence (Argentina, Paraguay).
Drawing on its General Recommendation No 23 on the rights of indigenous
peoples,14 the CERD continued to make a large number of recommendations
addressing indigenous rights. The Committee notably called upon Argentina,
Paraguay and Uruguay to adopt a legal framework or policies to combat discrimination and protect indigenous rights, Namibia, Paraguay, South Africa toeliminate discrimination against indigenous peoples and Uruguay to recognize
the right to self-identification. Argentina, Rwanda, South Africa and Paraguay
were invited to reduce inequalities or poverty and Argentina, Namibia, Paraguay,
Ukraine to ensure access to bilingual education. Argentina and Paraguay wererecommended to guarantee access to justice and respect indigenous traditional
justice systems. Drawing on Article 18 of the UNDRIP, the Committee recommended ensuring indigenous participation in public and political affairs or government bodies (Argentina, Burundi, Paraguay, Namibia) and prior consultation tosecure their FPIC in relation to the adoption of legislative or administrative measures (Argentina, Paraguay).
With respect to land rights, the CERD called upon Argentina and Paraguay toprotect indigenous peoples’ rights to own their lands, territories and resources,
Namibia to title indigenous lands and Paraguay to provide compensation for land
loss or damage. Argentina, Namibia and Paraguay were advised to secure or
seek the FPIC of indigenous groups prior to natural resource exploitation while
Paraguay was recommended to draft a legislation on prior consultation, in compliance with the UNDRIP. The CERD finally invited Spain15 to take legislative measures to prevent transnational companies registered in Spain from carrying out
activities that negatively affect the rights of indigenous peoples where they conduct their operations and hold such companies accountable. Under its Urgent
Action Early Warning procedure,16 the CERD considered a number of indigenous
rights-related cases including:••Rapes and attempted forced evictions of indigenous women in Lote Ocho
by personnel from a Canadian mining company, the land claims of the
Lubikon Lake Nation, the threat of extinguishment of the land rights of theSecwepemc and the St’at’imc nations (Canada17),
Rapes and attempted forced evictions of indigenous women in Lote Ocho
(Guatemala18),

590

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

•
•
•
•
•
•

Arrests, mass killings and enforced disappearances in Oromia and Amhara (Ethiopia19),
Enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and tortures of Papuan
people in West Papua and Papua (Indonesia20),
Destruction of Shor villages by mining activities (Russian Federation21),
Violence, ill treatment and threat of forced evictions of Maasai in the
Ngorongoro (Tanzania22),
Threats and forced eviction of the Karen people in the Kaeng Krachan
National Park (Thailand23),
Alienation of indigenous lands through the issuance of “Special Agricultural and Business Leases” (West Papua24).

.

Human Rights Committee (Convention on Civil and Political CPR)
The CCPR generally highlighted violations faced by indigenous peoples in relation to Articles 1, 2, 14, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. The Committee notably expressed concerns about discrimination(Colombia,25 Costa Rica,26 New Zealand,27 Rwanda28), denial of the right to selfidentification (Rwanda, South Africa29), low representation in government positions and participation in public affairs (New Zealand, Rwanda) and acts of violence (Argentina,30 Burkina Faso,31 Costa Rica). In relation to land rights andFPIC, the CCPR underlined violations related to the lack of legal recognition andprotection of indigenous lands (Argentina, Namibia,392 Sweden,393 South Africa,
Costa Rica), lack of consultation or FPIC (Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,34 Namibia) and absence of, or delay in, the adoption of laws on FPIC or consultation(Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica).
The Committee formulated a number of recommendations related to civil andpolitical rights and notably called upon Costa Rica to adopt the draft legislation on
the autonomous development of indigenous peoples, New Zealand to revise theMarine and Coastal Area Act to guarantee respect for indigenous customary
rights and South Africa to revise the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill totake indigenous concerns into consideration. Argentina, Burkina Faso and Costa
Rica were urged to provide protection to victims of violence and New Zealand toeliminate discrimination in the administration of justice.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES591

The Committee also recommended ensuring that indigenous peoples enjoy
rights to lands, territories and natural resources (Colombia, Costa Rica, Rwanda),
including land titles (Namibia). Argentina and Costa Rica were advised to ensure
land recovery or restitution while South Africa was urged to address land dispossession via legal measures. Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador were requested
to consult indigenous peoples with a view to obtaining their FPIC before taking
any measures affecting them and to adopt relevant laws while Namibia, Rwanda
and New Zealand were advised to guarantee indigenous participation in decisionmaking or consultation processes. Namibia and Costa Rica were urged to secure
the FPIC of indigenous communities prior to the development of extractive industry projects and Sweden to review existing legislation, policies and practices toguarantee consultation aimed at attempting to obtain FPIC.

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)The CESCR continued to make extensive reference to indigenous rights violations, notably in relation to cultural and linguistic rights (France,35 Tunisia36), selfidentification (Angola,37 Namibia38), use of indigenous language (Canada,39 Costa
Rica,40 Sweden41), access to: education (Angola, Canada, Namibia, Philippines42),
food and adequate standard of living (Angola, Canada, Honduras43) and basic
services (Angola, Canada, Philippines). In relation to land rights, the CESCR underlined the lack of recognition and protection of indigenous lands (Kenya,44 Namibia), issues related to access, demarcation and registration of indigenous lands(Angola, Philippines, Sweden) and forced evictions (Kenya, Philippines). The
Committee also highlighted failures to respect the right to consultation and FPIC
(Angola, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, Philippines).
The Committee formulated a number of recommendations covering indigenous rights and notably called for the adoption of legislation recognizing indigenous peoples on the basis of self-identification in Namibia and indigenous peoples’ status in Angola. Burkina Faso45 was invited to adopt a law against discrimination containing measures benefiting indigenous peoples and Canada to repeal
the discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. Drawing on its General Comment
No 21 on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life,46 the CESCR called
upon France and Tunisia to recognize and promote indigenous cultures and languages and Canada, Costa Rica, Sweden and Tunisia to ensure bilingual educa-

592

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017tion or the teaching of indigenous language at schools. The CESCR further recommended taking measures to reduce inequality and poverty (Canada, Costa
Rica, Honduras), ensure access to basic services (Angola, Philippines) and protect indigenous activists from acts of violence (Honduras, Philippines).
In relation to land rights, the CESCR recommended that Angola, Costa Rica,
Honduras and Philippines protect and recognize indigenous peoples’ rights totheir lands, territories and natural resources, Namibia adopt a law protecting indigenous rights, including land ownership and Sweden review legislation, policies
and practices that regulate development and extractive industry projects. The
Philippines and Namibia were advised to register indigenous lands or improveland registration procedures while Costa Rica was invited to guarantee the returnof indigenous lands. Angola and Honduras were both recommended to ensurecompensation and access to benefit-sharing. France was invited to monitor mercury contamination in French Guiana and Honduras to draft guidelines for evaluating the social and environmental impact of natural resource exploitation projects.
The CESCR further recommended consulting indigenous peoples with a view
to obtaining their FPIC in respect of: decision-making processes (Costa Rica,
Honduras, Sweden), the adoption of legislation or policy (Canada, Philippines)
and the development of projects (Angola, Namibia, Philippines). Angola andCanada were invited to establish mechanisms that enable meaningful participation, Canada to recognize the right to FPIC in its laws and policies and Honduras
to involve indigenous peoples in the preparation of the draft framework law on
consultation.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW)
The CEDAW made a number of references to indigenous women’s rights violations, including intersectional forms of discrimination (Argentina,47 Bangladesh,48
Burundi,49 Canada,50 Honduras,51 Japan,52 Philippines53), particularly in relation toaccess to: employment and healthcare (Canada, Japan), education (Argentina,
Burundi, Canada, France,54 Honduras, Japan, Sweden55), justice (Argentina, Philippines) and decision-making positions (Japan, Philippines, Sweden). The CEDAW also underlined the impact of: mercury poisoning in French Guiana, nuclear

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

593

testing in French Polynesia and the use of pesticides in Argentina on the healthof indigenous women. The Committee expressed concerns about gender-based
violence (Burundi, Bangladesh, Canada, Philippines), the lack of recognition andprotection of indigenous lands and the absence of consultation or FPIC in Argentina and Honduras.
The CEDAW elaborated a number of recommendations aimed at promoting
and protecting the rights of indigenous women, and notably called upon Honduras and Japan to address intersecting forms of discrimination, Canada to remove
the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act in relation to the transmission ofIndian status and Burundi to enact a law on the social protection of Batwa women.
Argentina, Burundi, Honduras and Japan were requested to ensure access to
education. The CEDAW also recommended ensuring the representation of indigenous women in decision-making positions or political life (Japan, Sweden) as
well as their participation in decision-making processes or policies (Argentina,
Honduras). Canada, Bangladesh and the Philippines were urged to investigate
and prosecute cases of gender-based violence. Argentina and Honduras wereinvited to recognize or facilitate indigenous women’s access to land ownership,
benefit-sharing and to seek their FPIC. The Philippines was invited to identify
solutions to land management in line with the UNDRIP.

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
The CRC expressed concerns about discrimination against indigenous children(Gabon,56 Kenya,57 Peru,58 South Africa,59 New Zealand60) with regard to access
to: an adequate standard of living (New Zealand, Peru, South Africa), healthcare(Gabon, New Zealand, Peru), education and bilingual education (Gabon, Nepal,61South Africa, New Zealand, Peru). The CRC also underlined the adverse impact
of: climate change (New Zealand), logging, mining or hydroelectric projects (Peru, Suriname) and mono-cropping (Gabon) on indigenous children. The Committee further noted the lack of legal recognition of indigenous peoples and theirrights in South Africa and the lack of consultation or denial of the right to FPIC in
Nepal and Peru. The CRC also mentioned issues of child marriage (Peru), childabuse (New Zealand), violence in schools (Nepal) and sex trafficking (Suriname62).

594

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Drawing on its General Comment No 11 on indigenous children,63 the CRC
made a number of recommendations addressing the rights of indigenous children
and notably recommended that South Africa legally recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and Gabon adopt a law for the protection of indigenous people
based on the UNDRIP. The Committee also recommended eliminating discrimination against indigenous children (Gabon, New Zealand, Suriname, South Africa) particularly with regard to child poverty (New Zealand, Peru, South Africa) andaccess to healthcare, basic services and education (Gabon, New Zealand, Peru,
Suriname). In relation to land rights, Suriname was invited to adopt legislation onsustainable land management and Kenya to enact a law recognizing lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherers. The CRC further called upon Gabon toreview policies regarding mono-cropping, and Kenya and Nepal to obtain the
FPIC of indigenous peoples before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures.

General Comments
During the year 2016, the committees continued to draft and adopt a number ofgeneral comments or recommendations. A number of these documents contain
explicit references to indigenous rights:
The CEDAW adopted General Recommendation No 34 on the rights of rural
women,64 which notably calls upon States Parties to ensure that indigenous women are protected from intersecting forms of discrimination and have access to
education, employment, water and sanitation, and healthcare. This recommendation also calls upon States Parties to ensure that indigenous women have equal
access to ownership and possession of and control over land, water, forests orother resources and recognize and review indigenous women’s laws, traditions,customs and land tenure systems, with the aim of eliminating discriminatory provisions.
CEDAW Draft update of General Recommendation No 19 on gender-based
violence against women65 recommends repealing all legal provisions that discriminate against women and encourage or justify gender-based violence including in customary and indigenous laws. CEDAW Draft General Recommendation
No 35 on the Gender-related Dimensions of Disaster Risk Reduction in a Changing Climate66 underlines the need to protect indigenous women from intersectingINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

595

forms of discrimination and promote accessibility of the Internet and mobile
phones.
The CESCR adopted General Comment No. 23 on the right to just and favourable conditions of work,67 which underlines the importance of consultation in
formulating and implementing laws and policies related to the right to just andfavourable conditions of work with indigenous representatives. CESCR General
Comment No 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health68 stresses that indigenous individuals are more likely to experience intersectional discrimination.
The current version of CESCR draft General Comment on State Obligationsin the Context of Business Activities69 merely mentions indigenous peoples among
the categories of people who are often disproportionately affected by the adverse
impact of business activities and subject to the risk of harassment..
CRC General Comment No 20 on the implementation of the rights of the childduring adolescence70 stresses the vulnerability of indigenous adolescents to poverty, social injustice, mental health issues, poor educational outcomes and highlevels of detention within the criminal justice system and calls for the introductionof measures to support indigenous adolescents so that they can enjoy their cultural identities. 					Notes and references
1
2

3
4

5

6

The Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples calls upon the treaty
bodies to consider the UNDRIP in accordance with their respective mandates.
The CERD called upon the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Namibia, Uruguay, Ukraine, South
Africa, Sri Lanka to consider ratifying the Convention; the CEDAW: Canada; the CESCR: Angola,
Canada, Kenya Sweden, Philippines, Namibia; the CRC: Kenya and South Africa.
The CERD and CESCR recommended that Namibia implement the recommendations made by
the SRIP; the CERD: Paraguay; the CESCR and CEDAW: Canada.
For instance, the CERD called upon Paraguay to enforce the following IACHR judgments (YakyeAxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay andXákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay ) and precautionary measures in the supportof the Ayoreo Totobiegosode people. The CESCR also called upon Kenya to implement the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (276/2003).
Assessing the State of Implementation of Recommendations Made by the Treaty Bodies and theSpecial Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016) Melanie Clerc and Ivan Ingram.
Available online, https://hr.un.org/sites/hr.un.org/files/Sabbatical%202015%20-%20Melanie%20
Clerc.%20pdf_0.pdf.
The state of implementation of some 496 recommendations (including 400 from four treaty bodies and 96 from the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples) addressing indigenous peoples’ rights in 13 countries covering the period 1994-2014 were assessed. According to

596

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17

18

19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

the preliminary findings of the project, 5% of the overall total of the selected recommendations
can be considered as not implemented, with no action taken; 30% of the overall total of the selected recommendations can be considered as partially implemented; and 5% of the overall totalof the selected recommendations can be considered as fully implemented. (ibid, page 6).
CERD/C/ARG/CO/21-23
CERD/C/PRY/CO/4-6
CERD/C/RWA/CO/18-20
CERD/C/ZAF/CO/4-8
CERD/C/URY/CO/21-23
CERD /C/NAM/CO/13-15
CERD/C/UKR/CO/22-23
Contained in document A/52/18, annex V.
CERD/C/ESP/CO/21-23
In 1994, the CERD decided to establish early warning and urgent procedures as part of its regular agenda. Early warning measures are to be directed at preventing existing problems from escalating into conflicts and urgent procedures to respond to problems requiring immediate attention to prevent or limit the scale or number of serious violations of the Convention.
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/CAN/INT_CERD_ALE_
CAN_8030_E.pdf, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/CAN/INT_
CERD_ALE_CAN_8131_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/CAN/INT_CERD_ALE_CAN_8092_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/GTM/INT_CERD_ALE_
GTM_8031_E.pdf, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/GTM/INT_
CERD_ALE_GTM_8133_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/ETH/INT_CERD_ALE_
ETH_8132_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/IDN/INT_CERD_ALE_
IDN_8093_E.pdf, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/IDN/INT_
CERD_ALE_IDN_8134_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/RUS/INT_CERD_ALE_
RUS_7906_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/TZA/INT_CERD_ALE_
TZA_8095_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/THA/INT_CERD_ALE_
THA_8094_E.pdf
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/PNG/INT_CERD_ALE_
PNG_7926_E.pdf
CCPR/C/COL/CO/7
CCPR/C/CRI/CO/6
CCPR/C/NZL/CO/6
CCPR/C/RWA/CO/4
CCPR/C/ZAF/CO/1
CCPR/C/ARG/CO/5
CCPR/C/BFA/CO/1
CCPR/C/NAM/CO/2
CCPR/C/SWE/CO/7
CCPR/C/ECU/CO/6

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

597

CEDAW/C/FRA/CO/7-8
9E/C.12/TUN/CO/3
E/C.12/AGO/CO/4-5
3E/C.12/NAM/CO/1
E/C.12/CAN/CO/6
E/C.12/CRI/CO/5
3E/C.12/SWE/CO/6
3E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6
E/C.12/HND/CO/2
E /C.12/KEN/CO/2-5
E/C.12/BFA/CO/1
E/C.12/GC/21
CEDAW/C/ARG/CO/7
CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/8
CEDAW/C/BDI/CO/5-6
CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9
CEDAW/C/ARG/CO/7
CEDAW/C/JPN/CO/7-8
CEDAW/C/PHL/CO/7-8
CEDAW/C/FRA/CO/7-8
CEDAW/C/SWE/CO/8-9
CRC /C/GAB/CO/2
CRC/C/KEN/CO/3-5
CRC/C/PER/CO/4-5
CRC/C/ZAF/CO/2
CRC/C/NZL/CO/5
CRC /C/NPL/CO/3-5
CRC/C/SUR/CO/3-4
CRC/C/GC/11
CEDAW/C/GC/34
CEDAW/C/GC/19/Add.1
CEDAW/C/GC/35
E/C.12/GC/23
E/C.12/GC/22
E/C.12/60/R.1
CRC/C/GC/20

This report has been compiled by IWGIA’s Secretariat on the basis of UN Documents and reports from various experts.

598

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE 2030
AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The world’s indigenous peoples are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda with
its promise to “leave no one behind”.1 Indigenous peoples make up 5% of
the world’s population but 15% of the poorest. They lag behind in terms ofvirtually all social and economic indicators, including those considered in
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as well as the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
For indigenous peoples, the 2030 Agenda is regarded as an improvement on the Millennium Development Goals, in which indigenous peoples
were largely invisible. Indigenous peoples participated from the start in
the global consultation process towards the 2030 Agenda and their advocacy resulted in a framework which makes explicit reference to indigenous peoples’ development concerns and is founded on principles ofuniversality, human rights, equality and environmental sustainability core priorities for indigenous peoples.
Nevertheless, major challenges to the rights of indigenous peoples
remain in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, inparticular at the national level. Some of the main priorities for indigenous
peoples are not reflected in the 2030 Agenda, such as the principle offree, prior and informed consent and the right to self-determined development, as well as continued challenges relating to a lack of legal recognition of indigenous peoples and their individual and collective rights. The
absence of a culturally-sensitive approach to development has also been
noted as a challenge in upholding indigenous peoples’ rights and protecting their distinct cultures and ways of life.
In moving towards implementation, indigenous peoples have called
for participation and implementation that is culturally sensitive and fully
respects the UNDRIP. They have called for data disaggregation and statistics that measure progress for indigenous peoples across the 17 SDGs.
To ensure this, consistent participation of indigenous peoples in implementation and review, from national action plans through to the global
level of the High-Level Political Forum, is essential.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES599

The High-Level Political ForumThe High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)2 was created at the Rio+20 Conference
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2012. State leaders at the Conference decided to replace the Commission on Sustainable Development with the Forum inorder to elevate the consideration of sustainable development to the level ofHeads of State and Government. It follows up and reviews the implementation ofsustainable development commitments and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The HLPF is mandated to address new and emerging challenges; promote
the science-policy interface and enhance the integration of economic, social andenvironmental dimensions of sustainable development. The HLPF aims to engage world leaders and Major Groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
civil society and relevant stakeholders, keeping sustainable development high onnational, regional and global agendas. The HLPF meets every year under the
auspices of the ECOSOC for eight days, including a three-day ministerial segment. Every four years the HLPF will meet at the level of Heads of State andGovernment under the auspices of the General Assembly.

The first session of the High-Level Political ForumThe first HLPF since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs took place in New York
from 11 to 15 July 2016, followed by a three-day ministerial meeting on 18-20 July 2016. The
1st session of the HLPF focused on the theme of “Ensuring that no one is left behind”.
The three-day ministerial segment of the Forum had as its central feature voluntary national reviews (VNRs) by 22 countries on the steps they are taking towards
implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the SDGs.

Indigenous peoples’ participation in the HLPF
Indigenous peoples were actively engaged throughout the HLPF to ensure that
their priorities and rights are at the forefront of the discussions on implementing
and monitoring the 2030 Development Agenda.

600

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

During the HLPF, indigenous peoples organized under the Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group, one of the nine major groups established by the UN to ensure
representation of key sectors of society and to help channel the engagement of
citizens, economic and social actors, and expert practitioners in United Nations
intergovernmental processes related to sustainable development.
Under the Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group, indigenous representatives attending the HLPF were able to made statements both in the general thematic
discussions as well as during the national voluntary reviews. In addition, they
carried out advocacy initiatives aimed at increasing the visibility of indigenous
peoples’ views and positions regarding their participation and inclusion in the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs.
During the first week, a brief plenary session was followed by official moderated dialogues and side events. On the opening day of the High-Level Political
Forum, the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII),
Mr. Alvaro Pop, was invited to give a statement as lead discussant in the panel“Ensuring that no one is left behind – envisioning an inclusive world in 2030”. In
his speech, Mr. Pop stressed that when indigenous peoples envisage an inclusive
world in Agenda 2030 it is a world where indigenous peoples’ rights as humanbeings and peoples are respected, where indigenous peoples are visible andthere is disaggregation of data, where they participate as active partners at alllevels of decision-making and where their ancestral knowledge contributes to amore sustainable world.
In its intervention during the session dedicated to considering “Ensuring thatno one is left behind--lifting people out of poverty and addressing basic needs”,
the Indigenous Peoples’ Major Group said that indigenous peoples were, more
often than not, included among the world’s most vulnerable, discriminated anddisadvantaged populations. In order to not be left behind, the IPMG stressed theneed to change the current mind-set from a focus on indigenous peoples as recipients of assistance to recognizing indigenous peoples as active right-holders
and active partners and agents of the self-determined development of their lands,
territories and resources. Furthermore, their crucial role as contributors to transformational change through their traditional knowledge systems and innovations
developed over generations was also stressed.
During the first week of the session, Ms Joan Carling, Secretary General of
the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), representative of the IPMG and expert
member of the UNPFII, was also invited as respondent in the official panel “FromINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

601

Inspiration to action: Multi-stakeholders engagement for implementation” which
took place on 15th July.
In her presentation, Ms Carling focused on actions needed to ensure the inclusion and visibility of indigenous peoples in the implementation of the SDGs.
The required actions as presented were the following:
•
•

•

•

•
•
•

•

Inclusion of the legal recognition of indigenous peoples and theirrights in national action plans to achieve sustainable development.
Repeal of laws that are discriminatory against indigenous peoples
and other rights-holders, ensuring consistency and alignment with international human rights instruments.
Collaborative formulation and implementation of special measures,
policies and programmes to address the specific conditions of indigenous peoples and the root causes of their marginalization and discrimination.
Inclusion and participation of indigenous peoples through inclusive
and transparent mechanisms for consultations and engagement,
especially at the local and national levels, and effective representation in
all bodies.
Ensure data disaggregation through the inclusion of ethnic and indigenous identifiers in data collection, analysis and reporting.
Support community-based and participatory monitoring, data collection, analysis and reporting.
Establish and support transformational partnerships that allow indigenous peoples, as rights-holders, to be the central actors of their own
development, with the support of states and other development actors.
Capacity building of all development actors, including states, theprivate sector and indigenous peoples, on the links between humanrights and the SDGs to ensure accountability, non-discrimination andeffective participation of rights-holders in the implementation of the SDGs.

Throughout the session, the IPMG presented several statements under the different agenda items and, in all these statements, indigenous peoples’ central message was that respect, protection and fulfilment of indigenous peoples’ rights, including their right to land, territories and natural resources and their empowerment, are imperative in the implementation of the SDGs if we are to ensure that

602

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

they will not be left behind. In this context, they stressed the need to recognize
indigenous land tenure systems. Land demarcation and titling, protection fromland grabbing and encroachment, as well as mechanisms of redress, are crucial
to protect indigenous peoples and ensure that they are not left behind. They also
highlighted that the imperative need for effective mechanisms for participatory
and community-based monitoring, data collection and disaggregation, analysis
and reporting in order to ensure the visibility of indigenous peoples and to guideparticipatory planning and implementation of the SDGs.3

Side Event on “Securing the Rights and Contributions of Indigenous
Peoples in the 2030 Agenda”
During the HLPF, a side event organized by the Secretariat of the UNPFII and
IFAD, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations, took place on 15 July. Key note speakers included representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations, State delegations, UN agencies and National Human Rights Institutions. Their presentations focused on how to ensure that indigenous peoples are not left behind in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda andhow to enhance their roles and contributions to sustainable development.

The voluntary national reviews (VNRs)
The 22 voluntary national reviews presented differed considerably in terms of
size, quality and thematic depth, as well as in the degree of civil society participation and, only six months after the SDGs entered into force, the reports presented
stated very little about the progress in their implementation.
Of the 22 national voluntary reviews discussed during the Ministerial Segment of the HLPF in 2016, seven mentioned indigenous peoples in their reports,
either as a global priority or as a national concern. The main issues referred to in
those reports included an acknowledgement of indigenous peoples as a group at
risk of being left behind, the importance of obtaining data on indigenous peoples,mechanisms for consulting with indigenous peoples in the 2030 Agenda and thesocioeconomic situation of indigenous peoples.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

603

Among the national voluntary reports addressing indigenous peoples, some goodpractices were highlighted in terms of ensuring indigenous peoples’ participation innational action plans and follow-up and review processes. For example, the reportfrom Norway highlighted that the Sámediggi (Sami Parliament) would participate in
implementation and follow-up to the Sustainable Development Goals and that indigenous peoples had been consulted when formulating the national voluntary review.
Similarly, the report of Finland noted that the National Commission on Sustainable
Development, which has a mandate to follow up on the 2030 Agenda, includes one
indigenous representative, the President of the Finnish Sámi Parliament.
In terms of national indicators for the 2030 Agenda, the national voluntary
reports from Mexico, Uganda and Venezuela noted the inclusion of some of the
global indicators referring to indigenous peoples in their mapping of national targets and indicators.
In its statement commenting on the national review reports presented, the
IPMG commended all the states that had volunteered to report to this first sessionof the HLPF on their implementation of Development Agenda 2030.
The IPMG noted some initial emerging good practices in line with the call to“leave no one behind”. From the perspective of indigenous peoples, the following
were mentioned:•••

Consultations and inclusion of indigenous peoples’ representative
institutions in SDG planning mechanisms at the national level, suchas the case of Norway and Finland, as this is a positive step in making the
SDG process inclusive of those furthest left behind.
Commitments to undertake thorough data collection and data disaggregation to be used in policy review and planning for SDG implementation. Indigenous peoples expressed their full cooperation on data
disaggregation by ethnicity and on indigenous identifiers and data analysis to ensure that the specific conditions and perspectives of indigenous
peoples are captured on the basis of their holistic approach to well-being
and development.
Participation and Partnerships with stakeholders as a necessary element in the implementation of the SDGs.

The IPMG agreed that states could not implement the SDGs alone and that an active and direct participation of all stakeholders and partnerships with key develop-

604

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ment actors was required. Along this line, strong mechanisms for accountability andprotection of human rights and the environment are needed to ensure that thesepartnerships are equitable and fully aligned with the sustainable use of resources,
including the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples.
The IPMG concluded their statement by encouraging states to take on theseemerging good practices and enhance them further through appropriate policies,
measures and programmes to ensure that indigenous peoples are not left behindin the implementation of SDGS.

The Political Declaration
During the closing session, UN Member States adopted a Ministerial Declaration
as the outcome document of the HLPF.4
The Ministerial Declaration included one reference to indigenous peoples,
related to “leaving no one behind” and empowering the vulnerable. In the declaration, Member States committed:“to focusing our efforts where the challenges are greatest, including by ensuring the inclusion and participation of those who are furthest behind. We
deem it of critical importance, in this regard, to protect and empower people
who are vulnerable. We recall that those whose needs are reflected in the2030 Agenda include all children, adolescents, youth, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, older persons, indigenous peoples, refugees and internally displaced persons, migrants and peoples living in areas
affected by complex humanitarian emergencies, and peoples in areas affected by terrorism and conflict”.

The UN General Assembly recommits5
In December 2016, the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted a resolution whereby Member States recommitted themselves to ensuring that the rights of indigenous peoples
would be at the centre of implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In this resolution, the GA
stressed “the need to ensure that no one is left behind, including indigenous peoples,
who will benefit from and participate in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda”.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

605

Furthermore, Member States were also encouraged to “give due consideration to all the rights of indigenous peoples in fulfilling the commitments undertaken in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and in the elaboration ofnational programmes”, to “consider including in their voluntary national reviews
for the high-level political forum on sustainable development and their nationaland global reports information related to indigenous peoples on progress madeand challenges in implementation of the 2030 Agenda”, and to “compile disaggregated data to measure progress and to ensure that no one is left behind”.

Indigenous Navigator - an empowering tool for sustainable humandevelopment that ‘leaves no-one behind’
The Indigenous Navigator6 is a community-based framework for monitoring indigenous peoples’ rights, developed with the support of the European Union througha collaborative partnership between the International Labour Organization, theAsia Indigenous Peoples Pact, the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Forest
Peoples Programme, Tebtebba Foundation, and IWGIA.
The Indigenous Navigator is an enabling open source tool that can be usedby indigenous peoples’ world-wide to gather data on their rights and human development against an integrated and unified framework grounded in international
human rights instruments such as UNDRIP and ILO C169 and aligned with relevant SDG targets and indicators. While it is urgent to strengthen and increase
official statistical data disaggregated by indigenous identity, the Indigenous Navigator is a platform for indigenous peoples to share their own perspectives andinsights through gathering data illustrating how laws, polices and measures – orthe absence thereof – impact on the lives and integrity of their communities.
Hence, Indigenous Navigator seeks to reinforce the capacity of indigenous peoples to engage with policy and decision makers at the different levels and to reinforce their role and contributions to the design, implementation and motoring of
public policies affecting them, including national action plans for the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
606

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Notes and references
1
2
3
4

5
6

Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1
More information about the HLPF at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf
Discussion papers on the theme of the high-level political forum on sustainable development,
submitted by major groups and other stakeholders: http://undocs.org/E/HLPF/2016/2
Ministerial declaration of the high-level segment of the 2016 session of the Economic and Social
Council on the annual theme “Implementing the post-2015 development agenda: moving fromcommitments to results”: http://undocs.org/E/HLS/2016/1
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/178): https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/178&referer=/english/&Lang=E
www.indigenousnavigator.org

Lola García-Alix is coordinator of IWGIA’s International Human Rights Advocacy
Program. She is also currently part of the Interim Management Team.

607

THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD)The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international treaty
under the United Nations. The CBD has three objectives: to conserve biodiversity, to promote its sustainable use and to ensure the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from its utilization.
The Convention has developed programs of work on thematic issues(such as marine, agricultural or forest biodiversity) and cross-cutting issues (such as traditional knowledge, access to genetic resources or protected areas). All these programs of work have a direct impact on indigenous peoples’ rights and territories. The CBD recognizes the importanceof indigenous knowledge and customary sustainable use for the achievement of its objectives (articles 8(j) and 10(c)) and emphasizes their vitalrole in biodiversity. In 2010, COP10 adopted the Nagoya Protocol on
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arisingfrom their Utilization (ABS),1 the Aichi Targets and a new multi-year program of work.
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) was established in 1996, during COP3, as the indigenous caucus in the CBD
negotiations. Since then, it has worked as a coordination mechanism tofacilitate indigenous participation in, and advocacy on, the work of theConvention through preparatory meetings, capacity-building activities
and other initiatives. The IIFB has managed to get many of the CBD
programs of work to consider traditional knowledge, customary use or
the effective participation of indigenous peoples, and has been active in
the negotiations regarding access to genetic resources in order to defend the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples that should be included therein.

608

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
DiversityT

he 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 13) took place in Cancun, Mexico in December
2016 and included the two Protocols the eighth meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and the second meeting on the Nagoya Protocol on Access to
Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing.
At the CBD COP13, governments agreed on actions that will accelerate implementation of global biodiversity targets, and enhance the linkage of the biodiversity agenda with other global agendas, including the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Climate Agreement.

Voluntary Guidelines for ‘’[F]PIC’’
At the CBD COP13, one of the most important and urgent issues for indigenous
peoples and local communities (IPLC), was the discussions on the Item on Voluntary Guidelines for the development of mechanisms, legislation or other appropriate initiatives to ensure the [free,] prior, and informed consent [or approval andinvolvement] of indigenous peoples and local communities for accessing theirknowledge, innovations and practices, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from the use and application of such knowledge, innovations and practices relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and forreporting and preventing unlawful appropriation of traditional knowledge.
The EU, Peru, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, Philippines, Ecuador,
Switzerland and other Parties supported the inclusion of “Free” in Free Prior andInformed Consent, but the African Group, Timor Leste, India and Indonesia opposed the inclusion of “free” . Brazil suggested “free PIC and, where appropriate,in accordance with national legislation on approval and involvement.”
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) called for a clear reference to FPIC,
opposing lower standards such as references to “approval and involvement,” noting that the language on FPIC is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

609

The IIFB emphasized that consent should be based on customary laws andobjected to references to “in accordance with national legislation.” The UNPFII
recalled that many indigenous peoples do not have legal and political recognitionat the national level, which constitutes a violation of their human rights.
After days of negotiations on the Voluntary Guidelines, the indigenous peoples’ representatives walked out of the Working Group on the Item arguing thatnegotiations themselves did not apply free, prior and informed consent in the way
they were conducted. On the same day, 16 December, indigenous peoples andlocal communities organized an action ‘’No FPIC without FPIC’’, supported byNGOs, and other international organizations.
Despite the disagreements in the official negotiations, a number of informal
dialogues and meetings to support the positions of indigenous peoples and local
communities took place, seeking to reach consensus. Delegates eventuallyagreed on making reference to “PIC’ or ‘Free PIC’ or ‘approval and involvement,’
depending on national circumstances.”

Decisions on Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge andparticipation
A key decision related to indigenous peoples at COP13 was to recognize and integrate traditional knowledge, customary sustainable use, as well as IPLC diverse approaches in efforts to maintain genetic diversity, reduce habitat and biodiversity loss, and to promote an equitable and participatory approach to the
management and restoration of critical ecosystems.
The CBD COP13 recognized the importance of traditional knowledge for thesustainability of agriculture aligned with IPLC’s world view (cosmovision) and theneed to uphold diversification and ecological rotational farming and agroforestry,and promote community and family farming, alongside agro-ecology in order topromote sustainable production and improve nutrition.
Furthermore the need to strengthen IPLC participation as part of the strategy
for forest protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity was highlighted. Hereunder the recognition of rural community tourism as an activity thatcan contribute to conservation and sustainable use, ecosystem restoration anddiversification of IPLC livelihoods. UNEP/CBD/COP/13/L.31

610

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The overall results
The Parties agreed on an Action Plan (2017-2020) that will enhance and support
capacity-building for the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols
based on the needs of Parties with a focus on strengthening the implementationof the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
CBD COP 13 adopted a short term plan of action on ecosystem restoration,
as a contribution to reversing the loss of biodiversity, recovering connectivity, improving ecosystem resilience, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services,mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, combating desertificationand land degradation, and improving human well-being while reducing environmental risks and scarcities. The action plan will help Parties, as well as any relevant organizations and initiatives, to accelerate and upscale activities on ecosystem restoration and supports achievement of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020.2

Summit on Indigenous Experiences “Muuchtanbal”
It is widely recognized that countries with the highest levels of biological diversity,
particularly the “mega-biodiverse countries”, also rank among the most culturally
diverse, and the loss of cultural diversity (including local languages) is linked to
the loss of biological diversity.
In the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the international community
recognizes the close relationship between indigenous and local communities andbiodiversity. In this context, the Summit “Múuch’tambal” on Indigenous Experience: Traditional Knowledge and Biological and Cultural Diversity,3 has been established as a space for meeting and dialogue between indigenous and local
communities around the world to share their experiences of conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity. Furthermore, the Summit aims to place emphasison the contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities’ knowledge, innovations and practices for achieving the Aichi and Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

611

The “Muuchtanbal” Summit took place during the CBDCOP13, and gathered
indigenous peoples, local communities, state parties and international organizations.
During the two-day summit, indigenous peoples and local communities’ representatives shared experiences and information related to the contribution of
traditional knowledge and cultural diversity in innovations and practices withinvarious sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
The two-day meeting resulted in specific recommendations on how to promote inclusion of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices in the field of
biodiversity in all sectors, in particular agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism,in order to achieve the Aichi targets and SDGs.

Indigenous and Local Knowledge Centres of Distinction launchedat IPBES
The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
is an independent body set up in 2012 under the auspices of four United Nations
entities: UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP and administered by UNEP to assess
the state of the planets biodiversity, its ecosystems and the essential services
they provide. It has current membership of 124 Governments.
IPBES’ mission is to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity
and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
long-term human well-being and sustainable development. In carrying out its
work IPBES is guided by a number of operating principles like collaborating withexisting initiatives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including multilateralenvironment agreements, recognizing and respecting the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
and ecosystems and integrating capacity-building into all relevant aspects of its
work according to priorities decided by the Plenary among others IPBES engages
scientists and other knowledge holders around the world to review and assess
the most recent scientific and technical information produced worldwide relevantto the understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem services.4
At the 4th Plenary Meeting of IPBES, IPLC formed a Network of Indigenousand Local Knowledge (ILK) Centres of Distinction. It is composed of organizations

612

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

implementing programmes of work on traditional knowledge in different regions of
the world and that have a long history of engaging with the United Nations system
to deliver policy recommendations, implement projects and provide assessments,
such as for biodiversity indicators and community-based monitoring systems.
Each Center has its own distinct activities and strengths which by working together will provide a more comprehensive set of inputs to assessments and support implementation of the decisions of the IPBES Platform. This network is a
support mechanism for delivering inputs into IPBES by indigenous and local
knowledge holders themselves, and can identify other relevant knowledge holders and experts in their regions and areas of expertise. The network is openended and will operate in a transparent manner to facilitate the participation andcontribution of diverse knowledge views and evidence from all regions.


Notes and references
1

2
3
4

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing ofBenefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted by
the 10th COP to the CBD on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan and entered into force 13 October
2014. The Nagoya Protocol is “an international agreement which aims at sharing the benefits
arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into
account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding, thereby
contributing to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components”(http://www.cbd.int/abs/).
https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2016/cop-13/documents
http://cop13.mx/en/summit-muuchtambal-on-indigenous-experience/
http://www.ipbes.net/

Polina Shulbaeva is head of the Information Law Center of Indigenous Peoplesof the North of Tosmkaya Oblast, Russia. Polina has been following the CBD
process since 2006, and is currently a regional coordinator on the CBD work forthe indigenous peoples of Russia and Eastern Europe. Polina is Selkup herself,
working in the Center for support of indigenous peoples of the North (CSIPN).

613

UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty created at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992
to tackle the growing problem of global warming and the related harmful
effects of a changing climate, such as more frequent droughts, storms
and hurricanes, melting ice, rising sea levels, flooding, forest fires, etc.
The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994, and has near universal membership, with 195 countries as ratifying parties. In 1997, the Convention established its Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 184 parties, by which a
number of industrialized countries have committed to reducing theirgreenhouse gas emissions in line with legally binding targets. In 2015, the
UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, a universal legally binding
agreement to reduce GHG emissions.
The Convention has two permanent subsidiary bodies, namely theSubsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and theSubsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).
Indigenous peoples are organized in the International Indigenous
Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), which serves as a mechanism for developing the united positions/statements of indigenous peoples and continuing effective lobbying and advocacy work in the UNFCCC
meetings/sessions. In 2012, the IIPFCC established the Global Steering
Committee (GSC) with two representatives from each of the seven indigenous peoples’ regions (Africa, Asia, Arctic, North America, Latin America
and Caribbean, Pacific, Eastern Europe and Russia) and three co-chairs.
The GSC has the mandate to facilitate better coordination of the indigenous peoples’ major group between official meetings.
Indigenous peoples’ rights and issues cut across almost all areas of negotiation but have been highlighted most significantly within the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Conservation,
Enhancement of Carbon Stocks and Sustainable Management of Forests),
one of the mitigation measures negotiated under the AWG-LCA and SBSTA.

614

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The Paris Agreement and COP22

The 2016 negotiations under the UNFCCC were marked by a consensus tokeep up the momentum created by the adoption of the Paris Agreement in2015 and the entry into force of the Agreement on 4 November 2016.1 The outcome of the COP21 ended with five references to indigenous peoples under theParis Agreement and the COP21 Decision. Those references are about indigenous peoples’ rights, indigenous peoples’ knowledge and indigenous peoples’
participation.
During several meetings in 2016, the indigenous peoples’ Caucus analyzed
the COP21 decisions and the Paris Agreement and how these reflect indigenous
peoples’ rights and indigenous peoples’ knowledge. The main issues identified as
central to indigenous peoples in terms of the Paris Agreement are:
1. Indigenous peoples’ rights are included in the preamble to the Paris
Agreement
2. Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge is included in the operationalpart of the Paris Agreement on Adaptation (Article 7.5)
3. To hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C
above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change (Article 2).
4. Recognition of non-carbon benefits (NCBs) in the Paris Agreement section on REDD+. (Article 5, para. 2)
5. Sustainable development is included as one of the core principles of theParis Agreement.
At COP22 in Marrakech, the first steps were taken in the three-year process todetermine the modalities and rules of the Paris Agreement and how it would be
implemented. This process will be finalized in 2018 at COP24, and will include arevision of National Determined Contributions (NDCs), the national plans/pledges
for reducing emissions. At COP22, indigenous peoples worked to keep up the
momentum and to bring the results achieved in Paris on indigenous peoples’
rights and knowledge into the negotiations.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

615

Indigenous peoples’ rights in the preamble to the Paris Agreement
One of the key focal areas of the indigenous peoples’ Caucus during COP22 wasto remind states and other relevant stakeholders that the human rights, including
indigenous peoples’ rights, language of the preamble has to guide the design ofthe modalities and instruments for operationalizing the agreement. One way of
doing this is through the parties’ NDCs. During the past years’ negotiations, indigenous peoples have pushed for the inclusion and recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights and indigenous peoples’ knowledge into the implementation of NDCs.
However, only 19 countries’ NDCs refer to indigenous peoples and 24 countries’
NDCs refer to human rights. At the opening of the COP22, indigenous peoples
clearly stressed that:
The development and implementation of NDCs must be undertaken with fulland effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and must be consistent
with the recognition, respect, and promotion of Indigenous Peoples´ rights.
NDCs must not encourage states to violate domestic or international humanrights commitments by, for example, displacing Indigenous Peoples fromtheir territories, and must incorporate social and environmental safeguards.
At COP22, indigenous peoples urged the parties to develop modalities that required them to provide information in their NDCs on how the preamble’s principles are taken into consideration in the countries’ climate actions and plans.
Although most parties seemed open to the idea of operationalizing the principles from the preamble, it seemed that they did not consider the integration of theprinciples relevant to the negotiations. Progress was, however, made under thecapacity-building item, whereby a COP22 decision invited the Paris Committee
on Capacity Building to take human rights, gender equality and indigenous peoples’ knowledge into consideration in its work. This is the first decision ever adopted in the UNFCCC that mandates one specific body to consider human rights,
and will hopefully set a precedent for other UNFCCC bodies to consider humanrights in their work.

616

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

The indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ knowledge-sharing
platform
A key outcome for indigenous peoples from Paris was a COP decision to establish a knowledge-sharing platform for indigenous peoples and local communities.
CP21 Paragraph 135 states:
Recognizes the need to strengthen knowledge, technologies, practices andefforts of local communities and Indigenous Peoples related to addressing
and responding to climate change, and establishes a platform for the exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices on mitigation and adaptation in a holistic and integrated manner.
At COP22, the process of developing the institutional structure, purpose and content of the platform was initiated, strongly promoted by the COP Presidency of
Morocco. A stocktaking meeting was organized by the Moroccan Presidency and
UNFCCC secretariat with the indigenous peoples’ constituency at which the presidency and the secretariat asked indigenous peoples to prepare and present a
proposal for operationalization of Paragraph 135. For the first time in the historyof the UNFCCC, two official negotiations took place whereby state parties andindigenous peoples negotiated at the same table. Traditionally, only state parties
have had the right to negotiate. A multi-stakeholder dialogue will take place at
SBSTA46 in May 2017 and SBSTA will make recommendations to COP23 for its
consideration. The platform provides an important step towards more formal representation of indigenous peoples in the multilateral negotiations.

Adaptation
The decision to establish an indigenous peoples’ knowledge platform is closely
linked to Adaptation as referred to in Article 7.5 of the Paris Agreement, which
provides: “Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should … be based on andguided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge,knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems.”

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

617

The IIPFCC stressed that a determination of when the use of indigenous
peoples’ knowledge is appropriate can only be made with the full and effective
participation of indigenous peoples and can only be done effectively if Paragraph
135, the establishment of the platform, is fully supported.
At the COP22, the IIPFCC also strongly recommended that states support its
call for a Dedicated Window/Grant mechanism for Indigenous Peoples under the
Adaptation Fund. This is intended to enhance and further develop the adaptation
capacities of indigenous peoples in developing countries and to strengthen theirtraditional knowledge and livelihoods, which are low-cost, effective and sustainable. This funding support will thereby facilitate the greatest contributions of indigenous peoples to the overall implementation of the UNFCCC’s targets on climatechange adaptation.

Indigenous peoples and the Green Climate FundThe Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established under the UNFCCC in 2010 andconstitutes one of the main funding mechanisms for climate action globally insupport of the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The GCF was created tosupport and promote a paradigm shift in climate change-related interventions,which should be both sustainable and transformative. The GCF became operational in 2015 but is still “under construction”. Policies, standards, and its institutional framework are being built up while projects are already being approved andimplementation has begun, which poses a great challenge both for the GCF but
also for stakeholders involved or affected by the projects. The GCF has only
adopted an interim safeguards policy based on the IFC performance standards
which, according to indigenous peoples, are inadequate. A significant proportionof the projects approved by the GCF as well as the project proposals in the pipeline for the GCF potentially affect indigenous peoples and indigenous peoples’
territories. It is important that indigenous peoples have the possibility of monitoring the projects approved, and participating in the formulation of policies within
the GCF.
The GCF only recognizes two constituencies: private sector and civil society.
In 2016, however, an indigenous peoples’ representative was elected as alternate
active observer for the Southern CSOs. It is an important achievement for indigenous peoples, since they are thus being given an opportunity to speak at the618

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Board meetings. Indigenous peoples have advocated strongly for the adoption of
an indigenous peoples’ policy, arguing that the GCF is not yet fully compliant withthe emerging international good practice in terms of recognition, respect and promotion of IP rights. In 2016, indigenous peoples called on the GCF Board to develop and adopt a comprehensive IP policy that contains provisions and criteria
aimed at implementing the highest international human rights standards and obligations, including ILO 169 and UNDRIP.
At the 15th Board meeting in Samoa in December 2016, it was decided that anindigenous peoples’ policy should be developed and adopted in 2017. This is an
important step towards ensuring that indigenous peoples’ rights are not violated
and that they are not marginalized at local, national or international level in theactivities supported by the GCF. Other key demands from indigenous peoples are
the need to develop adequate safeguards within the GCF, and a framework forresults-based finance on REDD+ that takes into consideration the rights of indigenous peoples, including free, prior and informed consent. They are also callingfor a direct access finance modality for indigenous peoples so that they are able
to access funding directly under the GCF.
Several informal consultations with the Green Climate Fund Secretariat took
place with indigenous peoples at the COP22. Here, indigenous peoples reiterated
the importance of having an indigenous peoples’ policy and indigenous peoples’
focal point as staff member in the GCF responsible for indigenous peoples’ issues.

Climate change and human rights
Climate change is explicitly integrated into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which, in turn, is founded on human rights. It is necessary to break
down barriers between existing international human rights obligations and commitments to climate actions and promote policy coherence. In October 2016,
OHCHR invited relevant stakeholders, including indigenous peoples’ representatives, to participate in a meeting to discuss and initiate the process of creatingsynergies between human rights obligations and the UNFCCC.
Key recommendations made by the OHCHR were that states should takeaction to keep human rights on the agenda at the UNFCCC and establish guidelines for the integration of human rights considerations into relevant communica-INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

619

tions such as the NDCs, and adaptation communications,2 and should establish
and support strong social and environmental safeguards for climate financing
mechanisms such as the GCF and the Sustainable Development Mechanism. 

Notes and references1
2

http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/ClimateChange.aspx

Lakpa Nuri Sherpa belongs to Sherpa indigenous group of Nepal. Currently heis the coordinator of the Environment Programme of Asia Indigenous Peoples
Pact (AIPP). He is also the focal point of Indigenous Peoples to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Rodion Sulyandziga is a Udege (Forest people) from the Russian Far East anda former co-chair of GSC and IIPFCC (2013-2016).
Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim is an indigenous Peul Mbororo from Chad from theorganization Association des Femmes Peules et Peuples Autochtones du Tchad(AFPAT). She is also executive committee member of the Indigenous Peoples ofAfrica Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC). Since 2014, she has been acting cochair of the IIPFCC and GCF.
Kathrin Wessendorf is the Environment and Climate Change Coordinator at
IWGIA where she has been working for the past 15 years. She is a social anthropologist from Switzerland.
Lærke Marie Lund Petersen is a Danish human geographer working for IWGIA
as Environment and Climate Change project coordinator.

620

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“World Heritage Convention”) was adopted by UNESCO’s
General Conference in 1972. With 192 States Parties, it is today one of
the most widely ratified multilateral treaties. Its main purpose is the identification and collective protection of cultural and natural heritage sites of“outstanding universal value” (OUV). The Convention embodies the ideathat some places are so special and important that their protection is not
only the responsibility of the states in which they are located but also a
duty of the international community as a whole.
The implementation of the Convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee (WHC), an intergovernmental committee consisting of
21 States Parties. The WHC keeps a list of the sites it considers to be ofOUV (“World Heritage List”) and monitors the conservation of these sites
to ensure that they are adequately protected and safeguarded for future
generations. Sites can only be listed following a formal nomination by theState Party in whose territory they are situated, and are classified as either “natural”, “cultural” or “mixed” World Heritage sites. Although a large
number of World Heritage sites are fully or partially located in indigenous
peoples’ territories, there is a lack of regulations and appropriate mechanisms to ensure the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples inConvention processes and decisions affecting them. While the WHC in2015 inserted some references to indigenous peoples into the Convention’s Operational Guidelines, the Guidelines do not make the involvement of affected indigenous peoples obligatory for States.
The WHC is supported by a secretariat (the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre) and three advisory bodies. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council on Monuments andSites (ICOMOS) provide technical evaluations of World Heritage nominations and help in monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage
sites; the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) provides advice and training related to cultural sites. An indigenous proposal to establish a “World Herit-INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

621

age Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts” (WHIPCOE) as an additional
advisory body was rejected by the WHC in 2001.

40th Session of the WHC, Istanbul, July 2016 & Paris, October 2016
The WHC welcomed the adoption of the World Heritage Sustainable Development Policy by the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention in November 2015 (see The Indigenous World 2016) and invited theWorld Heritage Centre to develop a strategy for the implementation of the policy.1
The policy contains a specific section concerning indigenous peoples and local
communities which notes that “Recognising rights and fully involving indigenous
peoples and local communities, in line with international standards is at the heartof sustainable development”.2
The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (VIDS) and IWGIA presented a joint oral statement at the WHC’s Istanbul session in which theyencouraged the WHC to develop the necessary changes to the Convention’s Operational Guidelines in order to translate the principles of the sustainable development policy into actual operational procedures.3 The statement reiterated theview expressed by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2015 that theeffectiveness of the policy in ensuring respect for indigenous peoples would depend on the adoption of specific procedures that not only encourage but actuallyrequire States Parties to comply with international standards regarding the rights
of indigenous peoples.4
The World Heritage Centre is supposed to propose relevant changes to the
Operational Guidelines in order to translate the principles of the sustainable development policy into operational procedures once the WHC has adopted the“Compendium of Policy of the World Heritage Convention” that is currently underpreparation.5 An initial scoping study concerning this Policy Compendium, examined by the WHC during the 40th session, states that “in regard to rights-based
approaches to conservation, and in particular gender equality, indigenous people,
and community involvement, it will be necessary to determine if there is a needfor one or more separate, new policy (or policies), or if the existing sustainable
development policy is sufficient to meet the policy needs of the World Heritage

622

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

System in this area”.6 The WHC requested that the World Heritage Centre submit
a first draft of the Policy Compendium to the WHC’s 42nd session in 2018.7

Noteworthy decisions on specific sites
The WHC again inscribed some new sites on the World Heritage List that overlap
with indigenous peoples’ territories. Among these are the Ahwar of Southern Iraq,a mixed cultural/natural site in Iraq traditionally inhabited by Marsh Dwellers (alsoknown as “Marsh Arabs” or “Ma’adan”), and Nan Madol in the Federated Statesof Micronesia, a ruined settlement and ceremonial centre off the island of Pohnpeithat continues to be under the customary ownership and protection of the Paramount Chief of Madolenihmw.
Another newly inscribed indigenous site is Khangchendzonga National Park
(KNP) in the Himalayan range in northern India, listed both for its natural values
and for its cultural significance as a sacred landscape for the indigenous peoplesof Sikkim and Tibetan Buddhists. The recognition of the cultural meaning of KNP“does not encompass resource use practices, traditional livelihood systems, local
knowledge etc.”, as IUCN notes in its evaluation of the nomination.8 The KNP has
traditionally and in the recent past been inhabited and used by indigenous Lepcha, Bhutia and Dokpa people; however, with its designation as a national park,
permanent human presence and consumptive resource use, including livestock
grazing, were prohibited and resident communities were resettled from the area.
During the evaluation process of the World Heritage nomination, India advised,however, that the traditional system of rotational alpine grazing by the Dokpa
would be integrated into the management plan for the site.9 The IUCN evaluation
criticizes the fact that “the nomination has been conceptualized from a nature
perspective with cultural aspects considered later and the history of site management, the legal and governance arrangements reflect this bias to nature”, andstresses that it is “important to redress the management emphasis to ensure an
appropriate balance between the natural, cultural and spiritual aspects of theproperty”. Noting the top-down nature of the management of the KNP, IUCN also
criticised the fact that there are no formal mechanisms enabling local communities to participate in decision-making. IUCN therefore observed that sustained
efforts were needed to “empower more participatory approaches to the management of the property” and to “implement genuine reforms that facilitate local com-

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

623

munity access to the resources of KNP in such a way that is sustainable and does
not damage core values”.
The WHC again considered the nomination of the Kaeng Krachan Forest
Complex (KKFC) in Thailand, which it had referred back to the State Party at its
39th session in July 2015 in order to allow Thailand to address concerns raised by
the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) about human rights violations against the Karen communities in the KKFC (see The Indigenous World 2016). Thailand resubmitted the nomination in January 2016, informing the WHC of some preliminary steps it had taken to address the concerns
and build support for the nomination among local communities and stakeholders,such as the holding of a number of public hearings.10
However, Karen representatives sent various communications to UNESCO
and IUCN reiterating their position that the nomination should not be approved
before the land and resource rights of the Karen communities in the KKFC wererecognized and protected.11 Key demands of the Karen include:
•
•
•
•
•

that the traditional farming system of the Karen be recognized and rotational farming allowed to continue in the area with a 10-year cycle;that the Karen be allowed to choose their own settlement areas;that the Karen be allowed to manage their own settlement and farming
areas through a committee constituted by the community itself;that the Karen’s traditional ways of life and rights be recognized by thegovernment and national park authorities;
that the Karen Network for Culture and Environment (KNCE) be included
as a proponent with the Thai Government in the World Heritage nomination.12

In light of the continued concerns voiced by the Karen, IUCN wrote in its technicalevaluation of the nomination that “to inscribe the KKFC on to the World Heritage
List would be premature until more time is given to addressing community andrights issues”, recommending another referral.13 Moreover, shortly before the
WHC’s decision on the nomination, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) considered the case of the KKFC under its early warning and urgent action procedure, requesting that the Government of Thailand“urgently halt the eviction of the Karen indigenous people from the Kaeng Krachan
National Park and take steps to prevent any irreparable harm to the livelihood of624

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Karen as well as to ensure that they enjoy their rights”.14 CERD further requested
that Thailand provide information on “measures taken to ensure the free, priorand informed consent of the Karen indigenous people or genuine consultation indecisions affecting them” and “steps taken to reconsider the nomination of the
KKFC site from the World Heritage’s list until an agreement is found with the Karen people”.
Aware of the communication from CERD to the Government of Thailand,15 the
WHC decided to follow the advice of IUCN and again referred the nominationback to the State Party, asking it to:more fully address the concerns that have been raised by the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning Karen
communities within the Kaeng Krachan National Park, including the implementation of a participatory process to resolve rights and livelihood concerns
and to achieve a consensus of support for the nomination of the property thatis fully consistent with the principle of free, prior and informed consent.16
The WHC’s reference to the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)
is noteworthy, as the Committee had voted against the inclusion of such a reference in its 2015 decision on the KKFC (see The Indigenous World 2016). This
marks the first time that the WHC has called for the FPIC of indigenous peoples
in a decision on a specific World Heritage nomination.
Another nomination discussed by the WHC was the indigenous-led nomination of Pimachiowin Aki in Canada, resubmitted to the WHC’s 40th session after adeferral in 2013 (see The Indigenous World 2014). The WHC commended thenomination as a “landmark for properties nominated through the commitment ofIndigenous peoples”, noting that it demonstrated “how the indissoluble bonds thatcan exist between culture and nature might be recognized on the World Heritage
List”.17 However, at the request of Canada, the WHC referred the nomination backto the State Party in order to allow it to address “recently identified issues regarding governance and relationships within the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation”.18 The
reason for this was the fact that, shortly before the meeting, one of the First Nations involved in the nomination withdrew its support for the project because its
leaders were concerned about errors in the Advisory Bodies’ evaluation reports,
including misrepresentations of First Nation treaty rights by ICOMOS.19

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

625

Also noteworthy is a decision on the state of conservation of the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area (GHNPCA) in India, in which the WHC“requests the State Party to re-consider the possibility of notification of Tirthan
Wildlife Sanctuary [included in the GHNPCA] as a national park”.20 Although thedecision encourages consultations with local communities and indigenous peoples in order to find “mutually acceptable ways to resolve any ongoing resource
use conflicts, while respecting any rights of use”, conversion of the Tirthan Wildlife
Sanctuary into a national park would imply the extinguishment of traditional resource use rights and was therefore strongly opposed by local communities during the nomination of the site. Due to this opposition, India announced at the timeof listing in 2014 that it would “not now pursue this transfer of protection status”(see The Indigenous World 2015) and, in 2015, the responsible State authority
decided that the wildlife sanctuary would not be notified as a national park “to allow local communities to continue sustainable activities in the area”.21 In requesting that India reconsider this decision, the WHC was following advice from theWorld Heritage Centre and IUCN.22

UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
Focused on the impacts of conservation initiatives on indigenous peoples’ rights,
the 2016 report of the UN Special Rapporteur, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, to the UN
General Assembly contains a number of observations related to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the management of specific World
Heritage sites.23 According to the report, the impact of World Heritage sites on
indigenous peoples “is a recurring concern, notably because, on numerous occasions, these sites have been declared without consultation with indigenous peoples and have a serious negative impact upon their rights. Protected areas withheritage status”, it is added, “have in several instances resulted in forced removalof indigenous peoples or significant restrictions on their access to livelihood resources and sacred sites. Furthermore, heritage listings often lead to an unprecedented increase in tourism.” Noting that “the Operational Guidelines… which set
out the procedure for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage list andthe protection and conservation of sites, do not require participation by indigenous peoples”, the report recommends that the WHC “reform the Operational
Guidelines… to align them with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of626

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP] and adopt procedures to ensure indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent”.24

Draft UNESCO Policy on Engaging with Indigenous Peoples
In November 2016, the UNESCO focal point unit for indigenous issues distributed
the draft of a UNESCO Policy on Engaging with Indigenous Peoples, inviting interested organizations and individuals to provide inputs and comments to a UNESCO Task Team charged with preparing a final draft for consideration by UNESCO’s Executive Board at its 201st session in April 2017. The (unpublished) draft
document reaffirms UNESCO’s commitment to promoting the human rightsbased approach in its programming, with reference in particular to the rights ofindigenous peoples as laid down in the UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169. The
draft outlines eight overarching principles to guide UNESCO’s engagement withindigenous peoples25 and contains several sets of guidelines for applying theseprinciples in UNESCO’s various programme areas (education, natural sciences,
culture, etc.). While the draft does not specifically reference the World Heritage
Convention, it does provide that “Indigenous communities have the right to FPIC
regarding activities that concern their cultural heritage and expressions and their
future development.” 			

Notes and references
1
2
3
4

5

6
7
8
9

WHC Decision 40 COM 5C.
Doc. WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13, para. 21.
See http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/40COM/records/, Session of Monday 11 July, 15h-18h30,
at 0:33:55.
Oliver Loodes’ statement on behalf of UNPFII at the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee, http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_news_files/1234_Oliver_Loodes_Statement_on_Behalf_of_UNPFII_at_the_39th_session_of_orld_Heritage_Committee.docx
Formerly referred to as “Policy Guidelines”. For details, see Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/5C, para. 6
and Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/12. Also see WHC Decision 39 COM 5D, para. 10 and General Assembly Resolution 20 GA 13, para. 8.
Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/12, p. 12.
WHC Decision 40 COM 12.
Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2, p. 128.
Ibid.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES627

10 KKFC World Heritage nomination, Additional information / State Party response to WHC Decision 39 COM 8B.5, 26 January 2016.
11 See IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2016, Addendum, Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2.ADD,
p. 8.
12 Statement of the KNCE, Tanaosri region, 14 July 2016, http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/
files/news/2016/09/2016%20KNCE%20statement%20english%20July.pdf
13 See Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2.ADD, p. 8.
14 Early warning and urgent action letter, 3 October 2016, Doc. CERD/90th/EWUAP//GH/MJA/ks
15 The CERD communication was brought to the WHC’s attention by IWGIA, Forest Peoples Programme and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact. See http://iphrdefenders.net/thailand-indigenousrights-organizations-request-world-heritage-committee-defer-inscription-kaeng-krachan-forestcomplex-natural-world-heritage-site/
16 WHC Decision 40 COM 8B.11, para. 4.
17 WHC Decision 40 COM 8B.18.
18 Ibid.
19 See http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/unesco-bid-for-manitoba-ontario-boreal-forest-region-falters-1.2990­
2­65 and Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B4, pp. 36-39 (comments by Canada on factual errors in
the Advisory Body evaluations).
20 Decision 40 COM 7B.88.
21 GHNPCA State of Conservation Report by the State Party, 2016, p. 3 and p. 21 (Annexure 2, p.
7). Available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1406/documents/
22 See Doc. WHC/16/40.COM/7B, pp. 168-171.
23 Specific World Heritage sites discussed in the report include Lake Bogoria National Reserve(Kenya), Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina), Kaeng Krachan National Park (Thailand) and
Kakadu National Park (Australia).
24 UN Doc. A/71/221, pp. 21,25.
25 Overarching principles outlined in the draft: non-discrimination, equity and equality; self-determination; development with culture and identity; participation and inclusion; free, prior and informed
consent; rights to lands, territories, resources, knowledge and cultural heritage; empowerment
and strengthening capacity; gender equality.

Stefan Disko works as a consultant for IWGIA on issues related to World Heritage. He holds an M.A. in ethnology and international law from LMU Munich andan M.A. in World Heritage Studies from BTU Cottbus.

628

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON
HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission) was officially inaugurated on 2 November 1987 and is the premier human rights body of the African Union (AU). In 2001, the African
Commission established its Working Group on Indigenous Populations/
Communities in Africa (the Working Group), which was a remarkable step
forward in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples inAfrica. In 2003, the Working Group produced a comprehensive report on
indigenous peoples in Africa which, among other things, sets out common
characteristics that can be used to identify indigenous communities inAfrica. The report was adopted by the African Commission and later, in
2005, endorsed by the AU and hence represents the official position ofboth the African Commission and the AU on the concept and rights of indigenous peoples’ in Africa.
Since 2001, the human rights situation of indigenous peoples has
been on the agenda of the African Commission and the 2003 reportserves as the bedrock of the constructive engagement between the African Commission and states, national human rights institutions, NGOs,
indigenous communities and their organizations and other stakeholders.
The continued participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in thesessions of the African Commission, as well as in the various activities ofthe Working Group, which include sensitization seminars, country visits,
information activities and research, plays a crucial role in ensuring andmaintaining this vital engagement and dialogue.

Dialogue between states and civil society at the African Commission
sessionsT

he African Commission held its 58th and 59th ordinary sessions in 2016. At
these sessions, five indigenous peoples’ representatives from Kenya partici-

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

629

pated and informed the Commission about the state of indigenous peoples inAfrica in general, and in Kenya in particular. During these sessions, through its
Chairperson, the Working Group also presented its reports to the Commission on
the activities that it had undertaken, its achievements and challenges, and also
gave an update on the situation of indigenous peoples on the continent. The
participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives, as well as the intervention of
the Working Group’s Chairperson during sessions, greatly contributes to raisingawareness of the rights and situation of indigenous peoples in the continent.
During each session, the African Commission also examines the periodic reports of African states. In 2016, the Commission examined, among others, theperiodic reports of Namibia and South Africa. IWGIA, the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC) and Natural Justice contributed to the process by submitting shadow
reports which provided an alternative source of information and assisted the African Commission in asking substantiated and well-informed questions on indigenous peoples during the consideration of the reports of the two countries.

African Year of Human Rights: zooming in on indigenous women’s
rights2016 marked a critical juncture in the African continent’s human rights trajectory.
As indicated by the Chairperson of the African Commission, the Honourable
Pansy Tlakula, in her opening statement1 on 21 October 2016 at the 59th ordinary
session, 2016 marked the 30th anniversary of the entry into force of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; the 10th anniversary of the operationalization of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Court) andthe 13th anniversary of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Womenin Africa (the Maputo Protocol). To celebrate these significant achievements, theAfrican Union declared 2016 as “the African Year of Human Rights with particular
Focus on the Rights of Women”. Accordingly, the African Commission decided tomark this milestone by hosting a women’s conference during its 59th ordinary session at which all special mechanisms of the African Commission organized panel
discussions aimed at highlighting the various challenges women face in their respective thematic areas of operation.
In light of the above, the Working Group also organized a panel discussion on
the rights of indigenous women in Africa. Panellists were drawn from, inter alia,

630

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

the UN human rights system, the African Commission and indigenous communities.2 The panel discussion highlighted the instrumental role that African indigenous women play in their respective communities as caretakers and often providers of livelihood. It was, however, indicated that the challenges of accessing basic
services such as healthcare and education disproportionately affect indigenous
women. The panellists also addressed the crippling effect of deep-rooted andharmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation and early marriage
on the mental, psychological and physical development of indigenous women.
Other challenges mentioned by the panellists included indigenous women’s limited participation in the decision-making process at the community, local and national levels and women’s lack of land and property rights in many indigenous
communities.3
The participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in these sessions
creates an opportunity for face-to-face dialogue with their respective government
representatives. For instance, one of the Kenyan indigenous representatives thatparticipated in the session had the opportunity to meet with the government delegation and discuss the situation of indigenous peoples in the country. They also
seized the opportunity to do some lobbying with regard to implementation of theEndorois decision of the African Commission.

Adoption of the study on Extractive Industries, Land Rights
and Indigenous Communities/Populations’ Rights: East, Central
and Southern Africa
After a long process of consultation and revision, the Working Group’s study report on “Extractive Industries, Land Rights and the Rights of Indigenous Communities/Populations: East, Central and Southern Africa” was finally adopted by
the African Commission at its 58th ordinary session in Banjul, The Gambia, in April
2016. The study, which was launched in September 2013, is informed by fieldstudies conducted in four African countries, namely Kenya, Cameroon, Uganda
and Namibia. A validation workshop bringing together all stakeholders was also
held in March 2015 in Windhoek, Namibia. The report has now been finalized andwill be officially launched at the 60th ordinary session of the African Commissionin Niamey, Niger. Once it is launched, the electronic and hard copies of the reportwill be widely disseminated.

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

631

Monitoring the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in Africa
The Working Group also closely monitored the situation of indigenous populations/communities in Africa throughout 2016. For instance, in August 2016, theWorking Group sent a letter to the World Bank concerning the waiver granted to
the Government of Tanzania that allows it to receive considerable funding fromthe Bank without the application of Operational Policy 4.10 - the safeguard policy
designed to ensure that the rights and interests of indigenous peoples are notviolated in projects or programs funded by the Bank. The letter clearly stated thatthe area covered by the Bank-funded project, also known as the SAGCOT Corridor project, is inhabited by indigenous communities such as the Barabaig and theMaasai, and hence the waiver is tantamount to a clear violation of the Bank’s own
standards as well as international human rights norms and principles for the protection of indigenous communities.
In the same month, the Working Group also sent a letter of Urgent Appeal to
the President of the United Republic of Tanzania regarding the alleged arbitraryarrest and detention without trial of pastoralist rights defenders and lawyers who
had been actively lobbying against the land grab in the Loliondo region.

Ongoing sensitization of indigenous peoples’ rights
In September 2016, and in close collaboration with the Working Group, the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria in South Africa delivered an
Advanced Course on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ in Africa for the sixth time.
The course brought together 35 participants from across Africa, ranging fromgovernment officials, civil society representatives and academics to students,
journalists and indigenous peoples’ representatives. The lecturers were all wellknown experts on the topic, including members of the Working Group.


Notes and references
1

Chairperson of the ACHPR, the Honourable Pansy Tlakula “Opening Statement of the Chairperson of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights” (presented at the 59th ordinary

632

2

3

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017session of the ACHPR, Banjul, The Gambia, 21 October, 2016), see the statement at the ACHPR
website:http://www.achpr.org/sessions/59th/speeches/chair_opening-statement/
The Panel Discussion was chaired by Commissioner Soyata Maiga and the panellists were Dr.
Mariam Aboubakrine, member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Ms Dubravka
Simonovic, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Dr. Melakou Tegegn, expert
member of the WGIP, Ms Jane Meriwas and Ms Ann Reisano, indigenous representatives from
Samburu Women’s Trust (Kenya), and Lisenga Bafalikiki, coordinator of the Coalition of Women
Leaders for the Environment and Sustainable Development in the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC).
See IWGIA article on the panel debate as well as a video about the event from Ms Jane Meriwasof the Samburu Women’s Trust here: http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1414

Samuel Tilahun Tessema is the legal advisor to the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities. He is a JSD candidate at theCenter for Civil and Human Rights of the University of Notre Dame, USA. He has
an LL.M from the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria.
Katrine Broch Hansen is the project coordinator for IWGIA’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Programme. She holds an M.A. in Anthropology and Global Studies & Development from Aarhus University, Denmark.

633

ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN)
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on
8 August 1967 with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
Brunei, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam and Myanmar later joined, making
ASEAN a 10-member state organization. ASEAN’s aim and purpose include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development, and the promotion of regional peace and stability through respect for justice and the rule of law in the inter-relations between countries in the region, as well as in adherence to the UN Charter’s principles.
The ASEAN Charter was adopted in November 2007 and came into force
in December 2008, making it a legally binding agreement among theMember States and providing ASEAN with a legal status and institutionalframework.
In 2009, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human
Rights (AICHR) was established and mandated to develop an ASEAN
Human Rights Declaration to define a framework for human rights cooperation through various ASEAN conventions and other human rights instruments. The Declaration was adopted on 18 November 2012 in Phnom
Penh, Cambodia. It does not make any reference to indigenous peoples,
however, despite the estimated population of 100 million people identifying as indigenous in Southeast Asia.1

ASEAN Community Vision 2025

T

he ASEAN Community Vision 20252 was adopted during the 27th ASEAN
Summit in November 2015.The vision is a roadmap starting in 2016, and articulating ASEAN goals and aspirations to realize further consolidation, integration and a stronger community that is “politically cohesive, economically integrated, and socially responsible.” It reiterates ASEAN’s position as a people-centered

634

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017association, ensuring fundamental freedoms, human rights and better lives for all
ASEAN peoples. Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations (CSOs) arenonetheless skeptical as some key elements and targets of ASEAN 2025 havesignificant implications for indigenous peoples in relation to the protection of theircollective rights, particularly to their lands, territories and resources. Some of theimplications are linked to the visions of an integrated and connected economy
within the global economic system; business-friendly, trade and market-driven
economic growth and connected regions with transport linkages and infrastructure to facilitate business and movements across borders. ASEAN’s ambitious
investment plan includes resource extraction, mega-dams and energy projects;
roads, bridges and ports; agribusiness expansion, and tourism, much of which
will be implemented in indigenous territories. Effective mechanisms for meaningful consultations and the implementation of free prior and informed consent ofindigenous peoples are not, however, in place including a clear regulatory framework for human rights due diligence.
Indigenous peoples and CSOs assert that the ASEAN 2025 should not focus
solely on political and economic integration, as this will only exacerbate inequality
within and between Member States. It must address issues such as internal conflict, territorial and maritime disputes, environmental degradation, excessive exploitation of natural resources, severe human rights violations such as torture,forced disappearances, human and drugs trafficking, land grabbing and forced
evictions of indigenous peoples, labor rights violations, exploitation of migrant
workers and low-paid workforce, and the use of draconian and new laws aimed at
restricting the freedom of expression and information, movement and legitimate
actions of CSOs.

ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)
The AICHR has eight new representative-members from the Philippines, Brunei,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Myanmar and Malaysia. The newlyformed Human Rights Division within the ASEAN secretariat, under the ASEAN
Political-Security Community Department (APSC), provides dedicated support to
the AICHR.
Adopted in June 2015, the AICHR started its second Five-Year Work Plan
2016-20203 with the aim of “realizing the aspiration of the people of ASEAN on

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

635

human rights, strengthening AICHR, promoting and protecting human rights in
ASEAN and enhancing cooperation with external partners, as well as to implement AICHR’s overarching mandate on human rights, thereby contributing to thesuccessful building of an ASEAN Community and beyond.” This plan will regularize activities and employ a programmatic approach including the mainstreamingof the rights of persons with disabilities. However, the AICHR has no clear commitment or plan to promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),
despite the consistent recommendations of indigenous peoples’ organizations,
CSOs and some national human rights institutions.

Shrinking democratic space
Despite the avowed commitment of ASEAN in general, and the AICHR in particular, to promote and protect human rights, the trend in ASEAN Member States has
in fact been towards political repression and restrictions of the legitimate activities
of CSOs, including of indigenous peoples. In particular, the AICHR has taken no
action on the political killings of activists, including indigenous peoples (for example 17 political killings of indigenous peoples in the Philippines), nor on the arrest,
detention and penalization of indigenous peoples for defending their land rights,
and nor in relation to those who practice sustainable livelihoods such as gatheringof non-timber forest products and rotational agriculture in Thailand, Lao PDR,
Indonesia and Malaysia.

AICHR engagement with CSOs
In 2016, the AICHR approved the applications of 10 CSOs, including the Asia
Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP), to become accredited organizations with consultative status with the AICHR, based on its Guidelines on Relations with CSOs4
adopted in February 2015.
The Guidelines are “to establish an enabling environment for meaningful andconstructive engagement and interaction between the AICHR and CSOs; to further strengthen ASEAN cooperation in the promotion and protection of humanrights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the ASEAN Charter; the636

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), the Phnom Penh Statement on the
Adoption of the AHRD and international human rights instruments to which ASEAN Member States are parties; and to contribute to the building of a people-oriented, people-centered ASEAN Community.” The Guidelines further provide a
process for its engagement with CSOs, which includes sharing of the agenda
prior to consultation meetings; submission of written statements relevant to thework of AICHR; conduct of seminars, workshops, regular reporting, briefing andimplementation of specific activities; and project implementation of AICHR work
plans and other formats for its engagement, to be defined by the AICHR. The
consultative relations between the AIPP and the AICHR may hopefully facilitate
the visibility of indigenous peoples in the AICHR’s work. The AIPP is an allianceof 50 Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in 13 countries in Asia, with 20 organizations in ASEAN. It has been engaging with ASEAN since the establishment of the
AICHR. 								Notes and references
1

2
3
4

This figure is not accurate since only a few states in the region recognize indigenous peoples andtheir rights and, as a result, indigenous peoples are not taken into account when conducting thenational census.
ASEAN Community Vision 2025, http://asean.org/asean-community-vision-2025-2/
Five-Year Work Plan of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (2016 –2020) adopted in June 2015, http://aichr.org/documents/
Guidelines on the AICHR’s Relations with Civil Society Organisations, Adopted February 2015,
http://aichr.org/documents/

Joan Carling belongs to the Kankanaey, Igorot tribe from the Cordillera, Philippines. She was Secretary General of Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP) from2008-2016. She has been an indigenous activist for more than two decades,
working on human rights, environment and development issues related to indigenous peoples at the grassroots, national, regional, and international levels.

637

THE INTER-AMERICANHUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMThe Inter-American system of human rights (IHRS) consists of the Commission (IAHRC/CIDH) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights(I-A/Court). Respect for indigenous peoples’ rights is of particular importance for the IHRS and activities related to these rights include the thematic reports, thematic hearings; system of petitions and cases; protection (precautionary and provisional measures); judgments by the I-A/
Court, advisory opinions; and press releases. On this basis, the IHRS hasdeveloped relevant jurisprudence that—through decisions to Member
States of the Organisation of American States (OAS)—has enabled individual and collective rights to be recognised, victims to be compensatedand guidelines to be produced with the aim of preventing or resolving
matters of domestic jurisdiction. The IACHR has, in particular, used its
different mechanisms to protect indigenous peoples’ rights, and this areaof its work is being developed primarily through its Rapporteurship on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, created in 1990.

The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

A

fter 17 years of negotiations, the IHRS was finally able to celebrate the approval of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
adopted on 22 June 2016, at the third plenary session of the General Assemblyof the Organization of American States (OAS).1 The text of the Declaration2 recognizes the fundamental right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, to theirancestral territories, as well as to consultation and free, prior and informed consent. It also highlights their right to not be subjected to any form of genocide, andthe right not to be subject to assimilation, racial discrimination, racism, intolerance
and violence. The text, which bases itself on the recognition of the right to selfidentification, fosters the respect, development and strengthening of indigenous
cultures, traditions, ways of life and languages; emphasizing the right to establish

638

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017and control their educational systems and institutions, providing education in theirown languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching andlearning, as well as the right to promote, develop and access all means of communication, broadcasting and information on equal terms as others. In addition,
the Declaration protects the right to indigenous peoples to health, to a healthy
environment, as well as to gender equality for indigenous women, among otherfundamental rights. The Declaration also reflects the specific realities of theAmericas, being the first one to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples involuntary isolation and initial contact to remain in that condition and to live freely,in accordance with their cultures and cosmovision.3
The Declaration is an important contribution to the development of international standards adopted with the objective of protecting and guaranteeing indigenous people’s rights, and must be read in conjunction with other international
instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, the International Labor Organization’s Convention No. 169 on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the American Convention of Human Rights, theAmerican Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and other specialized
treaties and instruments in the Inter-American and Universal Human Rights systems. The IACHR has urged Member States of the OAS to implement measuresat the national and regional levels to guarantee the full and appropriate fulfillmentof the commitments contained in the Declaration.4

Thematic report
In 2016, the Commission published the report “Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendent communities, and natural resources: Human rights protection in thecontext of extraction, exploitation, and development activities”.5
In this regional report, the Commission begins by referring to the international
obligations of States under the Inter-American system with regard to the implementation of extractive and development activities. The Commission considers that Stateobligation in this context has six dimensions: (i) the duty to adopt an appropriate andeffective regulatory framework, (ii) the duty to prevent human rights violations, (iii) the
obligation to supervise and monitor the activities of companies and other non-stateparties, (iv) the duty to ensure mechanisms for effective participation and access to
information, (v) the duty to prevent illegal activities and forms of violence, and (vi) theINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

639

duty to guarantee access to justice through the investigation, punishment, and adequate reparation of human rights violations in these contexts. The Report analyses
each of these dimensions from the point of view of the rights of indigenous peoples.
Subsequently, the IACHR looks at some of the major impacts that the implementation of extractive, exploitative and development projects has on the rights of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendent communities. The report thus highlights the various forms in which these activities affect the full exercise of the rights of indigenous
peoples, and in particular the right to collective property, to cultural identity and religious freedom; the right to life and to health, personal integrity, and a healthy environment. It also affects indigenous peoples’ economic and social rights including the rightto food, to water, their labor rights, the right to personal freedom, to assembly and to
be protected from forced displacement
Based on the information and the analysis made by the Commission throughout
the report, the Commission formulates a series of recommendations to the States.

Thematic and country hearings before the IACHR
The following thematic hearings6 took place during the IACHR’s 157th ordinary
period of sessions (2-15 April 2016):•••

The right of association of the indigenous peoples in Ecuador.
Follow-up on the report “Missing and murdered indigenous women in British Colombia, Canada”. 7
Human rights of indigenous peoples and peasant communities in Espinar,
Cusco, Peru.

During the IACHR’s 158th extraordinary period of sessions (6-10 July 2016),•

The Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consultation of indigenous peoples
in Bolivia.

During the 159th ordinary period of sessions (29 November-7 December 2016)•

The situation of the indigenous peoples and the right to consultation in
Honduras.

640

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

•
•
•
•

Complaints on human rights violations suffered by women in the context
of extractive activities in Peru.
Human rights in the context of the Project ‘Arco Minero del Orinoco’ (theMining belt of Orinoco) in Venezuela.
The human rights situation of the indigenous peoples in Yucatan, Mexico.
The human rights situation in the context of the implementation of theTrans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), in the Americas.

During the 160th ordinary period of sessions (9-10 December 2016),••

The human rights situation of indigenous peoples in the context of projects and extractive industries in the United States.
The human rights situation of indigenous children in Canada; the situationof disappearance and murders of indigenous women and girls in Canada.

IACHR Reports on petitions and individual cases in 2016
The Commission approved the following admissibility reports on the rights of indigenous peoples:••

Report Admissibility No. 30/16, Petition 554-03, Communities of the Lower and Upper Atrato Valleys in Chocó and Antioquia Departments, Colombia July 22, 2016.8
Report Admissibility No. 71/16, Petition 765-09. Q’oq’ob Community of
the Municipality of Santa Maria Nebaj. Guatemala. December 6, 2016.9

The Commission also published a merits report on•

Case 11.564. Report Merits No. 51/16, Gilberto Jiménez Hernández et al(La Grandeza) vs México. November 30, 2016.10

The Commission furthermore organized two public audiences on cases at themerits stage related to the rights of indigenous peoples.
•

Case 12.717 Indigenous Ngobe Communities and others vs. Panama—
regarding the concession given by the State in 2007 to the AES-INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES•

641

Changuinola S.A. Company for a duration of 20 years of 6,225 ha of landclaimed by the indigenous Ngobe people.11
Case 12.893 Indigenous Community of Nam Qom of the Qom people(Toba) vs. Argentina—regarding human rights violations as a consequence of the incursion into the community by State security forces.12

Precautionary measures issued by the IACHR
The Commission issued in 2016 precautionary measures in five cases related toindigenous peoples.13•••

The IACHR extended twice (16 January and 8 August) the scope of Precautionary Measure 505/15, originally granted on October 14, 2015, infavor of four indigenous Miskitu communities of Wangki Twi-Tasba Raya,in the North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region, Nicaragua.
Provided information indicated that two more indigenous communities aswell as human rights defendants belonging to the CEJUDHCAN organization were at risk due to acts of violence, kidnappings, death threats,killings and forced displacement related to the conflictive situation in thearea. The Commission requested that Nicaragua adopt the necessary
measures to safeguard the life and physical integrity of the members of
the indigenous communities and the members of CEDJUDHCAN; andadopt the necessary measures for CEDJUDHCAN members to defend
human rights without being targets of violence, threats and harassment.14
Precautionary measures were issued on 3 February 2016, in favor of therights of the Ayoreo Totobiegosode People, especially of the communities
in voluntary isolation, known as the Jonoine-Urasade. The Commission
required the State of Paraguay to adopt the necessary measures to protect the communities in voluntary isolation by protecting their ancestral
lands and avoiding deforestation in these lands, as well as unwanted contacts and the entry of third parties.
Precautionary measures were adopted on 11 May 2016, for the 595
members of the Otomí-Mexica indigenous community of San Francisco
Xochicuautla, in Mexico. The information received by IACHR indicatesthat the construction of a highway section that cuts across their ancestral

642

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017•

lands was approved without prior consultation. An injunction (amparo) in
their favor, ordering the construction to be suspended, had not been respected, and several members of the community had been arrested in thecontext of protests against the highway construction, on grounds that they
had committed the alleged crime of “opposition to the execution of public
works.” The IACHR asked the State of Mexico to adopt the necessary
measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the identified members of the Otomí-Mexica indigenous community of San Francisco Xochicuautla
The IACHR extended on 28 October 2016, the precautionary measures
issued in 2013 in favor of the indigenous community of Choréachi in themunicipality of Guadalupe and Calvo in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico.
The extension was based on information according to which the indigenous community is the object of acts of violence, harassments, death
threats and continuous intimidations. The IACHR particularly noted thepresence and incursion of mestizo communities on the territory of the indigenous community within the frame of a territorial conflict and the alleged activities of organized criminal groups linked with drug trafficking.

Referral of cases to the Inter American Court of Human Rights
Two cases related to the rights of indigenous peoples were submitted by theCommission to the Court’s jurisdiction.
•

Case 12.728 Xucuru indigenous people and its members vs. Brazil was
filed on 16 March 2016, because the Commission considered that theState of Brazil had not complied with the recommendations contained in
the report on the merits of the case.15 The case relates to violations of the
Xucuru indigenous people’s right to collective property resulting from,firstly, a delay of more than 16 years, between 1989 and 2005, in the administrative process of recognition, titling, demarcation and delimitation of
their territory and ancestral lands and territories; and, secondly, a delay inthe total regularization of this territory and lands, in a way which would
allow the above mentioned indigenous people to peacefully exercise suchright. The case is furthermore related to the violations against the right toINTERNATIONAL PROCESSES•

643

fair trial and judicial protection derived from a breach of the guarantee of
reasonable timeframe in the mentioned administrative process, as well asa delay in resolving civil actions initiated by non-indigenous persons inrelation to the territory and ancestral land of the Xucuru indigenous people.16
Case 11.550 Maurilia Coc Max and others (Xaman Massacre) vs. Guatemala, was submitted on 21 September 2016. The case is related to themassacre perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Guatemala on October 5,
1995, on the Xaman farm, against eleven persons, including three children, who belonged to the Q’eqchi’, Mam, Q’anjob’al, Ixil and K’iche indigenous peoples. The Commission determined that there had been a seriesof irregularities in the investigations made. It also found that the events
constituted an expression of the racial discrimination against the Mayan
community during the armed conflict in Guatemala.17

Judgments passed by the Inter-American Court
On 30 November 2016, the Inter-American Court delivered its sentence in thecase of the Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities ofthe Municipality of Rabinal vs Guatemala. Considering that Guatemala recognized its contentious jurisdiction on 9 March 1987, the Court declared that it did
not have the temporal competence to know about the massacre of 32 persons
occurred on 8 January 1982, as well as of a series of atrocities committed between 1981 and 1986 against indigenous Maya Achí from the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal, facts that were
not denied by the State. However, the Court determined the responsibility of theState for the facts on which it did have temporal competence, namely, the enforced disappearances and their continuous occurrence, as well as the omission
by the State to implement after said date guarantees of return or voluntary resettlement to the persons who were still displaced. It furthermore declared Guatemala responsible for not having efficiently conducted an investigation of the facts
with due diligence and within a reasonable period of time. In this judgment, theInter-American Court took into account the systematic context of serious andmassive violations of human rights in Guatemala during the internal armed conflict, which particularly affected the Maya population.18

644

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

Two of the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment, are to be noted
for their structural content that addresses the situation of ethnic discrimination
suffered by the indigenous peoples of Guatemala. One reparation is to incorporate into the curriculum of the National Education System and at all levels an education program whose content reflects the pluricultural and multilinguistic natureof Guatemalan society, promoting the respect and the knowledge of the various
indigenous cultures, including their cosmosvisions, histories, languages, knowhow, values, practices and ways of life; the other reparation is to strengthen existing organisms or those to be created with the objective to eradicate racial andethnic discrimination.19

Advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court
On 26 February 2016 the I-A/Court issued an Advisory Opinion following the petition made by the State of Panama regarding the Entitlement of legal entities tohold rights under the Inter-American human rights system. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court established that the American Convention does not entitle legal
entities to hold rights established under this convention, without prejudice to thedenomination these entities get in the States’ national law such as cooperatives,
societies or company. Nevertheless, the Court made some special considerations
with respect to indigenous and tribal peoples and communities.20
The Court recalled that, in 2012, in the case Indigenous Kichwa people ofSarayaku vs. Ecuador it recognized for the first time not only the members of an
indigenous community but also the indigenous community itself as right holders
of protected rights. The court showed in this case that there are some rights thatmembers of indigenous communities enjoy for themselves while other rights are
exercised collectively. The court highlighted that in later cases21 it has recognized
the rights of the indigenous communities and peoples as a collective right.22
After taking note of what is indicated in international instruments regarding
indigenous peoples’ rights, developments in comparative law and its own jurisprudence, the Court concluded in this Advisory Opinion that indigenous and tribal
peoples and communities should be considered as entitled to certain humanrights. This can be explained by the fact that since the exercise of certain rights ofthe members of indigenous and tribal communities is carried out collectively, theviolation of these rights has a collective dimension and cannot be limited to an

INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES

645

individual impact. The impacts referred to will therefore entail consequences for
all the members of the community and not only for certain determined persons ina specific situation. 				Notes and references
1
2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

“A 17-year wait pays off for indigenous peoples”. OAS Web & Press release at http://www.oas.
org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-075/16
The Declaration, OAS Doc. AG/RES. 2888 (XLVI-O/16) available at http://www.oas.org/consejo/
GENERAL%20ASSEMBLY/Resoluciones-Declaraciones.asp
For a detailed analysis of the Declaration see “OAS: Regressive elements in the American
Declaration” – a document from the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs and theObservatorio Ciudadano Chile. See http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1377
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/082.asp
The report has been published with the support of IWGIA (the International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs). Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/ExtractiveIndustries2016.
pdf.
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/activities/sessions.asp
On 1 February 2016, in Ottawa, Geneva and Washington, D.C., six experts from the United Nations and the Inter-American human rights systems urged the Government of Canada to fully
address the root causes of the extreme violence and discrimination against indigenous womenand girls in the country. See. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/press_
releases_2016.asp
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2016/COAD554-03EN.pdf
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2016/GTAD765-09EN.pdf .
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2016/MXPU11564EN.pdf.
See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/049A.asp
See http://www.oas.org/ en/iachr/media_center/PReleases//2016/183A.asp
All five cases of precautionary measures are accessible at
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/precautionary.asp
On 23 February 2016. the IACHR expressed its concern over the reported increase of violent
incidents against the members of the Miskitu indigenous peoples, in the Autonomous Region of
the North Caribbean Coast, in Nicaragua. See press release 23 February 2016 at http://www.
oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/press_releases_2016.asp; on 1 September and
23 November 2016, the Inter-American Court issued provisional measures in the Matter of Members of the Miskitu indigenous people of the North Caribbean Coast regarding Nicaragua. These
measures were based on the existence of a context of violence in the North Caribbean Coast
Region of Nicaragua within the frame of a territorial conflict. The I-A/ Court took note of theworsening of the situation since 2015 and up to the date of the adoption of the measures. Most
noted were in particular the allegations of kidnappings, murders, sexual aggressions, threats,burning of houses, looting, ambushes and attacks against villagers, and as a consequence theabandon of various communities by its residents. In the opinion of the Court, such acts clearlyreflect a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and a reasonable chance that irreparable damages continue to happen.

646

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 201715 IACHR, Report Merits No. 44/15, Case 12.728, Xucuru Indigenous People vs. Brazil. July 28,
2015. Available http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/053.asp
16 See http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/cases.asp
17 Ibid.
18 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities ofthe Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328. . Available (only in Spanish) at
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/resumen_328_esp.pdf.
19 Ibid.
20 I/A Court H.R., Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American human rights
system (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21,
24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of
Article 8(1)(A) and (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 of February
26, 2016. Series A No. 22. Available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/cf/Jurisprudencia2/busqueda_opiniones_consultivas.cfm?lang=en
21 Case Indigenous Kuna People of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano and their Members vs.
Panama; Case Garifuna Community Triunfo de La Cruz and its Members and Case GarifunaCommunty Punta Piedra and its Members, both vs. Honduras; Case Afro-descendent Communities displaced from the valley of the Cacarica River (Operation Genesis) vs Colombia.
22 I/A Court H.R., Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American human rights
system (op.cit.).

Silvia Serrano Guzmán is a lawyer specialised in Human Rights. She currently
works as a Coordinator of the Case Section of the IACHR.

PART III
GENERAL INFORMATION648

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

ABOUT IWGIA
About IWGIA
We are an international human rights organisation defending indigenous peoples’
rights. For almost 50 years, we have documented the fight for indigenous peoples’
rights. We are working through a global network of indigenous peoples’ organisations
and international mechanisms. We promote the recognition, respect and implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights to land, cultural integrity and development on theirown terms. We enhance change by empowering indigenous peoples to mobilise communities and by developing their capacity to access the UN system and decisionmaking processes at a local, regional and international level.

Our mission
We work for a world where indigenous peoples’ voices are heard and their rights are
implemented.

Our vision
A world where all indigenous peoples fully enjoy their rights, participate and are consulted on decisions that affect their lives. We exist to ensure a world where indigenous
peoples can sustain and develop their societies based on their own practices, priorities and visions.

How to get involved
We are pleased to know that you are currently reading through this edition of the Indigenous World. We hope that you will share this book and our other publications. You
can follow our work by signing up for our newsletter http://bit.ly/IWGIANewsletter andfollow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/IWGIA/ and twitter https://twitter.
com/IWGIA for weekly updates.
Your political and economic support is an important sign of your commitment with theindigenous cause. We welcome all contributions to our work. If you are interested insupporting us, please find various options here: http://bit.ly/IWGIAActNow.

649

IWGIA PUBLICATIONS 2016
Publications can be ordered online at:www.iwgia.org

In English
The Indigenous World 2016
		
Edited by Diana Vinding & Cæcilie Mikkelsen		ISBN 978-87-92786-69-2
Indigenous Heroines: A Saga of Tribal Women of India
		Alma Grace Barla
		 IWGIA		ISBN 978-87-92786-61-6
Indigenous Peoples, Afro-Descendent Communities, and Natural
Resources: Human Rights Protection in the Context of Extraction,
Exploitation, and Development Activities		
OAS & IWGIA		ISBN 978-0-8270-6557-4
IWGIA Report 22: The San in Zimbabwe - Livelihoods, Land andHuman Rights
		
Edited by Marianne Wiben Jensen & Diana Vinding
		 IWGIA		ISBN 978-87-92786-62-3
IWGIA Report 23: Tanzanian Pastoralists Threatened – Evictions,
Human Rights Violations and Loss of Livelihood		
Edited by IWGIA, Carol Sørensen & Diana Vinding		ISBN 978-87-92786-66-1

650

IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2017

En castellano
El Mundo Indígena 2016
		
Editado por Diana Vinding & Cæcilie Mikkelsen
		 Copenhague		
ISBN: 978-87-92786-70-8
nugkui – y las mujeres ceramistas del Cenepa
		Editado por IWGIA y Nouvelle Planète		
ISBN: 978-87-92786-67-8
Apus, Caciques y Presidentes:
Estado y política amazónica en los países andinos		Editado por Alexandre Sureallés, Oscar Espinosa y David Jabin		IWGIA, IFEA & PUCP		ISBN 978-87-92786-65-4
El TPP y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en América Latina
		Editado por Paulina Acevedo
		 IWGIA		ISBN 978-87-92786-71-5
Cuestionando los enfoques clásicos de conservación en Chile:
El aporte de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales a laprotección de la biodiversidad
		
Observatorio Ciudadano, Consorcio TICCA & IWGIA		ISBN 978-956-9315-04-06
Aire, no te vendas: La lucha por el territorio desde las ondas		Griselda Sánchez Miguel
Ayllu Tucma: Comunidades del Tucumán		
Editado por Mariana Paterlini
		ANDHES, UPNDT & IWGIA		ISBN 978-987-24410-3-6

651

GENERAL INFORMATION

Pueblos indígenas, Comunidades Afrodescendientes y Recursos
Naturales: Protección de Derechos Humanos en el Contexto de
Actividades de Extracción, Explotación y Desarrollo		
Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) & IWGIA		ISBN 978-0-8270-6556-7

VIDEOSIn English
Indigenous broadcasters in Peru: The right to communication		Servindi & IWGIA

En castellano
Korubo: Una Etnia sin Fronteras
		 IWGIA
Semillas de Guamúchil
		Colectiva Editorial Hermanas en la Sombra & IWGIA
Indigenous broadcasters in Peru: The right to communication		Servindi & IWGIA