IIFB
statement on agenda item 5 (UNPFII recommendations), read by Louis Biswane
Thank you Mr. Chair,
This statement is made on behalf of the IIFB and we
are focussing this statement on the use of the term ‘indigenous peoples’. As
you are aware, Mr. Chair, the use of indigenous peoples in the Convention has
always been a key recommendation by the IIFB, and the IIFB has consistently applied
this term in all of its submissions and statements, and we are very pleased that this matter is
now being considered in-depth by this meeting of the WG8(j) and by the
Conference of the Parties at its twelfth meeting.
We acknowledge the advances that have been made by
some countries since the adoption of the UNDRIP, such as Bolivia, who has
adopted UNDRIP as a binding national law
(Law 37.60 ) and we call on other Parties to follow this example.
We wish to thank the secretariat for preparing
document UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/8 and also for compiling the
submissions made on this matter in documents UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/INF/10 and Add.1.
The submissions received (from four
Parties and in excess of one hundred indigenous and non-governmental
organisations) are all positive, and jointly
provide a wide range of well-substantiated arguments for updating the CBD
terminology. The submissions clarify that he terminology “indigenous peoples”
invokes a series of rights that arise from the recognition as distinct peoples
with different political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,
and emphasise that the use of the term indigenous peoples recognizes
indigenous peoples as possessing specific collective rights, including the
right to self-determination, whereas the term indigenous communities is
restrictive and exclusionary.
Many of the submissions have also
stressed that the term is already included in a range of international
agreements, including Agenda 21, the Rio+20 Outcome Document, and the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that a large
number of other international instruments and standards also reference
indigenous peoples’ rights, the vast majority of which were adopted by
environmental organisations and underscore the linkages between recognition of
indigenous peoples’ rights and the conservation and sustainable management of
ecosystems and natural resources. These include ILO Conventions, IUCN
resolutions, Ramsar Convention Guidelines, FAO Voluntary Guidelines and the 2010 UNFCCC
Cancun Agreements. In the UN Human Rights System, indigenous peoples have been
the standard language since the adoption of UNDRIP.
Unfortunately, Parties who have reservations or
objections to updating the ILC terminology have not submitted views to explain
why they are opposing this.
While we believe it is not necessary to open up the
convention and its protocols for renegotiations, we are strongly in favor of
using the wording ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’ in future
decisions, commencing with the decisions made by COP12.
We therefore propose to add a second recommendation to
the document, as follows:
The Conference of the Parties
Agrees to use
the term ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’, instead of ‘indigenous and
local communities’ in the outcome documents of its 12th meeting and
all future documents.
Mr. Chair, in light of the World Conference on
Indigenous Peoples under the General Assembly next year, we consider this a
very appropriate timing for such update in terminology, bringing the CBD
practice in line with existing international practice.
Thank you M
