Day 1, Monday AM, July 23, 2001
Working Group, Morning Session

Summary. In the morning Mrs Daes annonuces this is the last time she will chair the WGIP. In the afternoon, a special question and answer session is held with the newly appointed Special Rapporteur.

OPENING STATEMENT TO THE NINETHEENTH SESSION OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS

By the Chairperson Rapporteur prof. Eric- Irene A. Daes

* Distinguished Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms. Stefanie Grant * Dear Colleagues-members of the working group on Indigenous Populations * Excellencies * Esteemed Elders, Grant chiefs and Chiefs and representatives of the world's Indigenous peoples * Distinguished Representatives of Observer Governments, United Nations organs and bodies, specialized agencies Intergovernmental and Non- Governmental Organizations.

At the outset, I would like to express my grateful thanks to my collegues and friends for electing me as Chairperson-Rapporteur of this of historic importance Working group. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Professors Alfonso Martinez, Motoc and Yokota, and Judge Guisse for their generous and kind words. It is a great honor for me to be once again charged with the responsibility of chairing the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. I am conscious of the trust that my distinguished Colleagues members of the Working Group confer upon me. I take this opportunity of assuring them as well as all participants that I undertake the duties as Chairperson- Rapporteur of this body with great seriousness and deep responsibility. It is my intention to conduct the nineteenth session of the working Group, as I have done since I was elected Chairperson in 1984, in a open, equitable and constructive manner. We have established working practices, which I believe have earned this Working Group the appreciation and deep respect of indigenous peoples, observer Governments and other participants. As I will explain, in a few minutes, we have a forum in which serious and often distressing situations can be discussed and understood better at a unique United Nations forum, where positive actions and solutions can be shared and promoted. I wish to continue to maintain this liberal and democratic spirit of freedom, openness, cooperation, frankness and constructive dialogue in the five days that follow.

I take this opportunity of welcoming all participants to the nineteenth session of the working Group on Indigenous Populations. I know that some indigenous representatives have traveled long distances at great expense and we the members of the working group greatly appreciate the efforts you have made in being with us to share your experiences and to, make your substantial contribution to our work. I offer a special welcome to the 79 indigenous representatives that have been assisted by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, (as well as the Indigenous fellows who are participating in the United Nations Indigenous Fellowship Programme within the office of the high Commissioner for Human rights. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude to donors of both the Voluntary fund for Indigenous Populations and the Voluntary Fund for the International Decade of the world's Indigenous people. The voluntary contributions have allowed the High Commissioner on behalf of the Secretary General to approve, as I have already stated, 79 travel grants for indigenous representatives to participate in the Working Group during its current session. The voluntary contributions have also enabled the High Commissioner Office for Human Rights, and the competent Advisory Group to allocate Grants to 30 projects and programmes under the Decade to promote the Human Rights of the Indigenous peoples. I would like, once again, to appeal to both regular and potential donors to support the activities of both funds in order to enable them to continue effectively fulfill their mandates.

The Commission on Human Rights by its resolution 2001/57 established the position of a Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. A few weeks ago the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights appointed Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen from Mexico as Special Rapporteur. He will be present with us during the Entire Working Group. I take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Stavenhagen and wishing him every success in his work within the framework of his mandate. It is my intention to invite Mr. Stavenhagen to meet with the indigenous representatives in room XVIII, today at 15.00, making use of the interpretation facilities available. The establishment of the institution of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, constitutes an additional international mechanism for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course much depends on a fair, just, transparent and effective implementation of its mandate and the relevant United Nations system's resolutions.

Distinguished participants, As the Chairperson - Rapporteur for now 18 years, you will allow me to make some general comments and express some views before commencing our work. It is with a feeling of great sadness that I address you from this podium for the last time, as the chairperson-rapporteur of the Working Group, a position that I have held with a deep sense of honor and responsibility, for so many years. You have all been a large part of my life and you are all part of what I believe has been the most important, and the most rewarding task that I have ever undertaken: promoting and defending the human rights of indigenous peoples at the international level throughout the United Nations system. I will miss you all. Despite the difficult decisions we have had to make, and the many disagreements we may have had we have struggled together, in a spirit of serious commitment and open constructive dialogue, to set a good example for the international community. Together, we represent something larger and more powerful than the legal structures and studies we have debated and drafted here. We represent a new kind of dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples - a crucial step in the development of a democratic world order.

I can say, with great pride, that this Working Group led the way, in the 1980s, to the most far- reaching recent reform of the United Nations system: a quantum leap in the participation of non-governmental organizations at nearly all levels of decision making, accompanied by a significant increase in the representative diversity of NGOs. The United Nations has taken serious steps towards realizing the democratic ideal stated the Preamble of its Charter : "We the Peoples of the United Nations"...

Gradually, the United Nations is becoming a true form of nations, peoples and communities. And indigenous peoples were the first grassroots movement to gain direct access to the United Nations - and that achievement began here, in the Working Group.

That was not our only achievement. The Working Group has provided a global democratic and liberal forum and gathering place for indigenous peoples themselves for about 20 years. During the same period, indigenous peoples have formed hundreds of local, national and regional organizations to represent their interests; but in practical terms, the working group has been the international organization of indigenous peoples - and as such, it has continued its outstanding work. The Working Group has been one place in the United Nations system where Governments listen and were directly informed about the problems and needs of the indigenous world, but the indigenous peoples set the agenda. Although the Working Group is officially a body of individual experts, it is actuality a sui generis body of the United Nations system, in which indigenous peoples hold the balance of moral and intellectual authority.

I wish to thank most warmly and to pay tribute to, my fellow members of the working Group - those who are with us today, and those who preceded us, including in particular Mr Eide, Ms. Ahta, Prof. Hatano and the first Secretary of the Working Group Prof. Alfredsson, for their courage, their spirit of independence, and their open-mindedness. If we had not possessed these qualities , the Working Group could never have empowered indigenous peoples to such a great extent. Thank you very much all for what you have contributed to our substantive and significant work, and to the unique spirit of this body, which today, constitutes a community of the indigenous peoples of the world.

With active participation of the indigenous peoples, we have achieved so much, but we have so much work left to do. Our main project, the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, has languished in the ad hoc Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights for seven years now. Its, bold vision, which once clearly expressed the values and aspirations of indigenous peoples, has disappeared beneath an ocean of square brackets. It is my sincere belief, that those representatives indigenous or governments, who delay the progress of the consideration of the relevant provisions of the original draft, offer a disservice to the United nations, indigenous peoples and governments. Also, I would like to mention, that our technical studies on rights, treaties and transnational corporations, have not been finally approved or implemented. The International Year and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, Have received appallingly meager financial support; and while United Nations operational bodies and specialized agencies have taken greater heed of the concerns of indigenous peoples, they still devote less than one-tenth of one percent of their program budgets to activities that benefit indigenous peoples directly. I must say that I was extremely disappointed that the United Nations Millenium Declaration ( 55/2 resolution adopted by the General Assembly) did not include any specific commitment or reference to indigenous peoples.

We must face the fact that, unfortunately, the indigenous peoples should continue their struggle in order to achieve some of the basic goals related to their human rights and freedoms. As I already mentioned, the Commission on Human Rights is even unable to adopt at least some provisions of the draft United nations Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples that re- state principles already adopted by the United Nations Conference on environment and Development nearly a decade ago. Is this a sign of greater fear on the part of some Member States, or simply a return to indifference?

The world has changed tremendously since I first sat here at this podium as Chair-person Rapporteur in 1984. In some ways the world has become safer than it was then. The cold War is behind us now, and with it, the terrifying nuclear arms race that held the entire planet for ransom. However, conventional wars, terrorism, organized crime and civil strife continue in many parts of the world, and the loss of human life has been terrible. Some major powers may be safer and more secure today, but most of the world’s peoples still live in fear, misery, poverty. WE moreover seem to be heading into a new kind of East-West "cold war" that does not even prevent to be about different social ideologies, but merely about power, mistrust and insecurity. Distinguished participants,

Today, new forms of aggression threaten the freedom and survival of indigenous peoples throughout the world. A growing number of countries have thrown open their doors to greater foreign investment and trade. At the same time, while we have recognized the growing threat to human beings-and indeed, to life on earth,- from ecological waste, we have done little to reverse the process of environmental destruction. Deforestation continues in both tropical and northern regions. The Kyoto Protocol on climate change appears to have almost collapsed. In the wake of the Cold War, the world is not striving to be freer and healthier, but to posses and consume more things.

Global levels of consumption are not only unsustainable, but on the whole, they are increasing. This feeds the demand for new supplies of raw materials in hitherto isolated or unexploited parts of the world. As a result, indigenous peoples and other traditional communities are losing their lands, territories and ways of life faster than ever. I wish that I could state that the United Nations system is making every effort to protect the world's remaining indigenous and traditional peoples from dispossession and exploitation, and to help them adapt new modern political and economical realities.

The High Commissioner of Human Rights, her Colleagues and some United Nations specialized agencies are, in fact, taking steps to help indigenous communities organize, document their territories and defend their human rights including their cultural rights. I am thinking of some successful initiatives taken in particular in a small number of countries by the Global Environment Facility; by the international Labour Organization (ILO); and by UNSO, the United Nations agency established to combat desertification, as well as by WHO, FAO, UNESCO, WIPO, and in certain projects World bank. These are important and sincere steps but they are not enough. They reach fewer than one percent of the world’s indigenous peoples.

Some Years ago, there was still a debate over whether indigenous peoples possessed any distinct collective rights. One of our primary tasks in the Working Group was to develop a consensus that indigenous peoples do, indeed, exist as distinct peoples with specific rights to their collective existence and identity. We have achieved this, on the whole. The Convention on Biological Diversity, the convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 1989 ( No 169) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (as interpreted by the relevant treaty body), recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples to govern themselves and their ancestral lands and resources. The remaining legal argument concern the nature and scope- but not, I would venture to state, the existence- of indigenous people’s right to self- determination.

Our primary challenge today is implementation. And that is not within the power or resources of the WG – nor indeed, is it within the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights , or of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The task of implementation will require all of the technical and financial resources of the UN system, in particular the large operational programs, such as the UNDP, UNICEF, and all the competent specialized agencies. This, in turn, will require high-level policy and coordination.

Some years ago, I had great hopes that the WG would evolve into some kind of peace building and mediation program, bringing Governments and indigenous peoples together to build trust and devise institutional solutions for Actual situations in particular countries. This has not transpired; although I am pleased to say that we did have occasion to use our good offices in a number of urgent situations around the world, with at least some positive influence. On the whole, however, we lacked the resources, other means and national level facilities to tackle specific situations where the UN might actually save land and lives.

This WG, and everything we have achieved together, was only a first small step. This is not to say that the WG has exhausted its original mandate. No doubt, there is more standard setting and monitoring that can be done in the field of indigenous peoples’ rights. But the next step must also be taken, with all possible urgency and energy. I am speaking of course about the Permanent Forum, which will convene its first session during May of 2002. The voting members of the Forum must be really independent, capable, and energetic, and this will not be possible unless Governments as well as indigenous peoples nominate persons of great character, integrity and experience. However, as I can attest from my very long experience within the UN system, in this WG and in other capacities, it is also supremely important to have an independent, highly qualified, totally dedicated secretariat that devotes itself year-round to indigenous peoples. The members of the new forum will formally meet for a week or two weeks each year, but for the rest of the year everything will depend on the quality and resources of the secretariat. I appeal to Governments to make every effort to see that the Forum receives adequate new financial resources for this purpose. I appeal to indigenous organisations to identify qualified indigenous people to serve with the other members of the Secretariat as staff of the Forum. And I appeal to Governments and indigenous peoples to work together with responsibility and method to ensure that the secretariat of the Forum under the able guidance of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, acting in her capacity as Coordinator of the Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, is a distinct unit reporting directly to ECOSOC in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions and decisions.

I have a few final remarks, which I would like to share with you. First, I would like to address myself to the Governments. Many of you have been with us since the beginning, and many of you have strengthened your commitments to the rights of indigenous peoples and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to you. A few of you have become more defensive, I am sad to say. But I am most concerned about very few Governments, who perhaps are not here today because they feel that what we are doing has no relevance to them. Or else they are unwilling to engage in a dialogue directly with indigenous peoples who live within their national borders. In this respect I would like to reiterate, that this Working Group has never beer interested in dismembering states, or promoting conflict and divisions within states. Our objective has always been to build better, more inclusive and democratic states in situations where one part of the national population has been persistently excluded and marginalized. Our aim has been to prevent conflict by promoting the recognition of human rights of indigenous peoples in an environment of justice under law. I think this has also been one of the basic goals of the great majority of indigenous people. Otherwise, they would not be here at the UN seeking peaceful resolution of their concerns.

With the establishment of the Permanent Forum, and the development of a new operational aspect to the UN’s commitment to indigenous peoples, we have a great opportunity to build peace and justice and to promote human development in very practical, concrete terms at the national, regional and international level. I appeal to you, distinguished representatives of observer Governments, to continue your support, and your active participation, to the UN for a considering indigenous issues, more than ever. And above all, I appeal to you to trust indigenous peoples to work with you constructively in a spirit of freedom and justice. As far as I know, indigenous peoples want your countries to prosper and grow strong, too – only not at their particular expense. And I would like to address to you the following additional appeal: do not limit the usefulness of this exercise by struggling to define who is an indigenous person. This exercise has much broader legal relevance; it is about finding ways of reconciling state sovereignty with the interests of diverse communities of peoples within the state. It is about the nearly universal challenge of cultural pluralism in modern, centrally administered societies that subscribe to constitutionalism, democracy, justice and the rule of law. Most states internally are heterogeneous in some way, and can learn from the process we have launched in this Working Group.

In conclusion, I wish to address some remarks to the distinguished representatives of indigenous peoples, who are here today. Do not lose hope; your momentum within the UN may appear to have slowed in some cases, but you stand at the threshold of significant new opportunities, presented in particular by the Permanent Forum. Your esteemed Elders in many countries have told me that everything in the world is always changing, and we should also change but without losing our spirit of friendship, solidarity, cooperation, Justice and Peace. It is in this spirit that I sincerely promise to you today, to continue to work with you, in other capacities, as long as I am alive, until my vision for a better, human and just indigenous world will be created. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Special Activities at the 2001 WGIP session, Update on the World Conference Against Racism

The unedited draft declaration and the program of action for the World Conference on Racism can be found at the following website under the following subtitles http://www.racism.gov.za/ The meeting suggested indigenous peoples explore the document locating where indigenous peoples mentioned in the draft text. Interested individuals and communities can pursue two strategies. One is to draft language of one - two paragraphs. Another strategy is to edit the current draft and seek support of nations and NGOs participating in the WCAR in September.

Day 1, Monday PM, July 23, 2001
Working Group, Afternoon Session

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR (SR)

Mr Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur:
Good afternoon distinguished representatives of indigenous peoples (IPs), representatives of NGOs, dear friends. It is an honour for me to be present this week at the WGIP and I thank for the invitation extended to me. I would like to recall the first time I attended 18 years ago in 1983, I have not been able to attend all the meetings since, but I have been lucky to be present at some. Of course I have closely followed the work that the WGIP has carried out over the years. On this occasion I am here as Special Rapporteur appointed by the Commissioner of HR. It is a great honour to be appointed to this post by the chair of the CHR. I would publicly like to express gratitude to governments that nominated me as well as indigenous organisations and NGOs that supported my candidature to this post. I am aware that together you and I will have to open up new roads in the struggle for respect of HR of IPs. This is the first time the Commission of HR has set up the post of SR on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. I am aware that this appointment is the culmination of the lengthy work that organisations have carried out within the WGIP and other fora. The post of SR was created on the basis of proposals made by Indigenous Organisations
and was taken up by the Sub Commission and were ultimately approved by the Commission
of Human Rights. My presence here at the invitation of the WG is my first activity in my capacity of SR. I come with firm desire to serve and collaborate and learn with you and contribute positively and construct with the work the Working Group has carried out over the last years. I know some of you hope that the SR would present an agenda or program of work. This is not yet possible. My presence expresses the concern to consult with you to arrive at refining the fundamental goals and principal objectives that the SR must have. I recall the points established by the CHR when it set up the post is that it stated the SR should ask for and receive and exchange information and communication from all sources, government and indigenous peoples, on fundamental violations of HR. The SR should form and make recommendations to prevent and make reparations for violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of IPs. You can understand this is a wide mandate which can take us far. We must be clear and aware of priorities and the technical material and institutional means which the SR has at his disposal to achieve his objectives. In agreement with his mandate he must submit an annual report to CHR during the time of mandate. The first should be submitted March next year, but must now be end of this year. We have less than 6 months. This could be the first limitation at same time the recognition of this limitation is a challenge, for we need to work very closely together. I know that the work of the SR should not start from zero but must base on the tremendous work of the WG over the years. What can the SR do which has not yet been done? I am here to invite friends and colleagues of indigenous organizations to together to carry out an effort to define the priorities. What should be the objectives and the real possibilities to make sure the work of the SR is useful to indigenous peoples? I totally offer all my energy and time to work with indigenous organisations and take the opportunity of the annual meeting to make a preliminary contact with indigenous organizations from all the world meeting this week. This is the first contact. In months ahead I wish to have closer contacts and receive from you and other organizations not here, governments and other institutions, information, proposals, ideas which may be necessary for the work of the SR to be fruitful. This is what I would like to share with you and I am at you disposal to define the terms of collaboration. Thanks the chair for giving opportunities for speaking to the Indigenous Caucus. I invite the caucus to transmit ideas suggestions, and points of view.

Mr. Tony Gonzales, International Indian Treaty Council:
Thanks SR and appreciates the time he has taken to be present. Raises the issue of indigenous prisoners such as Leonard Peltier. We would like you to consider indigenous prisoners as an element to include in your study. With a six month period to report, an investigation of the situation of the indigenous peoples’ situation in Mexico, with particular reference to Chiapas would be an appropriate request.

Mr. Marcial Arias, Fundacion para la Promocion del Conocimiento Indigena:
In the case of Mexican indigenous peoples, what will you do in relation to the massacre of 45 indigenous peoples who lost their lives at the hand of the PRI government and paramilitaries. Also mentions Mistikos massacred and the crimes committed, which were raised at the sub commission with regard to forced sterilization of indigenous women in Mexico, and of men who, under pretext of receiving money and food, were sterilized - against the agreements of UN. What will be your commitment regarding 100s of IPs held in Mexican prisons who do not know why they are held as they have no interpreters? Since this year, ILO convention 169 has to be ratified. I recall that Mexico and Norway were the first to sign it. After approval it was decided it was against the interests of IPs. The new law approved, which will be published in the official journal violates all provisions. Convention 169 has been violated. I would like to hear a commitment to Mexico.

Mrs. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Tebtebba Foundation:
Welcomes appointment of SR. Its about time one was appointed. Your task is not one to be envied. There are numerous violations of human rights of IPs all over. These are really very serious cases. First I would like to know more about the process to be used to be able to integrate input of IP victims and through what mechanism we are able to bring this to you? We just had a conference on conflict prevention, held in Manila. Participants raised issues relating to conflict and violations of rights. One suggestion was for IPs to hold tribunals themselves. It would create a space for IPs to present their own problems and views. Is this a mechanism you can participate in? We can invite you and you could include it in your report.

Mr. Willie Littlechild, International Organisation of Indian Resource Development:
Thank you on behalf of our organisation and in particular the Cree Nation. Our NGO has a number of tribes in North America and has ECOSOC status. For over 2 decades have been seeking full rights to self determination. Expresses concern that the SR’s appointment may present a threat to the continuation of the WGIP. Should the states opposed to the WGIP succeed in terminating the WGIP, we do not want to lose all the work that has been done. We need fair, transparent and effective implementation. Expresses urgent concern about the situation of the Samson Cree Nation. Canada violates the right to self-determination and the rights to govern ourselves. There is no need for violent confrontation in this matter. We have benefited when SRs came to our territories. We have high expectations for your appointment and invite you to visit Treaty 6 territory.

Mr Hassan Id Balkassem, Tamaynut:
First I would like to affirm or confirm what was said by the previous speaker. I would like to propose to you as SR on the situation of HR that you study the universal declaration on IPs and the ILO convention 169 concerning Ips. These declarations represent the minimum respect for IPs. Requests he study the right to self-determination and the constitutional situation in countries where IPs live, because most of the states blackmail the populations and deprive them of self-determination. Propose you dedicate several paragraphs to this, but would like to add that it should also contain a special part on the right to property while studying laws passed by past colonial masters that have been adhered to, which deprive indigenous peoples of land and right to water. It should contain a section on cultural life, cultural identity and practices of IPs in day to day life. They are deprived of these rights. Most of the IPs suffer from racial discrimination with regard to identity, culture, history, information and education. Notes that media and television never disseminates in native languages, although there are many languages of Ips. Invites SR to visit North Africa for to be aware of the suffering and deprivation. Mentions they are deprived of right to hold meetings and the recent massacres in Algeria

Mr. Lazaro Pary, Indian Movement Tupay Amaru:
Congratulates SR. When two countries presented on the draft of this post, Mexico and Guatemala, we were the only organisation which opposed. Why? First, there had been no consultations with IPs on the creation of the post. We worked for 29 years and we know what the functions of the SR should be. They have to resolve urgent problems, issues raised by communities and states. The SR would be an additional mechanism for IPs, but we did not think he would deal with urgent matters. We listened to why existing mechanism do not work for IPs. We only adopted two articles of the declaration. Why set up another mechanism to distract us from these issues? When I travel through Andean communities I witness grave violations of HR and expropriation of land through violence. How do you intend to carry out your task, and how will you decide to what are the needs? You will get info from 3rd sources. We suggested SR be an indigenous person, but the UN rejected this. We proposed Madam Daes but because of black mail real issues were side tracked.

Delegate from the World Adivasi Council:
Considering HR situation of indigenous peoples are deteriorating in last 50 years, proposes local suggestions. Even in the name of development and protection of Adivasis, many international projects have harmed them and brought them into extinction. An investigation should be made and international monitoring should be assured. There can be no peace, no hope no progress for IPs without understanding between communities and cultures. Without the protection of forest there can be no hope of survival of large number of IPs. This applies to the World Bank and funding agencies, including church agencies. A programme for worldwide promotion of understanding of peace and understanding should be implemented, including in text books and the media .

Unidentified speaker:
Congratulates SR. Agrees with Willie Littlechild. We know violations of indigenous peoples’ rights are frequently against collectives as well as individuals. How will you interpret your mandate in this context. Second question: In Asia and Africa there are a vast number of indigenous peoples who have encountered problems of human rights. They have an additional problem of governments not recognising them as indigenous peoples. Please pay attention to this region of the world.

Mr Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur:
First thanks speakers for comments made. I will repeat some ideas from this discussion. Indigenous prisoners is something which should be considered. The indigenous courts could help systematize the information and analysis on various human rights violations in different parts of the world. These and other ideas will be taken up by SR. Several people expressed concern as to what the SR can do about the enormous number of human right violations of indigenous peoples, these are individual violations of people in different situations as well as violations of collective rights of indigenous nations. How to process this information? I am also asking this question and am asking you for help with suggestions. First, through the Secretariat of the HCHR, we can set up a mechanism for receiving reports of all sorts of HR violations which your organisations would like to transmit. Asks Secretariat to help open up the mechanism to classify information so the SR will have reliable and objective and transparent information on human rights violations. I believe that has begun to function that there is now a database that will help us. I will ask the secretariat to open up a mailing list in which I will be able to receive all communications that you will transmit and that I will respond to as far as possible. These are the first steps. There can be other mechanisms, which in time we will elaborate. Thanks for the invitations to visit their countries to observe first hand. In terms of rules of UN all invitations must come from governments for the SR to make visit as SR. This is independent of personal interest I may have. Some raised wider issues I share with you. We have to deal with this. What is the purpose of the SR? What effect do they have? What difference can one more annual report make? All long journeys begin with one step. You have constructed a system in the UN by participating. I hope this will work in the same way. Have no illusions that the work of the SR will magically resolve all problems but every block has an important function and role. I am convinced of that, otherwise I would not be here. I am also concerned about mechanism of selection of SRs and officials as a whole. In time, these mechanisms which have a long history and tradition will be democratized as society needs to be democratized. Finally, in reply to number of personal questions posed about autonomy of indigenous peoples in my own country, Mexico. I expressed my concerns in the press regarding the situation before receiving this post. This applies to the massacre of the indigenous peoples mentioned. I have made these comments publicly and as SR my work is not just related to my country but to those in many parts of the world. I accept invitations to familiarize myself with situations in other continents, while I am aware of the enormous problems during my remit. I express gratitude for the opportunity to speak. I am at your disposal to meet with the regions tomorrow morning with representatives of regional organisations. The secretariat is organising this.

Day 2, Tuesday AM, July 24, 2001
Working Group, Morning Session

ITEM 4
Review of developments pertaining to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. (DHRFF)

1. Mr Lazaro Pary (Indian Movement Tupay Amaru):

This morning I would like to express my feelings of gratitude to Mrs. Daes for her valuable contribution to cause of Indigenous Peoples. During the last 20 years Mrs Daes has gained respect, moral authority and skills. Our Movement Tupay Amaru has a special status and presented its candidate to post of Special Rapporteur. Unfortunately states have decided differently. Our organisation which has worked with her for many years hopes to continue to work with her.

Right to development.
We should talk about underdevelopment rather than the right to development. As Indigenous People see it, it is a long development. Every development model is conditioned by methods of production and distribution of all societies. Development does not depend on will or everyone. People must know social laws and apply them. The aboriginal civilizations of America based on collective land had already achieved high levels of development. This form of social organization demonstrates that in the societies there were no poor because each gained according to his work. Five centuries later, we discuss the re establishment of balance between man and nature. States have renounced the role of organizing production and distribution to the transnational enterprises. Investors of capital have set up a model with colonial connotations. Carrying out unlimited speculation on stock markets is a threat to welfare. Extracted wealth from developing countries and mutilated our nature, leaving only poor people behind. Globalisation on global level is the biggest impediment to Indigenous Peoples development. Our order was destroyed in 1492 with colonial arrival.

Debt is a universal scourge. According to the World Bank the foreign debt of the 3rd world at the end of 91 was 1.351 thousand million dollars. Dr. Cheru, the independent expert of the CH estimated at the start of 1996 the third world had a debt of 1,8 billion dollars with banks, Western governments and multilateral institutions. These astronomical figures meant that the weight of the debt for sub-saharan Africa represented 123% of its GNP, 41% in the case of Latin America and 28% in the case of Asia. The paradox is that fabulous wealth is being transferred from poor to rich countries. Mentions figures paid in debt servicing. These loans were given to autocratic and corrupt governments and dictatorships. Now we must recover the money stolen by these governments. The collapse of capitalism in Asia and Russia have highlighted failure of IMF and other agencies. The Working Group Indigenous Peoples should recommend code of conduct which is binding for transnational corporations and governments

2. Mrs. Sarah Sepoe (Deboin Peoples Foundation Papua New Guinea)

This years' theme is very challenging and sensitive in the globe today as the indigenous peoples of this planet are mobilising and speaking out loudly against the injustices that had lived with us for centuries. As we gather here today our indigenous peoples of the globe are ripped off, murdered, patented, etc let us behind our minds remember them too. Let us, indigenous peoples and colleagues present here take stock of our past history, our present and replenish our weakness and strategize our direction for the future to continue our struggle to protect our indigenous peoples and their right to development.

Today, Indigenous Peoples have no right to development, or choice to development. The choice of the development now is vested on the hands of the Trans-National Corporations (TNC) and the financial institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank with their collaborators like the World Trade Organizations.

These organizations had imposed trade agreements, policies onto respective governments and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules limit the capacity of the governments to regulate international trade, or otherwise "interfere" with the activities of large corporations. In fact, WTO agreements are little more than extensive lists of policies, laws and regulations that government can no longer establish or maintain. The essential goal of the WTO is to deregulate international trade.

Some of these agreements prohibit trade measures such as controls on endangered species trade or bans on tropical timbers imports. Others prohibit regulations that might only indirectly influence trade, such as recycling requirements, magazine contents rules, energy-efficiency standards, and food-safety regulations. Still other rules proscribe government measures that have nothing at all to do with trade, such prohibitions against government regulation of the activities of foreign investors.

Because the primary goal of the free trade is to limit government law-making and regulatory authority, serious problems arise for the host of other policy initiatives that depend on such public controls. The establishment of free trade agreements has already created substantial new obstacles to environment protection, food safety regulations, cultural support programs, and resource conservation initiatives. If we are to achieve critical better environmental and social goals, the WTO must be transformed into an institution that will foster, rather than undermining the governments of the world.

The vulnerable small Pacific islands countries provide a unique opportunity to examine the role of indigenous peoples in biological diversity and their choice to development. For most Pacific island countries the majority of peoples are indigenous, and because of the retention of substantial elements of their traditional cultures, retain close ties to their land and its biological diversity. The indigenous peoples of the Pacific are custodians of outstanding global significance of the biological diversity, unfortunately indigenous peoples, their knowledge and their biological diversity have and are exploited in the name of development. This presentation would provide some cases that had been done in the Pacific.

Many of us here today would not have some idea of what Pacific; specifically Papua New Guinea has in its uniqueness and richness in the biological resources. We are rich but very poor; we have become victims of racism, globalization and exploitation structured to rip us, both biological resources including the Human Genes in the name of development.

Because of our location on the planet, Pacific Islands Countries (PIC) have lots of biodiversity; we are rich in plants. Because of our position on the planet, we receive a lot of sunlight, a lot of energy and a lot of rain. The islands are rich in marine and terrestrial biodiversity. All indigenous peoples of the Pacific have inherited this richness, especially in diversity. Corresponding with richness in biodiversity is our poverty in terms of wealth. In contrast, the countries of the North are biodiversity-poor but wealthy countries and technology-rich.

Because of recent advances in science, biodiversity we've taken for granted, which had fed, nurtured, and healed us, is becoming more and more interest to the technologically rich but biodiversity-poor countries. The arrival of researchers and scientists in our countries, taking samples and plants for analysis overseas, is not a new event. The early explorers and missionaries did this activity and it continues to be unregulated. The resources were once considered as the "common heritage of humanity". In this I mean, there was a free-for-all. You couldn't say it was yours – if some one found something, took it away, did research on it and produced something useful that was the persons' reward.

This has all changed since the Convention on Biological Diversity, because we've come to realize that there is value in our plants, especially the knowledge and traditional ingenuity, but was never rewarded or compensated. How different is this traditional science for the science we have in laboratories conducted by men in white coats? Why is one compensated and protected by the law, while others are ignored and called "the common heritage of humanity", open for all to exploit. The world's genetic diversity exists within aboriginal territories. The world's human genetic diversity exists among indigenous peoples. So today, we are high priority research subject by scientist of the North today. Whose choice of development is to exploit indigenous peoples genes? How does the indigenous peoples benefit from stealing and patenting their DNA? Is this violation of fundamental rights and freedoms?

Pacific is rich in resources biodiversity not only natural but human gene. Scientists want to collect genetic material from indigenous peoples. We are at the situation where our bodies are facing the brand of colonization. Our bodies are considered a commodity protected by all of the laws that protect the rights of commercializers on the global scale.

Pacific has some very fine examples, which I wish to make some mention of as the events of pasts and present that I would highlight to this Working Group;

--- In 1997/8 in Samoa, the Mamala plant found throughout the Pacific. An American ethnobotanist working in a village in Samoa discovered a compound in the plant. He took it back for testing and they found it as promising anti-virus properties. That was the last time the local communities heard about this plant until February 1999, when it was found that patent had been taken out over the compound that had been found in the plant. The patent was in the name of the National Health Unit of the US Army and Bringham Young University.

--- In 1993, the Hagahai people in the remote areas of the Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. The Hagahai tribal people had very little exposure with the outside world. Their DNA cell was taken out of PNG for testing. Without the consent of the person, tribal peoples and government of PNG, the Hagahai DNA was patented in the United States. Hagahai DNA cell line is now available for sale on internet – you can order up a copy of their human DNA, viable living cells – full of life essence of the Hagahai people – for US$218 from the American Culture Collections in Maryland in the USA.

--- In 1992, The US Department of Commerce filed a patent claim on the human T-cell lines of a 40 years old woman from the Western Province and a 58-year-old man from Guadalcanal in Solomon Islands. The cell lines could be useful in producing vaccines and/or diagnosing human T- lyphotropic virus type 1. Because of the protests by the governments of Solomon Islands, these biopiracy claims were withdrawn. This is a last word we heard since then we don't know the latest.

--- Norfolk Islands has signed a DNA research agreement in early 2000 with researchers from the Griffith University in Australia.

--- The Australian company Autogen Limited plans to collect DNA samples in Tonga, to analyze them and identify genes predisposed to medical conditions such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Under the agreement, the Tongan government had given Autogen the exclusive rights to commercialize and sell genetic information to medical researchers.

--- Cross species – genetic manipulation – some of our indigenous peoples of Aotearoa (New Zealand) have some part of their DNA in animals like sheeps. They have the ability to cross species barriers with genetic manipulation into plants, animals and humans.

The Theme for Working Group on Indigenous Populations this year is "Indigenous Peoples and their right to development" is appropriate that gives us the Indigenous Peoples around the world the opportunity to raise concerns about the right to development and its impact on Indigenous Peoples.

The Indigenous Peoples and their right to development in the Papua New Guinea country situation is very different, this is because our choice of development are imposed on to the government by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank with their partner organisations such as WTO, APEC through their policies, laws which undermines the peoples choice or right to development as second priority to the imposed right to development.

Last month, Port Moresby, the capital city of Papua New Guinea came to stand still for a week, all government offices and private sector not operating after the peaceful public protest staged outside the National Parliament. This public protest was against the World Banks' Structural Adjustment Program which one policy forced by the national government implement the "compulsory registration of customary land (in PNG, people own 97% of the land while the state owns only 3%). Another policy that the general public opposed was the sale of public service entities to private corporations. This successful peaceful public protest turned into nightmare when the government used the police to dispatch the crowd. Two university students and a non-student were shot dead by the police.

On the 19th July 2001, our Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta had said we have no choice but to implement the conditions of the World Bank and IMF. The vulnerable small island states like PNG have very little choice to development since many choices to development are imposed on the government.

The Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the General Assembly in 1986, this Declaration states that development is "a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.

This Declaration does not make any mention of the external forces like the Trans-National Corporations as well as the financial institutions such as World Bank, IMF and ADB whose policies affect state responsibility of creating favourable national and international conditions for the achievement of the human right to development.

What right to development do the indigenous peoples have when these organizations had imposed trade agreements, policies onto respective governments and their rules limit the capacity of the governments to regulate international trade, or otherwise "interfere" with the activities of large corporations? I think this is any regime of colonization on the Indigenous Peoples.

3. Mrs. Ambreen Hisbani (World Sindhi Congress)

Sindh is an area covering about. 58.000 miles extending northwards from the Indian Ocean and straddling in to Indo-Pak border. 30million inhabitants. The "Indus Civilization" is considered to about ten thousand years old, and still surviving in the villages and towns of Sindh. Sindhis are not an ethnic minority or sub-nationality, but a historical nation.

In 1947 Sindh were asked to either join India or Pakistan when the British rulers left India. The original independent status of Sindh was not restored. Sindh joined Pakistan for the Pakistan Resolution of 1940 promised autonomy and sovereignty for the constituent units. The result of this was a state of economical, political and social hegemony and a terrible Human Rights situation.

Current Setup
Pakistan is now under de-facto martial law. A military general is a president. We believe that crisis and instability in Pakistan, derive from the country`s composition in the present form, in which one province (Punjab) has an overwhelming domination in all spheres of power. Indigenous Peoples of smaller provinces, especially Sindh and Baluchistan, are being denied their due political, economical, social and cultural rights.

Issues threatening to indigenous population of Sindh

Exploitation of Sindh resources and economy. 70% of the Pakistan budget is spent on defense. To justify this the Pakistan government engages in regional war. We Sindhis find this engagement neither morally justifiable or economically viable. On one hand Pakistan is spending millions on Nuclear arms while Indigenous Peoples are suffering from drought and famine. The Sindh remains the largest contributor to the Pakistan Government (70% federal taxes; 50% overall income) the province is now bankrupt and not able to develop meaningfully.

People of Indus without the Water from River Indus
Experts say that through the unfair policies of federal government and because of the construction of dams and barrages on the flow of the Indus, the flow of river water of the Indus has reduced resulting into serious ecological imbalance, reducing agricultural production and recurrent famines in Sindh. Hundreds of peaceful demonstrators protesting the government policy of unfair distribution have been put in jails. Two people have been killed by government agencies.

Economic Deprivation and its effect on Society
Unemployment rate is at its peak in Sindh. People are resorting to suicides and crime and drug addiction is at its rise.

Systematic Suppression of Indigenous Culture and Language
The Sindhi language has been marginalized by the government to such an extent that its survival is under threat. There are only 30 minutes Sindhi broadcasting allowed on TV. Sindhi schools are shut down. The State engages itself in Pan-Islamic propaganda which threatens the Sindh people. The suppression of Sindhi culture and the dominance of state-imposed social life creates hopelessness among the indigenous people of Sindh.

Religious Intolerance as a threat to Indigenous People
The current setup in Pakistan thrives on religious dogmatism and intolerance. There exist numerous laws and policies that diminish socio-political status of religious minorities and sects. There exists separate electorate for Non-Muslims. Blasphemy is still intact and practised. Government provides its patronage to Madarasaa Schools a hub for pan-Islamist militancy. Sindhi people are both Muslim and Hindus and this religious intolerance is a threat to our culture and population.

Violation of Civil Rights and District Election Policies
Current dictatorial government of Pakistan has come up with a so-called district election plan which blatantly violates civil and political rights of all nations and religious minorities in Pakistan. This plan in is its inherent nature violates article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which proclaims inalienable right of self-determination. This plan will not only isolate the religious minorities more as it is based on discriminatory separate electorate and will also strengthen the direct rule of Federal Government over Indigenous people of smaller provinces of Pakistan.

Conclusion
The situation in Sindh and for the Indigenous population of Sindh is worsening day by day. We Sindhis have come to the conclusion that the current strong federal structure leaves no room for negotiating a fair sharing of power and recourses and are demanding the right of self-determination. I would like to reiterate that the right of self-determination was promised to all provinces in the Pakistan Resolution of 1940, under whose condition the Sindh accepted to join the Federation of Pakistan. As per the U.N. Charter and International Convent, we also believe that the right of Self-Determination is Sindhi`s inherent inalienable right. By virtue of this right, Sindhis should be allowed to determine their own political status to pursue economic, social and cultural developments. 54 years of atrocities and discrimination by the Pakistani State poses a severe threat of extinction to Indigenous People and culture of Sindh and Sindhis. Therefore we request this body and other Human Rights as well as environmental activists to influence Pakistan to stop this violation of Human Rights and grant us the right to Self-Determination.

4. Mr. Adam Kuleit Ole Mwarabu (The Parakuiyo Community, Tanzania)

I would like to take your floor by paying homage to all people who have sponsored our participation in the 19th session of United Nations Working Group on Indigenous populations.

As a representative of the Ilparakuiyo in Tanzania I would like to thank our fellow Indigenous peoples from Africa and other continents for their struggle for the recognition of Pastoralist and Hunter and gatherer Communities in Africa as indigenous people.

It is a decade now or so since the start of struggle among African indigenous communities and organisations for their development. African indigenous communities and their organizations are less capacitated in solving the chronic problems in their homelands. Poverty, illiteracy and domination of non- indigenous communities in politics just to mention a few have been an obstacle to the struggle for their development. Denial of one group identifying itself as native or indigenous more than the dominant group has always been unaccepted by many African Governments. It is high time for the improvement of indigenous peoples right to development and culture. This would create good cooperation between Indigenous and Non-indigenous people in development activities.

The Parakuiyo pastoralists are now putting much emphasis on education. Since 1995, they have been in a plan to build three secondary schools for the first time in their history. The three schools are going to be built in Coast, Morogoro and Tanga Regions. The Chief Traditional Leader among the Parakuiyo, with a help of his assistants (traditional leaders) and other influential people in the community are working together to mobilising the Parakuiyo, to see the importance of education and sending more children to school. Some indicators of this have been observed as the collection of contributions to build a secondary school in Bagamoyo District in Coast Region is going on. And also more than 30 children are already in secondary schools. The Parakuiyo pastoralists are now prioritising education as a tool that would help them to create strategies, which will protect their lands and preserve their culture. On the other hand the Parakuiyo would be happy if the education system is improved in the country to fit to their traditions and cultures.

Encroachment of other economic activities into Parakuiyo areas, and neglect of pastoralism mode of production have been the source of the decline of livestock economy among the Parakuiyo. The eviction of the Parakuiyo pastoralists from "Oloililai le Mwasuni" in 1988 is a top down development approach that caused them economic hardship, lack of enough grazing land, lack of traditional medicines and more frequent conflict with cultivators in areas where they have been squeezed to live. This area that is now called "Mkomazi Game Reserve" was gazette as a reserve in 1951 without the consent of the first inhabitants. Mkomazi Game Reserve was a good grazing land and its management drawn from customary law, now has its boundaries and management regulations stipulated in the wildlife conservation Act of 1974. Mkomazi Game Reserve that extended into Kilimanjaro and Tanga Regions is a suitable area for livestock keeping. And was also a home for Parakuiyo "Iloibonok" (Religious Leaders) of Tilian family.

Parakuiyo pastoralists in Kilosa District in Morogoro Region have similar problems like that of Mkomazi. The Parakuiyo pastoralists of Kiduhi village have their piece of land estimated to be 30,000 acres grabbed by Mikumi National Park Authorities, for park purposes without their consent after its is gazette as a national park in 1953. Following shortage of grazing some pastoralists have migrated into other adjacent areas in Morogoro,Iringa and Mbeya regions. The Parakuiyo are becoming land less people and minorities, due to an increased number of people coming into their areas and now have full domination in decision- making process. For many years now the Parakuiyo are in conflict with Agriculturists over land use. This situation is fueled by the competition of people who practice different types of production living in the same area. Recalling conflicts erupted into fighting in Kilosa between September and December in 2000 many things need to be done to solve land problems not only in this area but also all over the country. In this conflict many people have lost their lives and property.

Parakuiyo pastoralists' culture constitutes a heritage of wisdom and knowledge that is a useful resource to the safety of our environment. In initiating any development projects or programmes in areas inhabited by the Parakuiyo pastoralists, all development agencies should acknowledge the importance of indigenous peoples self-development, where they will shape their own social, economic and cultural development. The Parakuiyo pastoralits have learned, that top down development approaches have always been of negative results. The Parakuiyo pastoralists would have been involved and more freely in the management of wildlife.

Tanzanian Government cooperation with Parakuiyo pastoralists is important for the strategies of land security, natural resources management, preserving their culture, improving their right and their participation in decision making process. The Parakuiyo pastoralists request to work in collaboration with other people, who can influence political decision makers for the benefit of the Parakuiyo present and future generations. We also request UN-Working Group on Indigenous Populations and other UN- Bodies/Organs, Indigenous peoples and other people to help the Parakuiyo pastoralists have their problems solved. This would help the Parakuiyo own their development and have their right to self-determination.

5. Mr. Ruben Ortiz (Programma de la Mujer Kichin Konojel Organizaciòn Maya de Guatemala):

We still maintain our own ideas of development. We have different procedures. We have self-development as a people. On the development of the family depends the development of the community. Today these factors escape us. In the right to development it is only taking into consideration a few aspects such as definition of poverty in IP community. The criteria for development should not be of the colonialist type, although Indigenous Peoples views should not be static, they are also dynamic, but development can only be significant if it is based on our own way of living. This includes education. Economy should be based on potentiality of each community and on respect of mother nature. This requires governments that ratified convention 169 of ILO to abide by it and to implement the agreements made in the peace agreement. Rich and developed countries should open up opportunities for indigenous peoples to market their products. Requests no financing from unilateral paternalist point. Indigenous Peoples are self-sufficient enough to their own development.

6. Mr. Calvin Cornelius (Goringhaicona first Nation Khoi Foundation, South Africa)

It is an honour to be able to address this forum. It is with thankful acknowledgement of the dedicated work put into the cause of Indigenous Peoples by this forum, which has led to the recognition of the right of Indigenous Peoples to their history, languages, Community Development of land, that this Subcommission is couched.

We cast ourselves upon the unequivocal stance of the S.A. Government in declaring its obligations towards indigenous Peoples as "unfazed and unambiguous". Its vision, mission and mandate, that of our Consititutional preamble, "All people are born free and with equal rights".

In giving effect to this legislative commitment various initiatives have been launched. Amongst these are: The formation of PANSALB (Pan South African Language Board) established in terms of secs. (6) (5) (a) (ii) of the constitution (Act No. 108 of 1996) as described in the Bill of Rights.

The establishment of the National Griqua forum 1 July 1997 and subsequently the Establishment of the National Khoisan forum, the aim of which is to assist with the status Quo Research Process.

National Commitment and recognition has also been given by our President Thabo Mbeki.

Amongst all these initiatives, we regard the economic empowerment by means of land restitution pivotal to the facilitation of the smooth implementation of all the abovementioned engagements.

To this end we wish to lodge this subcommission as a statement of annexation of land to which Indigenous Peoples hold Aboriginal Rights and site in support of this annexation sec. 232 of S. A. Constitution (act. 108 1996 The South Africa Act.). Precedent has been set by the granting of land and title to various tribes of the Nguni People and San (Bushmen) of the Kalahari.

The land in question:
- Vavant land at Granger Bay (presently utilized bz subsistence Fishermen of Khoi heritage)
- Valkenberg - Kraal of Chief Gogosoa of the Goringnaiqua Tribe
- Porter Estate - Historical residential valley
- St. Helena Bay - State-owned coast
- Die Klip - Acacia Road & Klip Road (Meeting place of Khoi Chiefs)
- Hendon Park - "Shell Middens" preserved historical documents
- Bloubergstrand

And all other historical Khoi owned land not here mentioned

We, the Khoi, wish to be a functional recognized part of South African society, contributing to the economic wellbeing and growth of our homeland.

7. Mr. Vang Pobzeb (Lao Human Rights Council INC)

The subject of the 19th session of the UN Working Group Indigenous Peoples is important for the 12 million Hmong People in Laos, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand and other countries, and the more than 300 million indigenous peoples in the global level, because they need economic, social, cultural, educational, political development, human rights and peace. Many thousands of those people have and are dying from starvation, disease, oppression, genocide, human rights violations and ethnic cleansing warfare. Many thousands of Hmong people in Laos and other Indigenous Peoples on the global level are crying out for survival, peace, Human Rights, freedom and democracy.

States three Articles of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development of 1986 (Art. 1; Art 3. and further) In order to promote the rights of indigenous peoples and the right to development in the future, I propose that the UN should establish a UN High Commissioner for Indigenous Populations. This is because the Communist Lao Government has been committing ethnic cleansing warfare, which is against the right to peace and development of Hmong People in Laos, and many other indigenous peoples on the global level, which is against their right to development and human rights.

Conclusion: The current international system cannot promote the rights of indigenous peoples and their right to development. Therefore, we Hmong people and other indigenous people at a global level, propose to establish a UN High Commissioner for Indigenous Populations. We hope that other representatives of indigenous peoples support this proposal.

8. Mrs. Meureure Micka (Kanaky People New Caledonia):

Our country is in the Pacific, first discovered by France then Australia. The thoughts we have: for us an understanding of the topic should be in the context of the Kanaki. The right to development should be at the initial of the plans of development. We should look into our culture to look into values favorable for our development. Your European culture has also made a lot for development, and we wonder what is the possible for our people. We cannot develop the Kanaks without the Kanaks. Our leaders believe we are not able to do this. Our capital is our people not the money. The analysis of world development in the context of the Kanaky People ; the West says it is necessary to develop according to its standards, including attitude, behavior and forms of power. This model is alien to us. They said we are underdeveloped, but our problem is more important - the problem of our identity imperiled. Kanaks are not asking for development.
1. Underdevelopment is considered as economic and technological
2. Development has meant a certain type of development - changing way of life and attitude.
It is synonymous with Western civilization, This is what we are told. Our people calls for support for those listening to us and participation in meetings training and education to allow us to share concerns with outer world.

9. Mr. Tomas Condori (Consejo Indio de Sud America):

We hope this WG will turn out the way we wish. I will read out a document from our organisation. Since a long time, when the neoliberal model was imposed in Bolivia, violations have increased. The model has strengthened the elite 15% of the population and worsened the situation of the Aymara Quechua people. The Aymara Quechua people has been demanding the implementation of the zero point agreement. The government has mobilized the military force, but it has no chance of solving state problems by the sale of the state goods. Workers spent half a year in La Paz without solution from government. Government is committing perjury and the militarising capitalizes the state without benefiting the people. The government is corrupt. Neocolonial states are oppressing Indigenous Peoples, though these states are proclaiming that they are bound by commitment of the UN. Bolivia is not an isolated country and must answer for its people. World community should condemn crimes against the Indigenous Peoples. The Bolivian state has ratified many international charters and conventions. Bolivia hid behind these to change the constitution of the state in 1994. It is a country that shows good intentions but leaves it on paper and archives. It bathes in Indigenous Peoples' blood. Mentions three massacres committed. What happened yesterday, the army repressed a peasant assembly causing a dozen wounded. The UN should use its duty of humanitarian intervention and ask for a report. Indian territories usurped by the state are rich but are auctioned off without benefit for the people. The Aymara have every right to manage their own affairs.

10. Mrs. Gloria Sanic Morales (Programma de Desarollo Economica y Social):

Indigenous Peoples cultures constitutes active and dynamic factor in development. We must take account educational policy taking into account Indigenous Peoples. The role of the state is to strengthen the cultural development of Indigenous Peoples, taking the necessary administrative and legislative measures to strengthen the development of indigenous culture, including the participation of women. Education is vital to this in passing on divers knowledge to promote the improvement. With respect to training of women of Indigenous Peoples the active participation of women is vital for the development of Indigenous Peoples. It's the role of state to end discrimination against them. It is necessary to implement global development of entrepreneurs of the female sector.

11. Mr. Frank Guivarra (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services Secretariat):

The WG on the right to development held its first session from the 18 to 22 September 2000 and released its first report on the 57 session of the CHR this year (E/CN.4/2001/26) At para 17, page 6 of the report it was noted by some delegations that the WG on the Right to Development should examine 'the rights of women, children and vulnerable groups in society'. It is clear that Ips must be regarded as one of the most vulnerable groups in society. While the WG on the Right to Development appears largely to focus on issues of globalisation of economies and debt relief of poverty stricken or developing social structures. There can be no turning away from the sheer power and influence which economic strength can bring to bear upon nations which demonstrate poor or non existent commitment to fundamental human rights within their own borders or among the peoples under their control. It is clear the right to participate in development is very important.

The international Fellowship of Reconciliation, in a statement circulated in 1999 wrote 'Nonetheless, certain states continue to deny fundamental human rights on the grounds that these rights are incompatible with the right to adequate economic development. This position is inconsistent with the duty of states 'regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all HR and fundamental freedoms', as recognised by the CHR in its resolution 1997 72on the right to development. It also fails to understand that promoting and protecting HR, including the right to self determination, are a necessary precondition to sustainable economic development' (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/NGO/8)

Paragraph 13 noted that the UNDP pointed out 'HR and sustainable development are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Development is unsustainable where the rule of law and equity do not exist; where ethnic, religious or sexual discrimination are rampant; where there are restrictions on free speech, free association and the media; or where large numbers of people live in abject and degrading poverty.'

NAILSS proposes that the examination of the question might perhaps adopt a similar 4 point strategy as follows:
1) The content of the right to development for Indigenous Peoples
2), the implementation of the right to development for Indigenous Peoples
3) obstacles to implementation of the right to development.
4) essential elements of a global strategy for rights to development of Indigenous Peoples including right to participating in development concerning them.
It is suggested the above structure might present a useful constructive method of examining this theme given the historical needs of member states to override indigenous peoples. Tragically Ips of Australia are not included in negotiations regarding development unless governments and developers are convinced that they have no other choice legally.

NAILSS notes the GA resolution 55/108 on the right to development, which reiterates 'The essence of the right to development is the principle that the human person is the central subject of development and that the right to life includes within it existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life.'
(A/RES/55/108)

NAILSS proposes a list of elements to be assessed, including that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are no less significant that the HR of all other peoples, protection is an integral part of all rights; peoples must be the central subjects.

While states and non-indigenous societies fail to treat Ips and their human rights properly, development is destined for disaster bringing negative consequences to the globe. Equal participation in development does not mean allowing Indigenous Peoples to be manual laborors or observers, it must mean placing Indigenous Peoples in positions of influence and supervision regarding development.

12. Mr. Laurentius S. Davids (Khoekhoegow AB Curriculum Committee Namibia)

Rights are entitlements that should be enjoyed by all people. Indigenous Peoples, and in particular the Khoe in Namibia, should be entitled to have access to resources. Farming is the main activity of the Khoe. Livestock is a means of survival. The Khoe are restricted to the desert areas of Namibia, many Khoe have lost their livestock and were forced to move to urban areas which reduces the Khoe to poverty and destitution.

We should encourage the Khoe people to participate in economy by increasing current resources, and better marketing of their livestock. The existing economic basis of our people should be used to ease them into the mainstream economy. The economy depends on them and this is where the vicious circle starts. Right now the Khoe people do not have a say in the marketing of their Livestock. They do not have control over the pricing of the meat. Therefore it is difficult to send the children to school, for if there is no money then one cannot pay for the education of the children. The child is therefore doomed to also become a farm laborer.

Language of Indigenous Peoples should be used in education rather than those of colonial masters. It is essential for the peoples in order to understand each other. It is a fundamental right and freedom to have access to information as well as to receive it through the language that is best understood by the people. Khoe children should be prepared for participation in the mainstream economic activities of the country.

Both men and women play an important role. In Namibia the Khoe people are deprived from equal access to resources, participation in the decision making process and do not have the right to make their own decisions.

Development is not a privilege but an entitlement that the government must provide. The community should be part of all phases of development, beginning from the concept of the idea.

13. CANADA; Mr. Fred Caron:

I welcome this opportunity to share Canada's view on agenda item 4. An issue Canada takes very seriously. Many of us are aware that our colleagues in the WG on the right to development are working expressly on the question of the rights as they relate to development. I will not speculate on the resolution they might reach, nor will I preempt forthcoming statements or resolutions. – Canada has unequivocally and repeatedly stated its support for the promotion and protection of the right to development as outlined in the Declaration on the Right to Development. Canada also believes that the right to development acts as a bridge between two sets of rights as traditionally defined in international discourse: civil and political on the one hand; and economic, social and other on the other.
Benefits from economic, social and cultural development are unlikely to be achieved if issues of civil and political rights, such as those of equal participation in decision-making, freedom of association and freedom of expression are not respected. Similarly, there can be no respect for the full scope of civil and political rights if for example, adequate standards of living, including food and housing, are not addressed. –
As articulated in the Declaration on the right to Development, there are two basic principles that are relevant to our discussions. First, the human person is the central subject of development and should be active participant and beneficiary of the right to development (Article 2 , para 1). Second, states have the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favorable to the realization of the right to development (Article 3, para 1). These two paragraphs are particularly relevant to the question of the role and responsibility of the State in instituting measures to overcome obstacles to the implementation of the right to development. – Canada has long been committed to processes and initiatives that facilitate and increase participation by Aboriginal persons in regard to development. In Canada these issues inevitably involve a number of parties including the federal and provincial governments, aboriginal peoples and the private sector.
The challenge of how to best ensure development occurs in a manner that benefits those directly impacted – to the greatest maximum measure – is something we have grappled with for over thirty years and have attempted to address in a number of ways. For instance, the lands claims process itself speaks of our willingness as a society to reconcile historical and cultural differences through negotiation and compromise. The agreements that result give Aboriginal people a greater say in their future by providing for land, financial resources and agreed access to natural resources. They facilitate economic development for both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people in the area by removing uncertainty regarding title to lands and resources Land Claims Settlement Agreements, which are protected in Canada's Constitution, require early and full consultations and the implementation of benefit plans for local communities before development goes ahead. For instance, many agreements require environmental assessments and regulatory approvals before resource development proceeds. Because of land claim settlement agreements, IPs are guaranteed a significant role in these approvals by their participation on environmental assessment and regulatory boards which are institutions of public government.

When development does occur - whether it be diamond mines or natural gas fields and pipelines - there are processes designed to ensure that local people and communities share in the opportunities to derive economic benefits- Resource developers recognize that they have to work with local communities.

This is very evident in Canada's North which comprises 40 per cent of Canada's land mass. Since 1993, as a result of a land claim settlement between the government of Canada and the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, the Inuit control more than 350,000 square kilometers of land. Of which 36,000 square kilometers include mineral rights. In the western Arctic, the Inuvialuit were recently able to collect 75 million dollars for exploration rights on their land that were issued to oil and gas exploration companies

Self government arrangements are another vehicle which may enhance Aboriginal communities' role in development of their own lands. This can be negotiated either in connection with land claims or seperatly.

On another front, the Speech from the Throne, on January 2001, which sets out the Government of Canada's priorities represents compelling evidence of our resolve to make national and international conditions conducive for development by putting Aboriginal issues front and centre as priorities to be addressed. Most significantly, we work with Aboriginal people to upgrade skills, enhance education and help strengthen their entrepreneurial and business expertise.

Let me draw your attention to materials at the back of the room on Aboriginal Entrepreneurs across Canada. - Opportunities are also provided for Aboriginal participation in international fora. Canada and some other countries worked hard to establish the Arctic Council, with indigenous organisations as permanent participants. Most recently, Canada has fully supported the applications of Gwich'in International Council and the Arctic Athbaskan Council to the Arctic Council.

Working closely with provincial governments and authorities, the Federal Interlocutor's support is assisting a number of Metis, non-status Indian and pan-Aboriginal service delivery institutions in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan make significant strides in providing child and family services and cultural development to their constituents.

Finally, from a multi-stakeholder perspective, federal departments are developing a regional partnering approach to address the skilled workforce requirements of other oil sands and forestry sectors in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This approach involves private sector companies, provincial governments and training authorities, Aboriginal organisations and communities. Working collaboratively, all stakeholders are developing opportunities for residents of Northern communities in these provinces to become gainfully employed in these industries. The approach is being extended to address priorities in British Columbia and Manitoba.

In conclusion, while considerable work remains to be done to ensure Aboriginal peoples are fully included in all aspects of Canadian life, we are on the right track and making measurable progress. Each step forward moves us closer to our goal of participation by indigenous peoples in Canada in developments affecting them and promoting positive, beneficial links between indigenous peoples and development.

14. Mr. Hasan Guyo Shano (Waso Trustland Project Isiolo – Kenya).

I also wish to express gratitude for concern you have expressed for Indigenous Peoples. There is growing realisation for the need for unity of Ips in Africa. Conference was held in Arusha Tanzania. Seeking recognition of Bora as a distinct entity. It is part of community which mainly live in Ethiopia. Famed for elaborate egalitarian political system and elaborate conflict resolution mechanisms. This system no longer operates in Kenya. His area has a population of 100,000 people with Boro constituting 30% of the population. Closed to outside world under British rule. Only concern of the British was loyalty to queen and security. No development was carried out. This created fear of exploitation in the North.
Ironically for us who enjoyed wealth at the time, independence was a list of horrors: detention of leaders, killing of livestock. Community was reduced to abject poverty, further worsened by land grabbing. This is why we formed our NGO to inform them on their land rights, seeking wildlife and environmental protection for the community. Informs of land grabbing by government. Since inception his organization has been involved in civil education. So far regret to inform our effort had little impact on government policy. Reducing pastoral land.
Grievances:
1 Excessive alienation of land for game reserve. (4 reserves exist) these occupy much land annexing grazing and watering points. Displacement of people and livestock
2 establishment of army camps
3 recreation areas grabbed by local individuals.
4 Lack of protection from neighboring Ethiopian bandits, stealing livestock.
5 Systematic diversion of river by farmers upstream in violation of agreements.

Declaration: The conference recognise Boran as indigenous entity to be protected form cultural political exploitation. Restoration of traditional courts for conflict resolution. Game reserves be revoked. Further extension of game reserves be halted. Land review policy aimed to empower the community including management of reserves. Compensation for land in game reserves and army. Recreation areas land should be used by intended purpose. No land should be expropriated without consent of IP. Compensation for bandit attacks. Fair utilization of river water.

15. Mr. Diana Xochitl del Augel Gutirrez (Sedac - Jovenes Mexico):

Definition of development, what does it consist of? We all ask for development but what is it? Projects followed by successive stages, each better than the last. But what sort of development do we want? Is it Social, Cultural, Economical or Political? In our Indigenous world is it to preserve our culture. We ask for development, we forge for it, and build it. Starting from the most fundamental, the young people, they are the ones who are going to go on struggling. I'm young and still I was denied my right to speak my mother tongue. This doesn't mean that I'm not still an Indigenous, for every problem there is a solution. People must make proposals and be active, people that will find ways to make our rights be respected with dignity.

Development must help our selves and our communities. Projects to preserve our land, culture are as fundamental as to be clear of what we want. It is difficult to put things into practice, to take into account all aspects. So complex that I also decided to make a proposal: My proposal is that we open and renew this forum, that this space we have doesn't stay limited and at the same time urge government to approve The Declaration on the indigenous rights.

16. Did not speak

17. Mrs. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Tebtebba Foundation):

2002 is the 10th birthday of the Rio summit. Widely acknowledged that destruction of environment still increasing and poverty disparity increasing. This is the imposition of so called development that destroys Indigenous Peoples. Last resources are to be found among Indigenous Peoples, it is no accident. Trans National Corporations and governments are doing all they can do to extract resources. Even sustainable development is not enough. Nature as a resource is the world view that underpins current model of development. Insatiable greed is main reason for environmental and social crises. Majority of Indigenous Peoples still have subsistence economies. We should not be forced to change our economies to fit in with the global. Why should we be forced to give our knowledge if it ends up in the hand of Trans National Corporations. Despite 500 yrs, indigenous knowledge and management are still alive. This persistence is testimony to the sustainability and viability of I systems.
Suggests:
1 Indigenous Peoples have role in promoting control of ancestral territories on which our knowledge and practices survives We should coexist with other systems not forced to be integrated and assimilate. We should have the right to say no.
2 Institutions that have evolved should rethink their paradigm. The process of evolving this discourse should be done by Indigenous Peoples.
3 Case studies of development destroying and distorting Indigenous Peoples should be made and disseminated and used for other projects. Development should be with cooperation of Indigenous Peoples, WB policies still leave much to be desired.
4 Studies of best practices of Indigenous Peoples on sustainable development should be done and used.
5 In Philippines, issues and concerns of development should be holistic. We are tired of being told we can only discuss only this or that at the CHR. They have fragmented our problems because we can only talk about single issues at conference.
6. Conference on Indigenous Peoples and sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples should redefine sustainable development. Globalization is the main threat to these systems.

18. Did not speak

19 Mrs Viviana Elsa Figueroa, Associacion Indigena de la Republica Argentina:

On the 4th December 1986 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 41/128 The Declaration Right of Development. Article 1 states the right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which all humans and all peoples can participate in economic, social, cultural and political development so that they may fully realise all their fundamental rights and freedoms. Same article paragraph two reads that HR to development implies the right of people to free determination …subject to the relevant conditions of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Therefore we call on the international community to approve the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 1990 the conference on The Right to Development as a Human Right was held in Geneva. This consultation showed that the right of individuals, group and peoples to take collective decisions and elect their own democratic representative organisations, to have the freedom of democratic action, free from restraints, was essential to democratic participation. The concept of participation is basic to the right of development. It considered that development ideas based exclusively on economic growth and financial considerations had failed and that no single model of development is applicable to all cultures and peoples. The development models applied to IPs which did not take into account our culture produced and continued to have extreme negative consequences on our people. The territories of IPs coincide with those where you find greatest needs - the denial of right to land, lack of drinking water, food, health and literacy, education and employment. This has grave consequences on our people, increasing diseases, alcoholism and suicide.

Definitions of development should be determined by IPs and adapted to their conditions and needs, with their full participation. UN programs should commence this initiative to ensure compatibility of programs with full participation of IPs

20 Juliet Fatima Imam, Tribal Women Artists Cooperative:

In my region in Northern Jharkhand in Eastern India, the river Damodar and its forest valley has been our home for thousand years. In the past century, our lower valley has been exploited for mining and damming, destroying sacred sites and villages, displacing the inhabitants.

Since 1985 a plan was made to mine the upper valley, with over 20 mine blocks big dams and thermal projects planned. The North Karanpura Coalfields Project will destroy 200 villages. We tribals often have no land papers and compensation is impossible.

In the fields and hills we find the remains of our ancestors, like stone tools and copper objects, and pre historic rock art caves. It is happening in the name of development but we are not benefiting. Our painted caves are sacred and are part of inherited traditions. The fields where we grow food has meanings connecting with our ancestors. The animals in the forest are brothers and sisters. This is what we want to sustain. As result of projects we are sad for we see are homeland and survival destroyed. We are powerless. Tribal Adivasis have no indigenous status recognized by our government. Your Declaration and privileges given to Ips are not able to protect us. Appeals that Adivasis lands and peoples be given protection of the UN

21 Mr Lousot Mariach: Tomwo IPDI;

Pokot people are spread over north western Kenya. A national poverty assessment of 2000 indicates the region forms a belt of the highest incidence of poverty. The people are disadvantaged in terms of access to communication, infrastructure, public health, nutrition and education services. The region is rich in minerals, water, natural and livestock resources, but Pokots are poor and marginalized.

Historically, even after independence of Kenya in 1963, the community remained at the periphery of development due to social seclusion, resulting from harsh environment and topography, among other factors. The region was a remote, low priority area and remained that way. Schools and medical development were cut back for lack of funding. Analysis of development and policy targeted to the land have been characterized by technocratic approaches and failure to listen to pastoral people. With the right development investment there is great potential for increased contribution by the pastoral land and livestock resources to national prosperity. Livestock is the key to development in the area, this includes integration to the national economy. A budget could be set up to tackle under development. Macro economic policy to be done by the ministry of Agriculture and rural development for economic empowerment. But without our participation not much cab be achieved.

22 Mr Handaine Mohamed, Tamaynut (ANCAP) Morocco:

The Amazigh Berber people are IPs of north Africa. Our civilization has contributed to the development of Mediterranean civilization. Today it remains a reference to all Mediterranean civilizations. However, after the restoration of the modern state, the information and the modern teaching methods has led to the marignalization of Amazigh identity. No status is allowed which would enable integration to modernity and development.

The right to identity in the Constitution. From legislative point of view, language and culture remains a paradox. Since independence, the modern states have completely obscured the Amazigh dimension in defining the identity of these countries. Only the Arab-Moslem dimension is taken into account. Arab is always the official language and Berber is never mentioned. Amazigh identity is completely obscured in the constitution. The modern state has a politic of uprooting and dehumanising the Amazigh., particularly with regards to information and education We cannot imagine development without taking into consideration the language of the population.

Development and education. Right to education and its development is the most elementary of HR. All have right to education that suits them. The 1990 conference on education, held in Thailand insisted on the importance of the use of the mother tongue in education. In Africa it has been excluded, despite hope that some promises made in 1994 may be kept. Women are doubly oppressed because of marginalisation and the state education is unsuitable. Amazigh children that have the chance to go to schools are subject to symbolic aggression. They have no right to communicate in their own tongue. They are traumatized. They are not integrated at all in an y development, and have high failure rights. This failure is not conducive to development. It has negative impact on the Amazigh who swell the army of unemployed. Therefore there is no equal opportunity. They have been hiding the fact there is an Amazigh identity. They have created an alienated population who cannot participate or be integrated. They are trying to transform it into an Arab region sustained by state. Despite the efforts of Berber civil society and organisations, trying to raise awareness of their plight., the Amazigh are in critical situation.

Development and information. Any statement of related to HR calls for promotion and development of all national language and cultures, all, but we are excluded. Millions of viewers watching TV programs but do not understand it. On the contrary our culture is considered part of folklore. How can we envisage any development? Arabic, French and English have official status, so its possible for them to benefit. They have invaded remotest areas of the regions, leading to deterioration of our own culture. The Amazigh guardians of our culture cannot fulfill our task because of technological transformation Administration officers have no right to use of own language in office. Its sufficient to frighten the Amazigh and they are frightened for life because they speak with accent.

Right to Land. Before colonization Berbers were cultivating their land. After independence, land expropriated by colonists were not returned to the populations. How can we speak about sustainable development? It is difficult to envisage creative development which will be profitable. It is essential to recognize the rights of the Amazigh Berbers. At this point they will be integrated into development.

Day 2, Tuesday PM, July 24, 2001
Working Group, Afternoon Session

ITEM 4
Judge Guissé, Member of the UN Working Group:

My intervention will be based on the causes of the cronic state of underdevelopment of IPs. I will present a summary of ideas.

The functioning of the present world economy does not favor the poor generally speaking. IPs move between absolute and extreme poverty. IPs are the poorest of the poor. Two years ago the HCHR asked us to reflect on new language: extreme poverty. We all realized that this meant that the poor become poorer in conditions that are unlivable. Absolute poverty means one person only has one meal every 24 hours. Extreme poverty is less than this. The poverty of IPs results first from IPs always having been marginalized from decisions regarding their fate. They were not able to give their view on models of development imposed on them much less the implementation. Europe has not changed its attitude in considering itself the only standard. It imposes Western concept of development. We must ask IPs to at least provide their input on decisions concerning their own development. We know colonialism and other forms of domination jeopardized the existence of IPs. IPs were uprooted from their natural environment.
We know that the right to environment is a whole series of relations with the land. Once the industrial settlements force them to leave their land, it forces them to become poor and takes them away from what nature gives them. Then we cannot talk about development but only about their poverty. TNCs are the most dynamic agents of globalization today. We know that TNCs are simply following their own interests and these are in direct conflict with IPs. They are interested in profit and only profit. All other considerations disappear. Their interest is to usurp the land of the IPs. Unesco said the development of peoples is done by participation with the people. This cannot happen when a TNC settles somewhere. As the head of a Swedish TNC once said 'Globalization for us means to settle where I wish, take what I want …[] without any social burden' How do you want IPs oppose this economic force which is only there for their own profit? Forests are devastated, everything is bulldozed and nothing remains for IPs that is for their benefit. How can I talk about development for IPs? The establishment of the WTO the IMF are all active in favor of globalization which all favor TNCs in the North. This is your way of seeing the development of IPs. If we want to establish an area for IPs we have to look in the mirror and the world must realize they are responsible for the extreme poverty. Today they are poor and the riches that were taken belong to them. When governments don't want to recognize IPs what do we do when they reclaim their status of IPs ?

23. Mrs Tracey Whare, Ngatira Lands Trust:

That all peoples have a right to development is an emerging concept in international law following the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted on 4 December 1986 by 146 states (including New Zealand) in resolution 41/128 of the United Nations General Assembly. Despite this emerging concept, it is very clear to Maori that their right to development has and continues to be severely limited by the policies of the New Zealand government. Not only does the Crown refuse to acknowledge the right of development as articulated within the Treaty of Waitangi, it also dismisses the argument that that International Declaration on the Right to Development is also a right pertaining to Maori.

To illustrate this point, I will refer to a number of claims that have come before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal is a statutory body mandated to hear claims bought by Maori against the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the Ngai Tahu fisheries report and the Muriwhenua fisheries report, the Crown refused to recognise Maori rights to development. Instead the Crown claimed that Maori rights to development were 'frozen' in 1840, the year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. A rule that limits Maori to their former skills forecloses upon their future. That is inconsistent with the Treaty. The Treaty allows for both parties the right to development. By refusing to recognise Maori rights to development, the Crown failed to acknowledge the contradiction between freezing the rights of Maori whilst continuing to protect and develop their own rights to development.

Similarly, in Te Ika Whenua report and the Whanganui River report, the Tribunal found that under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, the tribes were guaranteed full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their traditional properties. The Tribunal found that the tribes had proprietary rights in the rivers akin to ownership rights based both on the Treaty of Waitangi and the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. In both cases, it recommended the Crown pay compensation for the appropriation and use of resource it did not own. The government refused.

The lack of recognition by the New Zealand government of the Maori right to development is a double standard and is a clear case of institutional racism. Further, not only does the New Zealand government continue to limit and negate the Maori right to development but it has also predetermined Maori claims to natural resources. In 1999 a claim was bought before the Waitangi Tribunal in regard to oil and gas beneath traditional lands. However before the hearing had commenced, the Minister responsible for minerals stated publicly that the claims were: "a waste of time" (Daily News, 17 October 2000). This prompted the Chief Justice of the Waitangi Tribunal, Mr Joe Williams to warn the Crown of the constitutional implications of predetermining a case.

Maori have little faith in the New Zealand government's ability or indeed willingness to acknowledge and implement the Maori right to development. The Treaty of Waitangi guarantees to Maori their rights over their resources so long as they wish to retain them. Claims before the Waitangi Tribunal consistently maintain that Maori have never freely and willingly relinquished their right to development, instead the New Zealand government claimed that right only for itself and now seeks to apportion parts of this right according to their own policies. Not only is this unjust but it impedes Maori ability to self determine their own development.

It is not good enough. As a partner to the Treaty of Waitangi and the first peoples of Aotearoa, Maori deserve better

24. Mr. Rolland Pangowish, Assembly of First Nations:

Thanks chair for efforts made. Your work has been invaluable to make rights of IPs be recognised in the international community. It has been invaluable in moving forward the recognition that Ips are entitled to the same human rights protection as any other peoples in the world. Without you effort it would be difficult to know where we would be.

In Canada the issue of development is inextricably tied to our rights of self-determination because we must have a say over how development takes place within our traditional territories. If we cannot play a role in determining development all our other rights are eroded.

In Canada, this issue is at the forefront of the struggle to have the rights of Ips implemented in a manner that benefits our Peoples. To this date the interest of governments and TNCs are favored over IPs even in cases where Canada's law courts explicitly recognize that First Nations have rights which would allow us to both control and benefit from resource development.

Not withstanding that this whole concept of 'development' is questionable when it comes to the perspective of Ips, it is important that the WG note that UN treaty bodies have already noted the direct connection between economic marginalization of Canada's Ips with the continued alienation of lands and resources. The concerns expressed at the UNHCR and the Committee on Social Economic and Cultural Rights about Canada's implementation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Recommendations have not been substantially addressed. The process of extinguishing or conversion of rights continues to be the best Canada has to offer First Nations who attempt to negotiate. The situation continues unabated and is highlighted by recent events arising around fisheries and forestry.

While there are a few positive stories there are significant disputes over forestry in all regions of Canada, as well as hydro development and mining. First Nations grow increasingly impatient as they watch billions of dollars made by outsiders from the resources of their traditional territory while they languish in poverty

Similarly recent conflicts over fisheries have led to dangerous situations where government agents used physical violence to subdue Ips carrying out a treaty based fishery. The whole world witnessed media coverage of Canadian Fisheries Officers using powerful boats to ram the small fishing boats of Mi'kmaq fishermen at Burnt Church in New Brunswick. The Supreme Court' decision in the Marshall case affirmed a Mi'kmaq Treaty Right to a commercial fishery and declared Canada's existing fisheries regulations to be inoperative with respect to treaty fishery. Yet Canada has insisted on imposing those ve4ry same regulations and has made no effort to change its laws or regulations to accommodate that right. This issue is a major concern with respect to the right to development in several respects.

First, the lack of adequate responses to Supreme Court decisions favoring Ips to manage and benefit from lands and resources leads to extreme scepticism about the judicial system. Recent changes to the Supreme Court and a new trend towards negative rulings on Aboriginal and Treaty rights erode the feasibility of using the courts to clarify rights to land and resources.

Second, the failure of government to adequately address Ips access to land and resources to as demonstrated in the Mi'kmaq Treaty Fishery, allows confrontation and also leads to growing racial intolerance in civil society. The government's insistence that it must maintain exclusive control of the fishery, when the laws clearly prescribe that the extent of its role in managing Aboriginal and treaty rights must be justified, contributes to misunderstanding in society and feeds racism. One of the biggest hurdles to realising Ips right to development is the inability of government to let go of its exclusive control of IP lands and resources. It is important to note the issue of development is linked to the issue of self-determination.

Prof Yokota, Member of the UN Working Group:

After hearing very helpful, useful information given by various IP representatives, I feel I would like to make some statement of my ideas. My intervention has been inspired by the information given to us this morning and afternoon.

First point. The notion of development - in my view there are two different aspects. 1) Is the development of IPs themselves. We have to look at all aspects of their development individually and collectively, in terms of cultural, social, political and all other aspects of development. In the past the UNDP has developed a very useful notion of human development. Starting from 1990 they have published a report which gives not only economic development but also the UNDP human development concept, with other aspects such as education, human rights, mortality, and so on. Unfortunately these figures are given on a country basis and are provided by countries. We have been hearing about the development of IPs not only economically but also other aspects. I suggest the UNDP explore the possibilities of having human a development index for identifiable IPs so we can compare them with national averages. Then we can analyze to fill the gap.

The 2nd aspect of development is the national development of the country in which IPs live. This notion does cause problems for IPs. For example, the development projects financed by the WB and other institutions, because they have been taking valuable natural resources form IPs in the name of national development. This is why I emphasize the two forms. The first we have to encourage. The second we have to deal very carefully with, from the point of view of IPs.

Participation must also be effective and not nominal. Participation must be ensured in all phases of development from planning to implementation to sharing of the fruit. We have been focusing so much in their participation on development affecting them. It think we have to consider IP's effective participation in national program of development not just those directly affecting them. In other words, all nations should benefit from the advise of Ips for the development of the whole country. They have the right to participate in all policies of which others are also a part.

25. SWITZERLAND Mr Jean-Daniel Vigny:

Je me joins aux félicitations qui vous ont été adressées pour votre élection, et souhaite commencer par souligner un fait, qui concerne de très près le droit au développement des peuples autochtones. Dans le Palais des Nations où nous sommes a lieu en ce moment même une session du Conseil économique et social, qui devrait déboucher sur la concrétisation d'un Forum permanent sur les questions autochtones. La Suisse soutient fermement l'institution d'un tel cadre de dialogue – et vous savez Genève et la Suisse espèrent que le Secrétariat permanent de ce Forum sera établi dans ce Palais des Nations, où tout a commencé, et que le Forum pourra profiter ici des nombreuses synergies et possibilités d'accueil afin de définir les meilleures stratégies en faveur des peuples autochtones, en faveur de leur développement, dans le respect de leurs spécificités.

Le Forum permanent concrétisera une des conclusions de la Conférence de Vienne sur les droits de l'homme de 1993, où il est écrit : "Les Etats devraient coopérer pour assurer le développement et éliminer les obstacles qui s'y opposent. La communauté internationale devrait promouvoir une coopération internationale efficace pour (…) réaliser le droit au développement". On peut encore citer cette affirmation importante, qui rejoint les autres sujets dont traitera ce Groupe de travail : "Le droit au développement devrait se réaliser de manière à satisfaire équitablement les besoins des générations actuelles et futures en matière de développement et d'environnement. La Conférence mondiale sur les droits de l'homme reconnaît que le déversement illicite de substances et de déchets toxiques et nocifs peut constituer une grave menace pour les droits de chacun à la vie et à la santé." Je citerai enfin cette affirmation, qui concerne tout particulièrement les peuples autochtones, et qui intéresse aussi bien ce Groupe de travail que l'OMS, l'OMPI, l'OMC voire d'autres organisations encore : "Chacun a le droit de jouir des fruits du progrès scientifique et de ses applications. Notant que certaines avancées, notamment dans les sciences biomédicales et les sciences de la vie ainsi que dans les techniques de l'information, peuvent avoir des conséquences néfastes pour l'intégrité, la dignité de l'individu et l'exercice de ses droits, la Conférence mondiale sur les droits de l'homme appelle les Etats à coopérer de manière à veiller à ce que les droits et la dignité de la personne humaine soient pleinement respectés dans ce domaine d'intérêt universel." J'ajouterai que cette coopération des Etats aura tout à gagner à se faire avec les représentants des peuples autochtones, dans le cadre du Forum permanent.

Le droit au développement n'est rien d'autre que l'ensemble, indivisible, des droits civils, culturels, économiques, politiques et sociaux qui sont ceux de tout homme. Pour les peuples autochtones, un développement durable signifie tout d'abord la sauvegarde de leur existence, de leur mode et de leur milieu de vie, qui sont souvent menacés. Les Etats doivent pouvoir les entendre, et dialoguer avec eux : ce sera un des enjeux du Forum permanent.

Le développement durable d'une région passe par le plein respect des droits des autochtones qui y vivent, et par l'absence de discriminations face aux non-autochtones. Un tel développement implique la possibilité d'une intégration des peuples autochtones, qui ne soit pas une assimilation mais qui respecte leurs différences. Dans certains cas, la préservation et la mise en valeur de la diversité passe par une organisation des pouvoirs permettant à chaque peuple ou communauté de disposer d'une forme adéquate d'auto- administration (self-administration). Pour garantir leur droit au développement, il est essentiel que les autochtones puissent être associés adéquatement aux processus décisionnels les concernant, que ce soit au niveau local ou au niveau national. C'est ce qu'on appelle le principe de subsidiarité, qui veut que ce qui peut être décidé ou réalisé sur le plan local n'a pas à être uniformisé ou centralisé sur le plan national. Ainsi, les peuples autochtones pourraient mieux défendre leurs droits, en participant à la mise en oeuvre effective des dispositions légales existantes et en défendant leurs intérêts légitimes dans le cadre de processus de décisions démocratiques. En conclusion, rappelons en effet cette maxime essentielle de la Conférence de Vienne : "La démocratie, le développement et le respect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales sont interdépendants et se renforcent mutuellement." On doit affirmer avec force que nulle part au monde il ne peut y avoir de démocratie, de développement ou de respect des droits de l'homme si les autochtones en sont exclus et ne peuvent exercer leur droit au développement.

26. Mr. Raju Pandhara, Adivasi Ekta Parishad;

Adivasis are paying the price for the exploration and development of resources and tourism in the name of development. The majority of us have lost our language and cultural identity. The ecological system has all but collapsed due to the government of India. Many have lost our land and due to indebtedness have lost ancestral lands. In last six months, 20 Adivasis were killed by unprovoked police attacks. They were protesting against a dam that was to submerge their land. The other was against the Indian government cleaning the forest of the IPs. The most serious threat was to revise the constitution which undermines rights of Adivasis.

27. Mr Elder Joe Potts, Finnbart teaming groups (from Alberta, Canada).

Canada was voted best country in the world to live in except if you are a Native Indian. People continue to be impoverished due to the greed of the TNCs. Today the land we were forced out of enrich the TNCs. This is no different from when we were colonized. Royal Dutch Shell has emerged as king of kings in corporate pecking order. They were protested by the Mi'kmaq. We the first nations were driven from our traditional lands. The genocides were equal to the deaths of the genocide of the world wars. Then our children were taken from us. Now we face unemployment. The year 2000 we held a dance to strengthen unity. I returned determined to strengthen our people. Our peoples are beginning to have an increasing role in the economy. We have a Canadian first nations teaming group and have created an opportunity to train people to operate land mine detection systems. This will enhance sustainable development.

28. CHILE Mr Marcos Huaiquilaf.

My delegation would like to express the pleasure to make proposal related to what Mr. Yokota was saying. We feel there is sufficient output to make progress with an index of the level of human development of IPs throughout the world. Like this when making investment we could take into account risk factors. For factors to assess human development we could consider the historic demands of IPs that they be recognized. One of the indicators could be the number of states that ratified ILO convention 169. There is sufficient diagnosis to give us true level of development throughout the world.

Item 4: Two examples of how Chilean government deals with the issue of development and helps IPs participate in their own development, which they promote.

First, since the return of democracy in 1990, the first democratic government took task of integrating IPs to the country. In 1993 an indigenous law was approved, recognising 8 indigenous peoples. This law commits annual funding to Ips and gave rise to an indigenous created body CONADI to oversee development. Here, personnel from the relevant ministries work together with 8 representatives of the Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui and Atacameno. The Ips participation of IPs demonstrates our concern for their welfare. We design policies on land culture and development.

The second initiative, begun this year in conjunction with the Inter American Development Bank. It will carry out projects to the value of 133 million dollars over 5 years. The initiatives fall into four components carried out in five regions, and will mostly benefit the Aymara, Atacameno and Mapuche, directly benefiting over 47,000 families.

The first component is related to production community development, which raise the standard of living. The second to do with health and improvement of healthcare. Initiatives that combine traditional and Western medicine. The third is aimed at strengthening culture including intercultural bilingual education. The fourth is strengthening communities and training officials who deal with IPs and this is done in cooperation with IPs. The IPs will take part of the Steering Committee of this project. A second participation will take place in the zone implementation. A third will be through management and support participation community, constituted by the communities who develop community development plans. This is what we understand by development, where IPs become players and principal promoters of their own activities.

29. Ms Taira Satoko, Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryûkyûs:

I would like to make a brief statement explaining how development in Okinawa continues to be affected by the existence of unexploded bombs that still remain from World War Two.

Over 200,000 tons of explosive devices, including land mines and other types of bombs, were used in the intense battles that raged on after our land was invaded during World War Two. Of this amount, it is estimated that fully 10 thousand tons remained unexploded at war's end.

The United States military made some effort to remove the unexploded bombs during its control of Okinawa from 1945 to 1972. Although the Japan government continued this effort, 2600 tons of various types of unexploded bombs remain buried throughout our islands. At present, an average of 300 explosive devices are discovered and removed annually. However, even at this rate, it is estimated that it will take more than 60 years to rid our lands, as well as our daily lives, of the explosives left by the militaries of the United States and Japan.

As many of my indigenous sisters and brothers who live in regions affected by war will understand, hidden or buried explosive devices cause countless deaths and injuries, especially in the course of land development projects. One of the worst incidents in Okinawa happened in 1974; four people were killed and 34 more were injured, including many children, when construction on a sewage system triggered the explosion of a buried bomb. Many such tragedies take place in populated areas undergoing construction on public works projects.

Even though mine-sweepers are used at these construction sites, the accidents continue to happen. Moreover, Madame Chairperson, because the responsibility for carrying out mine-sweeping lies with local civic associations, including covering the high cost of bomb detection, public construction projects are often undertaken without a careful search for buried explosives.

We Uchinanchu cannot accept the fact that our mountains and beaches remains riddled with explosives. Not only does this situation pose a serious risk in any development endeavors, the unexploded bombs present an inescapable risk in our daily lives. 56 years after the end of World War Two, we still face these risks every day. Therefore, we cannot easily develop our land as we see fit, and the very existence of the unexploded bombs is a grave psychological burden for my people.

We, the peace-loving Uchinanchu, demand that the Japanese government, along with other governments, revise the International Convention to Eliminate Landmines to include the responsibility of governments to locate and remove unexploded weaponry, in addition to landmines. Only by revising and ratifying the Convention to Eliminate Landmines can we ensure the complete removal of what is a most unacceptable inheritance from the 20th century.

30. Ms Kanako Uzawa, The Ainu Association of Rera

I would like to share one experience of my people to highlight the importance of standards for government and corporate activities on indigenous lands. In 1971, the Japanese government announced its plan to construct a massive industrial park in our ancestral land, Hokkaido. The government announced it would build a large dam specifically to supply water and electricity to the industrial park. The dam would be built in Nibutani, on land sacred to the Ainu.

The government cancelled its plans for the industrial park. This, according to the governments` own stated purpose, rendered the Nibutani dam unnecessary. However, appropriation of Ainu land and construction continued, and the dam was completed in 1997. The government never consulted the Ainu, nor did it conduct any impact studies regarding the short or long-term effects of the dam on our culture. The government`s actions showed tremendous ignorance of and disrespect for my people.

However, two Ainu activists refused to sell their land, and instead filed a lawsuit in the Sapporo District Court against the Japanese government. They claimed that construction of the dam, and the appropriation of Ainu land, violated their indigenous rights. In its landmark decision in 1997, the court recognised the indigenous identity of the Ainu, despite the Japanese government`s long denial of our indigenous identity. The court also declared the land appropriation unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the dam looms large on the Nibutani landscape, and the sacred land of the Ainu rests at the bottom of the reservoir.

The dam construction caused a wide range of problems for the Ainu. First of all, it caused considerable social and political conflict among the Ainu community, especially among those who sold their land and the two Ainu who refused to sell their land to the Government. But the fact of the matter was that many Ainu in Nibutani felt compelled to sell their land to the government because it offered a means of escaping the serious financial hardship that most Ainu experienced in the wake of the assimilation policies of the Japanese government. Over-cutting of our forests by the Japanese led to flooding and erosion, making it impossible for Ainu in Nibutani to practice traditional agriculture. Forced to practice wet-rice agriculture at a time when the global economy made it difficult to make a living, many Ainu in Nibutani fell into debt. They felt they had no choice but to sell their land to the government in order to bring their children out of poverty.

The dam, like all of the Japanese government's so-called "development" projects and policies, has also had a negative impact on the ability of Nibutani Ainu to transmit our culture. Fish no longer fill the river because the dam changed the water temperature; places where Ainu used to gather wild plants disappeared; sacred sites that were central to Ainu ceremonies in Nibutani now lie under water. Many links between elder and younger Ainu were destroyed because we lost the places and activities that were central to their communication. This is a clear violation of our indigenous rights by the Japanese government. Of course, this experience is not limited to the Ainu people. The exact same thing happens to all indigenous peoples. I know this because of the many similar stories my indigenous sisters and brothers share with me through our cooperation here at the working group.

The Nibutani verdict was a landmark decision, but if you consider how the dam influenced the Ainu, you see the destruction of our community on several levels. Also, Madame Chairperson, despite the verdict, the Japanese government still has not recognized the indigenous identity of the Ainu, nor has the government acknowledged its role in the historical processes that violate our indigenous rights. The only way to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples will not be violated is to respect our right, as nations and peoples, to determine our own course of social, economic, and cultural development, as provided for in Article 1 of the International Conventions on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights.

31. Mr Lal Thanhawii Zo Reunification Organisation:

We are hill tribal peoples residing in India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Our country had been defined 'as being those along the frontier of India which are neither part of India, nor Burma, nor any Indian State, nor any foreign states. These areas are subsidized and the Governor General's relation with the inhabitants are regulated by sanads, custom or usage. In the matter of internal administration, the areas are largely left to themselves'.

The Zo are victims of British colonialisation. Once a free and independent nation, now we have acquired new national identity as Indians, Myanmarese or Bangladeshis after the divided Zo country was acceded respectively to those states in 1947-48. We are now a very small minority in these states and are in danger of being marginalized and further decimated. Talking about the right to development, the Zo's basic fundamental rights to reunification fails to gain meaningful political response.

Developmental activities have been making its presence felt in Zo areas. Unfortunately some government development projects have done more harm than good. The Kapdai dam was built by Pakistan in 1964, inundating 40% of the tribal valley lands in the CHT. Over 100,000 Ips lost their homes and half of them became landless refugees for good.

The jhum cultivation system differentiates the Zo from other communities and is part of their social and cultural life. It may have some disadvantages but banning it would lead to the demise of our traditional social and cultural life. Continuous process of logging is taking high toll on the environment. Hydro electric projects, while they offer some benefits for development, means more tribal lands are being sacrificed for development. In Tuiral and Tuivai about 4721 square kms have been acquired for such projects.

Construction of dams and logging of trees, and banning the Zo cultivation processes are part of the development process of the modern world. But the need to provide sufficient safeguards to protect and preserve the interests of IPs should not be lost sight of. Protection of wild life, concerns about the environment are burning issues for modern governments, but what about human issues and the interests of tribal peoples? A policy program which attaches importance to preservation of wildlife and environment but fails to address basic human values concerning the Zo cannot be termed sustainable development. I request a process of reunification of the Zo under one administrative unit.

32. Mr Hjalmar Dahl, Inuit Circumpolar Conference:

We are an international organisation representing approx 152,000 Inuit in Greenland, Canadian Arctic, Alsaka and Chukotka in the Russian Federation. The right to development is one of the most important aspects in an existing society where relationships between human rights, peace and development are in existence in harmony with each other. None of these aspects are timely realizable in isolation from one another.

The UN GA resolution 41/128 of Dec 4, 1986 regarding the Declaration on the Right to Development recalls the rights of people to self-determinaton with the right to freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Above mentioned aspects are also the rights of IPs as peoples, which has to be recognized by the world community. It is a historic fact that IPs are all too often denied the rights to their own economic, cultural and political development even though we as peoples, collectively and individually are active subjects of the right to development.

Basic to the right to development is the undisturbed possession of Indigenous homelands. I would like to draw your attention to the Thule case in Greenland which has now reached the Supreme Court in Denmark. It deals with the taking from the Inughuit, also known as the Thule tribe, of a huge tract of land at the center of their hunting territory, their forced relocation and their claim for compensation. At the level of the 1st instance the court found the Inughuit to be a people in the sense of ILO convention 169 at the time of taking their territory in 1951-53. Despite this, the Danish government claims that they are today fully integrated and by some strange mechanism no longer is an indigenous people.

The official policy of Denmark has consistently urged avoiding the definitional issue as unproductive and sterile and advocated a broad and inclusive view of IPs. Yet at home Denmark attempts to define away the Inughuit and their IP rights. We urge the WG to take not of this double standard. The denial of the integrity and identity of the Inughuit is a barrier to their development on their own terms.

A second issue is that US plans to develop their 'national missile defense' in the area. This will mean new military infrastructure in several places across the arctic, the first planned for a US Air Force base in northern Greenland.

We, the Innuit have developed, through our principles and Elements for a comprehensive Arctic Policy, several statements about peace, disarmament and development which clearly show our people want us to be very very cautious about the NMD. We want the international community to understand that these kind of projects will not create peace but fear and stop current developments towards peaceful relationship among peoples all over the world. We do not want the establishment of the NMD. We want peace.

33. Mr Samuel Makhale Tshifhiwa, Dabalorivhunwa Patriotic Front:

I will talk about IPs in a multivalent society and how situation could impact on their right to development. In most cases IPs are in the minority and the tendency is for governments to oppress them and discriminate against them. In a multivalent society we anticipate a government that is representative of its demographic make up, but in most cases governments are not representative of all of their peoples. To clarify the concept of 'multivalent society' will shed light on the gist of this discourse.

Multivalent society is a state with more than one nation. It could not be a nation-state but state-nations. There would be majority and minority ethnic groups. The majority ethnic groups will deploy more power, the minorities less. In some cases, the majority will adopt policies that undermine minority nations. They will also advocate impractical ideas of 'national unity'. One would wonder is 'unity in diversity' is practically possible. The ideal of unity in diversity is a political ploy to undermine cultures, languages and national identities of minority groups in a given state. The reason why we are saying this is that the dominant cultures shall dominate minority cultures to an extent of cultural assimilation and minority extinction.

In political representation, minorities are not sufficiently represented in political party structures and government. Dominant ethnic groups shall lead and control major political parties giving them a chance to control the government of a given country.

We are thinking of a political situation that must accommodate all ethnic groups in a country and must be proportionally or equally represented in the National Assembly or Cabinet. Only then will all be fairly represented reflecting the demography.

We believe that IPs rights to development should take cognizance of the following. Ips must have the right to form political organisations and also be funded, as political parties by governments. The right to territories, including the recovery and demarcation of territories must be recognized by the UN. Indigenous forms of government should be recognised to ensure development. Indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights under international law and principles should be promoted and strengthened. Legal assistance and technical training should be promoted, as should education, culture, art, religion, philosophies, literature and sciences of IP nations. Return of sacred sights and artifacts to IPs. It needs not be overemphasised that Ips have the right to self-determination. The IMF and WB have to play a meaningful role to ensure multi faceted development of IPs. It is inadvisable to impose macroeconomic policies to the recipient IP countries as this hinders development. Our meeting should not end up as mere talk shops.

34. Mr Nepuni Piku International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests:

postponed

35. UNESCO Mr Georges Malempre.

UNESCO pleased on creation of the Permanent Forum and with the appointment of a SR.

Education in the 21st century should not only favor learning but also to do the act of learning. To learn should be based on shared universal values and learning to live together - a question at the heart of the conference.

The international decade of IPs in 1994 gave a new impetus to the activities of the UNESCO to promote the rights and development of IPs. However UNESCO is aware that despite efforts made, IPs are still too often marginalized. UNESCO is well placed to stress the imperative of shared and equal human development, an essential condition for the peace and dignity of human beings. Conscious that poverty is a negation of human rights and the antithesis to development, to promote right to development is a strategic priority of our organisation.

UNESCO, the only organisation within the UN system with mandate on culture has a special role in this regard. The question of the ties between development and culture in relation to the cultural protection of diversity in the face of economic globalization poses significant challenges. At this time, when globalization is changing with ever new communication systems, it is indispensable that each culture – which shapes our visions of the world – can adapt itself, make its own paths and proceed to make the changes they find beneficial to peace and sustainable development.

.As the Director General of our organisation recently recalled 'To keep one's identity intact while developing one's capacity to express oneself. To transmit one's riches to others, to benefit from better access to knowledge, to promote creative forces, today constitute a valorisation of the patrimony of mankind:.A legacy of the past and asset of the future. Loss of cultural identity then places IPs in a cultural and psychological vacuum and is an obstacle to their social and human development.

We know that culture, with respect to diversity in cultural identity, if not the very essence of development is the essence of sustainable development, and of utmost importance to Ips. I will quote from the Report on Creative Diversity, 1996 completed for the world commission on culture and development, presided by Mr Javier Perez de Cuellar: 'The challenge today for nations who value cultural pluralism and democratic politics, is to develop frameworks which will enable cultural development to have integrating effects and for institutions to make place for everyone. This means that the value systems of Ips, their traditional knowledge about their societies and environments, and their institutions, should be duly respected. It means that states and international law must guarantee the rights of the populations to the lands on which their subsistence depends. It implies opting for appropriate systems of education, affirming their right to use their language at all levels of learning. It means they be given access to modern means of information and communication, technology and technical support, and that their right to decide themselves their own priorities should be recognised.

These principles were decided on in plan of action for political cultures for development, adopted in Stockholm in 1998. Now, UNESCO is preparing a Declaration on cultural diversity to be submitted to their General Assembly at its 31st session in Oct-Nov 2001. Its objective is to reflect on the meanings of cultural diversity in the face of the challenges posed by globalization, and UNESCO's role in this. It has two major concerns. To ensure respect for all cultural identities and inclusive participation in all democratic states. Also to contribute to an atmosphere favoring creative capacity, and empowerment, making pluralism a cultural motor for development.

Regarding our framework for action in favor of the development of IPs and partnership with them. On the plan of strategic orientation, the protection and promotion of open and multiple cultural diversity of Ips will be a major concern of our ongoing strategy. UNESCO intends to contribute to the international debate on the rights and heritage of Ips, as well as their cultural rights to gain consensus on the need for standard setting in this area. In the 2002-3 budget, one of the axes of action is the construction of cultural pluralism and reinforcing action in favor of Ips. Be assured that UNESCO will continue all efforts to promote participation of IPs in formulating national policies, paying particular attention to cultural rights.

The response developed by UNESCO for the problems of IPs is founded on the respect for their holistic concept of the world where development includes education, science, culture and communication. The organisation envisions favoring their access to multicultural citizenship.

I would like to conclude that UNESCO's actions is founded on the idea that there is no dichotomy between the passage to modernity and respect cultural, spiritual, artistic, religious and scientific traditions of IPs. UNESCO believes its possible to pledge the greatest access to these populations to new technology and to preserve and disseminate their traditional knowledge and cultural identities. New information and communication technologies can promote the visibility of the heritage and living cultures of IPs. The knowledge, cultural expressions and languages of IPs are not only a heritage from the past, they also constitute essential support to memory to activities of the future. IPs have a right to create a new pool of knowledge. UNESCO sees this not only as an opportunity to collect specific useful knowledge, but more importantly it is a source for redefining the relation between man and nature, as a contribution to mankind.

36. Mr. Roy Laifungbam (CORE (Manipur))

As this working group soon completes its twenty years of very intensive, focused and dedicated engagement with the indigenous peoples of the world, I take this opportunity to warmly commend all the members of this working group and especially you, Madame, for your exemplary and extremely significant contributions to international understanding, cooperation, peace and security.

Madame, the principle thema this year is yet another timely and challenging theme for this forum. With such an expansive and new canvas as the right to development, I feel somewhat overwhelmed and inadequate to address it. I shall therefore try to be brief and concentrate on one example of claimed development that has, over the past century, begun to epitomise human development achievements – the issue of dams as the road that leads to development and even symbolizes it. In bringing this issue before this forum, I shall try to explore some of the key elements we must keep foremost in our minds in debating on this thematic. These include, the definition of development or its paradigm, participation in decision making, implementation processes, obstacles and constraints, and new initiatives at the global, regional, country and local levels to seek ways forward.

In regard to issues of development of the indigenous peoples of Manipur and in our region – known as the North-East region of India, the neglect and exploitation of our lands, resources and peoples are a well- documented fact, acknowledged even by the political leadership of India quite explicitly, in public forums. The Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stated on 10 July this year that indigenous and tribal peoples in India "suffer from lack of infrastructure, marketing channels, credit availability and general reluctance of Government functionaries to work in these areas". He continued to state that "in the process of development tribal people have suffered disproportionately high levels of displacement and adverse impacts on their livelihood and cultural life and the programs for their rehabilitation have been far from satisfactory". We regret however that there has been little done apart from such public admission.

"With the loss of lands and territories, where is development and what is it's meaning?" is the question posed by one of our elders here today.

This elder captures in simple but eloquent words the obvious question indigenous peoples have always asked and to which we have yet to receive an honest and satisfactory answer. Our peoples' rights to development continue to be violated with impunity. Our lands and natural resources continue to be taken over and devastated by so-called development projects: dams and barrages in so called river valley development projects, monoculture plantations, mineral extraction processes and military installations.

It would take a considerable amount of time to describe the impact of these on the survival and development of our peoples. However, I will briefly focus on one crucial issue for the attention of this Working Group. Madame, the government of India recognises our region as having immense hydroelectric power potential – over 6,000 MW according to the regional office of Ministry of Environment and Forests. This has been stated for many years. Various government ministries and agencies plan to construct over 25 large dams in this strategic and ecologically precious region of Asia, the Indo-Burma region, and more specifically the North-East region of India, with immense destructive consequences to the lands and peoples. Many of these planned dams are already being built. Furthermore, we have many dams already constructed in our region over the past two decades without the consent of the peoples such as the Khoupum, Ithai and Mapithel dams in Manipur, the Dumbur dam in Tripura and many more.

I would like to re-iterate that the free and prior informed consent of indigenous and tribal peoples is not sought nor perhaps even considered as a pre-requisite. Compensation or reparation for lands and resources lost, destroyed or damaged by development processes is rarely granted and almost never is received by the individuals and peoples so dispossessed. Many conflict situations have arisen because of dams and their impact on the indigenous peoples and their territories. The benefits that were claimed to be reach the people have never materialized. In fact, so little acknowledgement is accorded this issue by the government that even pre and post facto assessments of impact are not conducted.

At a regional consultation organised by the Citizens Concern for Dams and Development, representatives of indigenous organizations, government, institutions and dam building agencies, for the first time perhaps globally, have brought out a set of recommendations relevant of the North East region of India. (Document attached)

Summary Recommendations of the Mawlein Consultation on Dams and Development (9-11 July 2001)
The recommendations, which addressed both existing and proposed dams, recommended the core principles of equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability and accountability, and looked at assessment of the carrying capacity of our territories of such destructive interventions, urgent impartial review of existing structures and their effects, thorough and holistic feasibility studies during the planning of development in our lands and the question of decommissioning of structures that are no longer seen as beneficial, and the urgent attention to be paid to outstanding issues such as displacement, compensation, repatriation and rehabilitation.

Future Implications
We urge the working group to strongly recommend as best practices such discussion and interaction between indigenous and tribal peoples and governments, inter-governmental agencies and institutions and to encourage the establishment of such participatory processes and forums on all issues concerning the development of indigenous lands, territories, resources and peoples

37. Mrs. Tonya Gonnella Frichner (American Indian Law Alliance)

In this new millennium, globalization is promoted as producing a more efficient sustainable development, but the type of development produced often is neither efficient nor sustainable for all. In fact, for Indigenous Peoples "sustainable development" is an oxymoron because, by most definitions, development demands natural resources and the devouring of the world's resources for development is not sustainable.

For hundreds of generations, Indigenous Peoples have developed a higher understanding of the technologies of plants and renewable resource harvesting, that is compatible with sustainable ecological order and can serve as a model of sustainable management and development in respect to human beings and the environment.

Indigenous Peoples' development came in the form of subsistence and still does. For example, only subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering were practiced. In addition, Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere continue to participate in active trade and commerce with each other, as well as with the United States, Canada, Europe and other nations. Indigenous Nations have an ancient tradition of nationhood that was developed long before the Europeans arrived. Traditional values are the basis for our social and political institutions, as well as our sense of place within the natural world. Throughout history, and continuing to the present day, those who are often well-meaning, have worked to halt Indigenous Peoples' ways of life, resulting in the destruction of our economic systems, among other things.

Globalization, in its present form, does not recognize the benefits of diverse systems of government and culture, but instead assumes that the most powerful countries have the right to decide on these systems for all nations and peoples. Globalization has become the new colonization for Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendations:
* We urge governments to enact legislation concerning the recognition, protection and restoration of Indigenous Peoples' lands and territories. These traditional lands and territories are the foundation of our self-determination as Indigenous Peoples. They are integral to development that is in harmony with the Earth; they are essential to our survival, our identity and dignity including our collective rights.
* We urge governments to recognize and enshrine legislatively the right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the principles and perspectives as expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
* We urge governments to adopt the Declaration.
* We demand the honouring of our treaties. Violations of these sacred agreements are violations of our human and collective rights under international law and the natural laws of the Creator.
* We demand accountability of governments, as well as corporations, international financial institutions and multinational organizations to Indigenous Peoples.
* We demand to be full partners and participants in all discussions relating to land, resources and cultural integrity.
* We urge the full and informed consent, consultation and participation of our Indigenous Peoples and Nations in all negotiations by local governments concerning gaming and the establishment of casinos on our territories.
* We urge the UN Development Assistance Framework to encourage the full participation of Indigenous Peoples and Nations in its work.
* We call for Indigenous Peoples to be parties to all discussions and negotiations within the World Trade Organization, which gives direct access to the natural resources located on Indigenous territories. To facilitate this, we would propose the establishment of a permanent forum for Indigenous Peoples within the WTO.
* We urge the World Bank to suspend its support of extracting and extractive activities on the territories of Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Additionally, we urge the World Bank to distribute its Bank Strategy for Consultations with External Stakeholders to Indigenous Peoples and Nations to ensure full participation and transparency.
* We call for urgent mobilization of the requisite resources, including financial resources to support the work of the Permanent Forum.
* We urge the eradication of poverty, not just as a development goal, but as a central challenge for human rights.

38. Mrs Ernestina Ortiz Pena Coordinadora Nacional de Mujeres Indigenas:

When women of Mexico decided to sit down to talk about our problems we realized we shared the same feelings as our families. We also realized it was time not to deplore what could no longer be corrected, but to organize the development and defense of our culture as we have done throughout history.

How we can change the current history when IPs have always been marginalized? We must change the politics of our countries. To be recognized as subjects of law and not through patronising attitudes of our governments. At present we do not one our ancestral lands nor the resources on those lands, which have been denied to us for centuries. No development is possible for us if we are not allowed to exercise our own laws. Laws recgonized at federal and state level. Our IPs, like the Yaqui, have shown we can carry out our development without sacrificing culture and also that we can take care of our resources and sustain ourselves by them.

Its important to have a transparent relationship of equality with our government but its also important for governments to ensure our communities have all information that comes out of these forums of discussion. We cannot implement policies which are not in line with the vision of IPs in our countries.

39. Mr Kent Lesbock Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council

MEMBER RESERVATIONS: Pine Ridge, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Rosebud, Fort Peck, Crow Creek, Santee, Canadian Sioux

I am speaking on behalf of the Tetuwan Oyate, Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council. This year the Working Group on Indigenous Populations has selected Indigenous Peoples and Their Right to Development as its theme. Under the Natural Law, which governs the traditional Lakota people of the Tetuwan Oyate, development is not limited to economics. It, like all issues related to the survival of our people, is dependent upon our ability to exercise our right to sovereignty and self-determination over our territory, without the imposition of colonial and alien powers designed to keep us in a position of servitude and dependency. As always, it is our duty, as the Tetuwan Oyate, to state clearly and bluntly that rights to development, rights to traditional education, rights to language, and rights to territory are founded upon our sovereignty and right to self-determination, as preserved in our treaties and in the articles of the Declaration on the Rights of the World's Indigenous peoples. Sovereignty is the cornerstone of our existence as PEOPLES under international law. This message is echoing around the world. Indigenous peoples of all continents and many nations are no longer content to stand outside international forums, placards in hand, waiting for attention. From the Working Group to the Permanent Forum to the World Conference Against Racism, we are taking our rightful place at the table, meeting eye to eye with colonial governments whose interests lie only in quieting our struggle.

No place is the power of this international movement of Indigenous peoples more evident than on the territory of our nation on the Pine Ridge reservation. As reported at last year's Working Group, our people are taking steps to exercise our rights as Peoples under international law to ensure that development on our territories is done according to our right to live as the Creator directed us to live. Our traditional people, elders, women and children, have continued for over a year and a half to occupy the previous chambers of the imposed government of the colonial power called the IRA Oglala Sioux Tribal Offices.

Our people, in declaring their independence have stated in an official proclamation that "when a system doesn't work, such as the Indian Reorganization Act political system, the only proper and just course of action necessary to insure our survival. . . is to abolish the political system in power that connects us to another government. This separation will enable us to embrace the Laws of Nature as we have done in the past generations. This is our inherent right…" In a series of provisions, the traditional Tetuwan Oyate reaffirm our rights under treaties, reaffirm the illegality of the IRA government system, reaffirm the exhaustion of remedies within the domestic system of the colonial power, and "establish the Tetuwan Lakota Oyate International Headquarters" formally adopting "the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." (The full text of the Proclamation is attached and respectfully submitted to the Working Group.) We were not made to live separate from our natural law and development must follow this law. Otherwise, we will cease to exist as a people.

The actions at Pine Ridge are not simply symbolic. They are positive steps in the direction of implementing our own Natural Law, traditional government and right to develop along the lines of international human rights law as a distinct people, with a territory, language, culture, government and tradition independent of all others. Establishment of an international embassy for Indigenous peoples is also meant to provide a center, a safe haven, for Indigenous peoples seeking to exercise the same rights, whether they be from the Americas, Australia, Africa or Asia. The traditional Lakota nation, in taking these steps, is once again assuming the responsibility of leadership and offering our alliance with any peoples whose aspirations are the same. As we did at the Little Big Horn 125 years ago, our people are willing to assume the front lines in protecting our territory, our culture and our distinct rights as peoples. That battle has not ended, although today the weapons are different. We will fight with international law in international forums in alliance with other Indigenous peoples.

There is an unstoppable movement in the world today that began in this very forum less than 20 years ago. It is a movement of Indigenous peoples demanding the same rights as all other peoples under international law. The developments at Pine Ridge echo this movement and will not be stopped. Nothing less than the full and complete achievement of these rights will end our journey within international forums for we know that Natural Law which is reflected in the founding documents of the United Nations, justice, and the power of the Canunpa (the Pipe) are ultimately our most powerful weapons. This movement is dedicated to the honor of our ancestors who fought the same battles. It is dedicated to our generations to come, for whom we fight the battle. And, it is dedicated to those who will ally with us in assuring that Lakota people and all Indigenous peoples will, in the words of our leader Tony Black Feather, have justice in the eyes of the world. Wopila. Mitaku Oyasin.

40. Mr Mario Agreda, CAPAJ:

Don't rob don't kill don't be lazy

Our org participated in the joint declaration on the right to development that the Indigenous caucus adopted by consensus. We endorse this effort and we ask you to keep it in mind in you report.

Colonization: We know that conflicts on mother earth are fuelled by rich people who buy oil, banks, hydroelectrics, roads, telephone companies, backed by armies, who lose all the battle against foreigners and only win them against their own people

According to UNCTAD, a UN organ, the profits of Spanish companies in A in 1999 Argentina reached 16,000 million dollars, and the Banco Bilbao Viscaya gained a net of 1000 million pesetas daily. Is this colonialism or is it not? Spain has become as it had 500 years ago the creator of slaves of all our continent.

Experts are no reference to the Abya Yala people because of the conceptual chasms between them and our communities. A culture can only be understood in its own terms and not from academic perspective. There's a bottleneck which does not permit us to advance. The saviours and protectors of Indians. Most of them just divide our communities for their information comes from the states and these define the politics of our peoples . We will continue hungry and discriminated if we do not build liberated policy structures, stable dynamic organisations. Sitting beside Neslon Mandela he was heard to mutter 'The struggle for the liberation of our people does not consist so much in liberating the blacks from slavery but in liberating the white from fear. Tupac Katari, in the Cordilleras of the Andes I exclaim: We are back and we are millions.

41. Mr Tomas Alarcon Parliamento Aymara.

Its an honor to talk to the WG on behalf of the Parliament of the Qullana Aymara, representative organ of the Ayamaras in Peru, Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. On behalf of development they have impoverished the IPs of the Andes. Development for us has a different meaning. For us it means to take care of our land and live in harmony with our land and to live happily. This is what development means to us, not the accumulation of wealth.

Our parliament is very concerned because mother earth is aging fast because of mining exploitation. Also because of agricultural monopoly and irrational use has degraded much of it into disuse. If you add more damage such as drilling of deep wells and other injuries, such as oil extraction without any care for our lands, just for enriching themselves, this has led to reduction of our economic resources, condemning us to starvation. Faced with these problems, the PPQA is organizing our Aymara people recognizing that the best solution to these conflicts is devolution, corresponding to the right to fee self determination. To be recognized as such and control our natural territories which for us is our mother earth. The Qullana Aymara people is not prepared to give up. Please include the caucus declaration document in your report.

42. Mr Darrel Brown, Aboriginal Business Leader:

Thank you Madam Chair, my name is Darrell Brown, I am Metis and I represent an organization called Aboriginal Business Leaders and Entrepreneurs based in Winnipeg, Canada. Aboriginal Business Leaders & Entrepreneurs is a 6-year-old group of indigenous business owners who believe very strongly in the rights of self-determination for indigenous peoples. We have established our businesses by working in the indigenous markets and we know this trend is building worldwide. Indigenous businesses worldwide are ready to take back the economy and reestablish their traditional trading relationships that were interrupted by the erection of arbitrary boarders and internal and external regulations. In conjunction with this year's theme “Indigenous peoples and their right to development, including their right to participate in development affecting them” I am pleased to announce an International Indigenous to Indigenous Trade Summit to be held in Winnipeg, Canada May 7-9,2003.

This Indigenous Trade Summit will bring together 1000 of the world's indigenous businesses with a view to establishing indigenous trade of goods, services and knowledge. I invite the distinguished participants of this year's Working Group on Indigenous Populations to hear more about this event in our presentation scheduled for Friday, July 27,2001 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 22. Thank you.

43. Mr Darren Godwell, Lumbu Indigenous Community Foundation of Australia:

The deliberations of this working group have considered many pressing issues that influence the lives and well-being of Indigneous peoples from around the world. As the working group continues it work into this new millenium we are presented with the opportunity to examine the topic of indigenous peoples and our right to development.

I would like to extend a point made yesterday by Chief Willie Littlechild that highlighted the significant role indigenous young people and youth will play in every effort to build sustainable models of development. In Australia up to 70% of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is under the age of twenty-five (25) years. This high proportion of young people is a shared characteristic of indigenous populations and developing nations around the world. This fact has implications for those who seek to create sustainable positive change in the lives of our peoples. Indigenous peoples share the oldest living traditions on the planet and yet our future is in the hands of some of the youngest peoples in our societies.

This year's meeting is paying particular attention to the theme of 'Indigenous peoples and (our) right to development'. I would welcome initiatives that consider the ways and means to engage, enlist and empower the young peoples of our communities to participate fully in development processes, including meetings such as this week's. At one level, the struggles of indigenous peoples around the world is mediated by access to information, expertise, experience and capacity. While these structural factors are easy to identify they often prove harder to change. This challenge of change is the essence of our struggle.

In the fight for survival and justice we have long understood the advantage of making allies and building alliances around our campaigns. Much effort has been invested in building networks around the world to assist. Many people have worked to build international coalitions to raise awareness of our issues. Much effort has been invested in building the networks and resources outside of our communities. I respectively suggest that we should remain mindful of efforts to build those networks within our communities.

The wisdom of our Elders identified that the most precious network within our communities is the network that holds the future in their hands - I refer to young people and the youth of our communities. At this forum, and the many others that exist within the international community, I lend my support to a sustained effort to extend existing initiatives and to develop additional strategies that build the capacities of our young peoples to contribute and control the processes of development. At the local and international level strategies to inform, train and engage indigenous young people should be considered a critical investment in our future. With such a large proportion of our populations being comprised of young people we are wise to recognise that the future progress of our ideals and ambitions within development rests with the young people of today. It is time for us to increase our investments in our young people - the effectiveness and appropriateness of our future development processes will depend upon it..

Intervention from day 1:
Joint Statement by the International Indian Treaty Council and the Kuna Youth Movement

The UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development nearly twenty-five years ago. Article 1 of the Declaration states that the right to development is an inalienable human right for all peoples "in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized." Article 1 also states that the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, and "full sovereignty over their wealth and natural resources," are fundamental to the right to development.

With respect to Indigenous Peoples, the 1990 UN Global Consultation on the Right to Development stated that, "the most destructive and prevalent abuses of Indigenous Rights are the direct consequences of development strategies that fail to respect their fundamental right of self-determination." The International Indian Treaty Council affirms this statement, and calls the attention of this Working Group to the vast numbers of ongoing current examples around the world far too numerous to mention here, in which Indigenous Peoples' lands, cultures, food security, traditional means of subsistence, and very survival are threatened by imposed development in which they have no voice or rights of refusal. In a majority of these cases, state governments do little to halt the actions of multinational companies, or are in direct collaboration with them while Indigenous communities are displaced and their health and subsistence is undermined by mining, oil drilling, military operation, damming, deforestation, and toxic contamination by pesticides and other pollutants.

Indigenous Peoples are often viewed as barriers to so-called progress, and their rights and communities are swept aside with little hesitation or redress within the state systems. Clearly, Indigenous Peoples around the word require and deserve the attention and the intervention of the world community as they stand in defense of their homelands, human rights and way of life in the face of imposed development and resource extraction.

For example, since June 3 of this year the Dene Sulene Peoples of Cold Lake First Nation and Clearwater River in Alberta Canada have been peacefully occupying their traditional homelands bordering the Primrose lake Air Weapons Range. This area continues to be decimated not only by bombing practice by the Canadian military but by oil development and timber clear cutting that contaminates their traditional and Treaty lands and waters, drives away the game animals on which they depend for their traditional subsistence, and destroys the forest ecosystems that has sustained them since time immemorial. In 1952 the Dene Sulene of Cold Lake were removed from their traditional lands by the Canadian govenment with the understanding that the land would be used by the Canadian military for national defense purposes. A 21 year lease was agreed to with the understanding the after this time the land would be returned to the Cold Lake Dene community.
Instead, forty nine years later, the Canadian government decided to offer an Land claim settlement of $25,000,000, after it had already extracted billions of dollars in oil and gas from these lands, without the consent of the Dene community. The community members requested that the IITC make known to this body that the impact of these actions by the Canadian government represents "a loss of a way of life [that] has devastated our People in a very negative way economically, socially, culturally and spiritually". The majority of Dene Peoples of this area do not want monetary compensation, which cannot begin to make up for this devastating loss. They want the Canadian government to return these lands so that the ecosystem and their subsistence way of life can begin to be restored.

In this regard the IITC and MJK remind the world community that the Gwich'in People of Alaska and Canada also continue to stand united in opposition to plans promoted by US President George W. Bush and his pro-oil allies in the US Congress for oil exploration in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, the birthing place of the Porcupine Caribou herd which provides food security as well as cultural and spiritual foundation for their Nation.

The IITC and our affiliate the Kuna Youth Movement of Panama, to call attention of the Working Group to the profound concerns of Indigenous Peoples regarding the so-called "Plan Puebla-Panama" proposed by President Vicente Fox of Mexico, to "generate employment and bring social development to the poorest parts of the Americas", which are inhabited by a great majority of Indigenous Peoples.

The Indigenous Peoples of Panama have already experienced the devastating impacts of imposed development and its empty promise of prosperity for their areas. One example is the hydroelectric dam de Bayano built in 1972. To this day the Kuna communities are waiting for compensation promised by the government of Panama for flooding of large areas of their homelands, displacing communities and seriously undermining their health and traditional subsistence economies. In fact, at this time the government of Panama is proposing to build another hydroelectric project in the Gnobe-Buglé Comarca, called Tabasará 2, and is promising that it too will bring so called "economic and social development" to Indigenous Peoples.

Madame Chair, we remind the members of the Working Group, and the representatives of UN member states that Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights affirms that in no case a People may be deprived of its own means of Subsistence. Indigenous Peoples' cultural and spiritual relationships with the natural world are maintained through daily practice of subsistence hunting, fishing. We have seen the world over that these fundamental relationships, on which Indigenous Peoples food security and cultural survival are based are primary casualties of such imposed resource development programs on their lands.

During the World Trade Organization Third Ministerial Meeting in Seattle in December 1999, national, international and local Indigenous organizations and networks from around the world drafted the Indigenous Peoples' Seattle Declaration. It identified the WTO Agreement on Agriculture as responsible for promoting entry of cheap agricultural products into Indigenous communities, thereby undermining and even destroying local economies, causing ancestral lands to become increasingly concentrated in the hands of agri-corporations and landlords. Community members are forced to migrate into cities, where they become homeless and jobless.

There is an urgent need for states to establish and implement legal mechanisms at the national level, including reforms in national constitutions, to safeguard the social, cultural and economic rights of Indigenous Peoples. These include the right to food security and directly tied to land rights protections. Of equal importance is the commitment by states to fully implement international laws and standards as applied to Indigenous Peoples in this regard.

The IITC takes note with appreciation of last year's resolution of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/L.37) which calls upon the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights to "encourage studies with respect to the rights to food and adequate nutrition of Indigenous Peoples… stressing the linkage between their present general situation and their lands rights, and to develop further cooperation with the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and the World Food Progamme on indigenous issues".

The IITC also recognizes with appreciation the formal inclusion of Indigenous Peoples by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its planning process for the World Food Summit + 5 to be held in November, 2001 in Rome, as well as FAO's recent recognition of cultural as well as economic indicators as a basis for assessing food security concerns of Indigenous Peoples.

The IITC requests that this Working Group, as follow-up to the Commission on Human Rights resolution last year under "Right to Food" (E/CN.4/2000.48), include in its report to the Subcommission our recommendation that the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, as well as the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of Indigenous Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, focus their attention on the full range of cultural, social, economic, environmental, political and spiritual issues impacting the Right to Development and the interrelated Right to Food for Indigenous Peoples. Thank you, for all our relations.

Day 3, Wednesday AM, July 25, 2001
Working Group, Morning Session

Summary: The day was spent on agenda item 4. Vice President ECOSOC Siminovic addressed the UNWGIP at lunchtime regarding the Permanent Forum

Item 4: Review of developments pertaining to the promotion and protection of human tights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples: Indigenous peoples and their right to development, including their right to participate in development affecting them

44. Mr. Onsino Mato (Siocon Subanon Association)

Mentions the case of Canadian mining company TVI trying to secure mining rights on his Ips legally recognised lands, despite the objection of the local Ips. Local mercenaries and police were used by the company to secure access to the land, violent arrests ensued.

45. Mr. Wang-Voyu Chih-Wei (Asian Indigenous Peoples Act)

Tsou language: "yokeoasu na mansonsou mu acuhuu maitan'e, coveoza no hamo a'to" I bring greeting in my traditional Tsou language. My name is Voyu Yakumangana, and I represent the indigenous Tsou people of Dapangu community of Ali-Shan.

Our people face the same difficulties as many indigenous communities around the world. As we are governed by a colonial state-government, the loss of land, language and culture have always been the most important issues. Our traditional territories, which encompass mountains, forest, minerals, water and natural resources are invaded and exploited by state-government in the name of the "Development". The state-government also denies indigenous peoples of our land title, and make illegitimate transfer of the land deeds to business groups and non-indigenous peoples.

The development programs are often implemented without the informed consent of the indigenous peoples. Many mining companies obtained mining lease on the ancestral land of indigenous peoples. Or in other cases, such as the 4 national parks and many other ecological protection areas, those indigeous peoples who originally lived in these areas were force to relocate. What's more, the new inhabitations are often unsuitable for any cultivation and economic activities.

Our Tsou people and other indigenous peoples are under great pressure and many of them could barely make any living in the new environment. We were thus forced to move out our homeland and migrate to urban cities, work as cheap contract workers and have only limited resources to protect our rights to a safe and healthy working environment. Although the island has long been well known for her "Economic Miracle" where most people live in relative affluence, we, the indigenous peoples have always been living under a very difficult situation.

Since 1980, there have been many indigenous resistance movements in our country, such as demand for self-dtermination, return of traditional homeland, protection of labour rights, etc.). Right now our indigenous peoples is fighting to establish a self-governing territory in our traditional Tsou people's homeland. Starting in 1988, our Tsou people have set up the Tanayiku Natural Preserve Park, for eco- tourism as a way for economic development for our community. We hope to enable our own management of our land and resources, to fully implement sustainable development practice in our homeland.

Despite much opposition from the government, and facing much ostacles, we are working hard to make self-determination for indigenous peoples a reality. We fully support the initiatives by the U.N. Human Rights Commission to uphold indigenous peoples' right to development in our own traditional indigenous homeland.

46. Mr. Lounes Belkacem (Congres Mondial Amazigh)

We are an Non Governmental Organization (NGO) made up of 30 million people spread from Egypt to the Canaries. Economic development is a luxury we have no access to. The Algerian state is killing young people with bullets, torturing and invading homes. They abuse and rape women in Kabili. Why is this happening? Because we have been refusing to assimilate with Arabs and to turn away form our ancestral traditions. Kabili area denounces what the state has done against them. It condemns denial of right to self determination and social injustice and use of natural resources. This criminal attitude is working also against the Tuareg who do not have the wealth of the subsoil in spite of the agreements signed with states. The Moroccan government has also moved against the Amazigh. I ask to condemn the violation of linguistic and cultural rights and to declare the killings are crimes against humanity which should be brought before the international court. Linguistic rights and education should be respected. Asks for mission from Special Rapporteur to visit. Begin specific solidarity action with victims. To support the rights of self-determination of the peoples, which seems to be the only solution.

47. Mr. Pavel Sulyandziga (Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North)

We live in far East of Russian federation. I am representing Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples including forty Indigenous Peoples. Development in our communities is very tied to traditional uses of land resources. This is our way of life. 40 years ago we had 8 ethnic groups, but now we have only 4. The Taiger is being cut down and the river silted up and we are having to leave our homelands. The environment we depend on is being threatened. Because Russian market is opening we are now also facing Trans National Cooperations. How are reindeers to continue if a railway is being built on their land ? How are the fishermen to continue with the discovery of oil on their land? They are rescinding agreements recognising our lands. There will be mining on our land and there will be a conflict between new technology and our traditional life. If we are not included we cannot develop or survive. We celebrated 10 years of existence of our association. You might help or not but the problems must be solved by us. We are working on a report on the violations of rights against traditional uses of resources, and we are also in negotiation with Mr Putin. We have signed an agreement with the ministry of resources. Our association and the office of the UNDP agreed on a joint development program. But all these do not mean development they only mean survival. We want recognition of our rights.

48. Mrs. Galina Volkova (Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North of the Khabarovsk Region)

I represent about 24,000 Ips in North Russia. There are eight populations. The smallest one now has only 300 people. According to international principles we should determine our development but Russian laws do not allow this. There are insufficient resources left for us to develop our traditional lifestyles. Our interests are not taken into account when land rights are given to Trans National Corporations. We are not represented in authorities. There are many laws on territories for traditional land use which regulate what we are allowed to do. Hunters have to establish facilities which are heavily taxed and therefore smothered. The forests are logged. We do not have sufficient allocation of fish for fishing. Federal legislation: we attempt to make proposals, particularly with respect to zoning of forests for logging. We have to resolve the ownership of territory otherwise our populations will disappear. We have to take interest of Ips into account and we must have greater independence. We also need quotas of IPs represented at federal level

49. Mr. Vassil Robbek (Institute of Problems Indigenous Peoples of the North)

We live in cold region of the North Sakha. There are 3 problems of development and survival.
1 Consequences of natural disaster in our area has brought our population to abject poverty.
2 A need for greater self determination.
3 The very survival of our ethnic group.
My republic has suffered greatly from natural disasters including river flooding, affecting thousands of people. The Russian federation is working to help the victims, but it is aggravated by the harsh climate. Appeals for moral and material help. The peoples of the North have always lived according to government, but now we want to live according to our own development which we have enshrined in a document. We have made a development report, but the report has been drafted by intelligentsia rather than grass roots. Encourages government to study and approve their report. The Evenk group is threatened with extinction, the main reason being we no longer have our rain deers. Please remember this

50. UNDP; Ms. Alejandra Pero

This year's theme Indigenous Peoples and their right to development, including the right to participate in development affecting them is of particular interest to UNDP, the development arm of the UN system. As you may know UNDP's current mandate is to meet the Millennium Summit's development targets –that of halving poverty by 2015, through catalytic advocacy, development advice, strategic partnerships and grant support in the following areas:

- Democratic Governance;
- Poverty Reduction Strategies;
- Crisis Prevention and Recovery;
- Environment and Sustainable Energy;
- HIV/AIDS; and
- Information and Communication Technology.
Improving partnerships has been identified as a key element of furthering UNDP's mandate for the future. As stated by UNDP's Administrator, partnership among development actors is a precondition for development effectiveness. Therefore, it is in this context that UNDP has been pursuing its partnerships with multiple groups.

UNDP views indigenous peoples and their organizations as a distinct group within civil society deserving special attention. Reinforcing this attention has been the detrimental effect of globalization on vulnerable groups and the continued denial of indigenous peoples' human rights, particularly the right to development. Globalization and the violation of human rights have brought indigenous peoples to the forefront of the development debate in recent years.

Consequently, within UNDP's priority areas of work, there is particular awareness of indigenous peoples not because they tend to be more marginalized than other groups and often times left out of the development process, but because they have a critical role to play in maintaining, enhancing and promoting sustainable models of development. Partnering with indigenous peoples is key to preventing and resolving conflict, enhancing democratic governance, reducing poverty and sustainably managing the environment. Furthermore, a stronger partnership with indigenous peoples can be a basis for promoting alternative perspectives to conventional development thinking.

It for this reason that in the last two years UNDP has been engaged in a process of mobilizing its collective energies to understand, promote, protect indigenous peoples' development perspectives and to advocate and support a process that fosters the full respect for the rights, knowledge, systems, practices and cultures of indigenous peoples.

UNDP has undertaken a number of activities:
- internal and external stock taking exercises;
- consultations, with IPOs;
- documentation of lessons learned;
- ensuring indigenous people's participation at key global events;
- strengthening indigenous peoples' networks;
- case studies documenting the role of indigenous peoples' organizations and movements in conflict prevention and resolution.

Most importantly and as articulated by the IPOs we consulted, if UNDP is truly the voice of the poor and agent for peace, it needs to articulate a policy that specifically addresses indigenous peoples- their concerns, needs, and aspirations. UNDP is focusing on indigenous peoples not only because they are usually poor , and at considerable risk of becoming poorer, but because they tend to be subject to an historical and continuing exclusion from national political and economic development. Indigenous peoples have historically failed to benefit from national development schemes, including many projects supported by international programmes and agencies.

UNDP is currently designing a policy on its engagement with indigenous peoples framed in a human rights approach to be launched during the World Conference Against Racism, Discrimination and Related Intolerance in South Africa. The creation and endorsement of such a policy harnesses UNDP in its role as negotiator, and catalyst for change in regards to advocating on behalf of indigenous peoples, in addition to providing the necessary tool for effective engagement. It is also harmonizes the activities at Headquarters with those in the field. Because UNDP can be held accountable for its actions, the endorsement of this policy document is the first step towards building a partnership based on trust.

The overall objective of UNDP's engagement with indigenous peoples is 1) to ensure that indigenous perspectives and concepts of development are integrated into future UNDP policies, programmes and projects that may affect them; 2) to make indigenous peoples' concerns a cross-cutting issue within UNDP's thematic areas of work; and 3) to support indigenous peoples' initiatives, networking and capacity so that their perspectives are brought to bear in key human development processes and outcomes. To do so, building partnerships with indigenous peoples' organizations is key.

In consultation with representatives from IPOs and in sync with UNDP's specialized expertise, UNDP has identified five thematic priority areas for support to indigenous peoples:
- Democratic Governance;
- Poverty Reduction Strategies;
- Crisis Prevention and Recovery;
- Environment and Sustainable Energy;
- Support and development of cultural revitalization.

Of most importance to this year's Working Group is UNDP's support to indigenous peoples' participation and representation at all levels in decision-making processes, especially those that may affect their human, developmental and environmental rights. Furthermore, by recognizing and incorporating the 'right to development' in its work, UNDP will foster the full participation of indigenous peoples in its development processes; and the incorporation of indigenous perspectives in development planning and decision-making.

In addition, UNDP recognizes and supports the establishment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. As the Forum will provide expert advice and recommendations to ECOSOC as well as to UN programmes, funds and agencies, a clear position on UNDP's engagement with indigenous peoples will allow both headquarters and the programme country offices to respond cohesively to the recommendations of the Forum within their capabilities.

In conclusion, it is therefore an honor and privilege for UNDP to be part of the deliberations of this important Working Group. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the peoples and agencies win this room and beyond. Our intention is to learn and explore hoe we can best mobilize our collective actions for promoting the valuable work of indigenous peoples.

51. Mr. Jebra Ram Muchahary (Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples)

Did not speak

52. Mr. Gore Bahadur Khapangi (Nepal Federation of Nationalities)

Nepal is habitat of various Indigenous Peoples, known as Janajati. According to the 1991 census they are 35% of the population. We are disappearing and the government shows no concern. In 1998 the government recognized 61 kinds of Janajatis, but now they are trying to exclude the Newar from the 61 recognised Indigenous Peoples.

Some 150 years ago the Royal Pundit, Vijayaraj Pandey, A Brahmin by caste made a state law whose main objective was to prevent us from being educated. This law was in effect till 1964. That is why we could not be in government service till now. We are treated as untouchables in Nepal.

Now, almost all Iindigenous Peoples have now made their own organisations to break culture of silence. Indigenous Peoples have already raised their voices for land, forests, water and minerals. They are putting forward their demands for compensation from former colonisers. In Nepal, we only talk about linguistic and cultural rights but are not listened to.

Lately His Majesty's Government of Nepal has brought the Public Security Regulations (2001) which almost bans Janajati organisations. It is unconstitutional and it has seriously violated Human Rights in Nepal. The 2001 census was rigged to lessen the number of the Indigenous Peoples in Nepal. The rule of Nepal is carried out by a minority caste who are the elite head the government, judiciary and so on. There is no representation of Indigenous Peoples. There is no development for Indigenous Peoples. The government accepts loans from outside and uses it for its own purposes. Wish Working Group will make the Indigenous Peoples the master of their lands

53. Mrs. Sirjana Subba (Kirat Yakthung Chumlung)

Did not speak

54. Mr. Mutang Urud (Sarawak Peoples Campaign)

I am of the Kelabit tribe from Sarawak, on the island of Borneo. There are 24 different ethnic groups commonly called Dayaks.

I wonder if it is an opportune time for us to talk about the rights of Indigenous Peoples to Development. Sometimes I think it is a little too late for us. Already, most of the interior Sarawak is destroyed by what our government called 'Development'; which is uncontrolled Logging for hardwood timber and Palm Oil plantations. For the last 20 years, our government has not considered our wishes to stop these destructions, instead, it made new laws to arrest us when we made blockades to protect our livelihood. Hundreds of peoples have been put in jail as a result. Some are of the nomadic Penan tribes. Personally, I have been put in jail for the same reasons.

Even today, there is a blockade in the watersheds of Long Benali and Baa Pengaran in the Penan territory. Another blockade is downriver by the Iban tribes, demanding recognition of their rights to native Customary Land.

For the last 5 years, problems persisted in the Belaga area due to the building of Bakun Hydro Dam. This mega Hydro Dam Project can flood an area 5 times the size of Geneva; displacing 10,000 indigenous peoples and 1.5 million hectares of primary forest.

The government says these projects will help to raise the living standards of the indigenous peoples, but instead, its to the contrary. There is no participation or informed consent of our peoples in the decision making process. Our concerns are simply not respected. Instead, these projects are forced upon our people, which supposedly are for the good of the wider population and the country. Our minister of Development says that someone has to make sacrifice for development. We say, why has it to be the indigenous peoples? We are already poor and marginalized. We have nothing else left to sacrifice, except our lives.

It is true that we in the hinterland or the interior who has to feed the economy of the Urban centres. I recalled my community were forced to plant cash crops on their land to meet the fluctuating demands of the world market. In some 20 years, we changed several different cash crops on our land, such as rubber, coffee, black pepper, cocoa, palm oil etc. We seem to be like guinea pigs for market experimentations.

Sometimes, government claims to get funding from overseas for development in indigenous communities. Two examples I know relate to the World Bank and Japan International Cooperation Aid (JICA). These funds were used to build logging roads and bridges into indigenous homelands. This is a blatant lie.

We are not against development!
Instead, we want "the rights to participate in development affecting our people". We must set our own priorities. The government does not listen to the wishes of our peoples nor consider our proposals for the kind of participation we need.

For development to be successful, there first must exist communal power base that can effectively make decisions for the community. This was what it has been traditionally for thousands of years. This communal institution must be recognized by the government. Since independence, our government continued to erode this communal power base by getting rid of village leaders who speak of alternative ways of doing things. Or even questioning the merit of such projects for our people.

Second, we the indigenous community must have access to compensation from the destruction of our economic base, such as extraction of resources from our lands. Including access to outside private funds. This will help us to carry out research and development project suitable for our communities. In Sarawak, the government has absolute power and is absolutely corrupt. There is no knowing where government ownership begins and where private enterprise starts. The families of the Chief Minister himself own and hundreds of companies dealing with developments projects in the country, even on indigenous territories.

Finally, our people must be given equitable opportunities in education and training that promote both the indigenous and modern form of technologies. Our indigenous technologies have existed for millennia on a specific and particular landscape or bioregion in a sustainable manner. This must be recognized in all forms of developments affecting us. Such training must be provided in place instead of in cities away from our communities. To this day, mainstream education for the nomadic Penan is still a challenge because it is a foreign concept, pertaining to a strange world-view. Development efforts therefore, must consider these challenges. Our elders and some experts on our communities must be recognized by government as translators to articulate our needs into the modern.

The so-called development projects are claimed to bring us jobs. In the past, we do not need to apply for job from the government. My grandmother and my father, they were never unemployed. There were herbal doctors, plant specialist, hunters and fishermen, forest scientists, agriculturalists, weather specialist, artist, counsellors and teachers. There were enough jobs for everyone and for the coming generations. But it is the discrediting of traditional economy by the mainstream media and the government, this makes the younger generations to flee to town and take up low paid and demeaning jobs. Resulting in their disillusionment and disempowerment.

I call upon our government to have the will to be engaged into partnership with our people in development. This will ensure the realization of the "constant improvement in the well-being of our people". Otherwise, forever, we will stay at the bottom of the economic ladder.

The wealth of our peoples are not in money and individuality, but in sharing and in community. Finally, it is imperative for us to have the rights to a free, active and meaningful participation in all development efforts affecting us.

55. Mrs. Jannie Lasimbang (Pacos Trust)

We have been working with Indigenous Peoples in Sabah, basing our work with Indigenous People's holistic concept of development, including cultural, juridical, argonomic and others. These are all inter connected and pursued for the good and in the interest of the community as a whole.

These years of experience have shown the difference of understanding between governments, companies and Ips. The rejection of inappropriate development is seen as ungrateful and indigenous communities are labelled 'anti-development'. One particular example is large scale agricultural developments which take away the land. In Sabah it is estimated that only 20% of the total area are held by Sabahans, of which 70% are Ips.

Indigenous People's own rights to development need to be stressed. We have been organizing to give direct input on ploicy and legal issues. Many community workshops and consultations have been held but when our lobby enabled us to get an opening to contribute and participate in dialogue, IPs are still left out because English is still used and not enough time given for us to consult our communities, as well as documents are termed classified and are not freely available. I would also like to stress that any type of development requested and approved by Ips should not be made conditional. Much needed infrastructure and services should be their right as of any other urban citizen and Ips should not be forced to convert to another religion, to be relocated or as a condition for support to any political party.

56. Mr. Tim Coulter (Indian Law Resource Centre)

I would like to address an aspect of the right to development that has not received adequate attention. This is the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. This principle of international law, in the decades after World War II, became a central principle of decolonization and an essential aspect of self-determination. This principle that peoples and nations have permanent ownership of and control over their natural wealth and resources is a principle that must now be applied to indigenous peoples.

Today practically every country on earth claims for itself sovereignty over natural resources while denying this right, in whole or in part, to indigenous peoples. We must now begin the debate with countries to reconcile indigenous peoples' right to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources with the competing claims of the state.

Let me briefly explain the principle and its background. The principle is this: Peoples and nations must have the authority to control and enjoy the benefits of the development and conservation of their natural resources. The principle in our modern law arose from the struggle of colonized peoples to achieve political and economic self-determination after World War II. Since the early 1950's the principle has been advocated as a means to secure for peoples living under colonial rule the economic benefits derived from the natural resources within their territories and to give newly independent states the legal authority to combat and redress the infringement of their economic sovereignty arising from oppressive and inequitable contracts and other arrangements.

As one scholar wrote: "The principle was originally articulated in response to the perception that during the colonial period inequitable and onerous arrangements, mainly 'concessions,' had been imposed upon unwary and vulnerable governments." Later, in recent decades, the principle has been invoked mainly by developing countries, most of them former colonies.

The United Nations has been the birthplace of this principle and the main forum for its development and implementation. Resolutions of the General Assembly were first adopted in the early 1950's that gave initial recognition to this concept. In 1958, the General Assembly created the Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and instructed it to conduct a full survey of the status of permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources as a basic constituent of the right to self-determination. But it was General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) in 1962 that made this principle a monument of international law and decolonization.

The Resolution declares that:

1. The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.

2. The exploration, development and disposition of such resources, as well as the import of the foreign capital required for these purposes, should be in conformity with the rules and conditions which the peoples and nations freely consider to be necessary or desirable with regard to the authorization, restriction or prohibition of such activities.

The Resolution further declared that:

5. The free and beneficial exercise of the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural resources must be furthered by the mutual respect of States based on their sovereign equality. ...

7. Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace.

In all, the United Nations has adopted more than 80 resolutions relating to the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Indeed, the substance of this principle has been incorporated into the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, this principle has not yet been expressly considered in the context of the rights of indigenous peoples.

It is apparent that the great principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources applies as well to indigenous peoples as to the peoples of overseas colonies. Let me state a few of the reasons:

1. Indigenous peoples are colonized peoples in the economic, political, and historic senses;

2. Indigenous peoples suffer unfair and unequal economic arrangements typical of other colonized peoples;

3. The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is necessary to level the economic and political playing field and to protect against unfair and oppressive economic arrangements;

4. Indigenous peoples are entitled to self-determination and development, and sovereignty over natural resources is an essential prerequisite to those rights;

5. The natural resources originally belonged to the indigenous peoples concerned and were not freely and fairly given up.

It will be important to consider and define the precise nature and scope of this principle in its application to indigenous peoples. What shall be the meaning and effect of the principle in regard to indigenous peoples? One objective is clear: indigenous peoples must be recognized as having permanent sovereignty over their natural resources sufficient to assure their right to development and their right to self- determination. These cannot exist as rights otherwise.

This principle must be thoroughly studied and examined in all its aspects as it applies to indigenous peoples and the states where they are located. The issue must be brought to the front of the stage. There must be frank and open debate about this issue among states and indigenous peoples. The multilateral development banks must be involved as well in the study and debate of this issue. The goal must be to find a just reconciliation of the legitimate interests of states with the prior and paramount rights of indigenous peoples to their natural resources.

57. Mr. Ferdy Duarmas (ICTI - Tanimbar - Indonesia)

Many people may have believed there was no Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia or maybe the government said that 'all Indonesians are Indigenous Peoples'. To acertain extent that is true. Our national emblem states 'Unity in Diversity'. It means we are all indigenous in our own places. The Javanese in Java, the Tanimabarese in Tanimbar. We have our own language, culture, laws, customs and religion. The central government recognised our regional rights although it has not implemented them. We Indigenous Peoples have struggled for recognition of our rights from central government and the international community. It's a shame the international community has not lent much support. I give the example of non- recognition of indigenous peoples in Asia and Africa. Of course there exists hundreds of millions of Ips. Starting this year, the government is giving the regions a little autonomy. It gives IPs the opportunity to manage our natural resources. We will be grateful if UN pays more attention.

58. Mrs. Josefina Garcia Hernandez (Desarrollo Rural Yolchika Ualistli A.C.)

The basis to achieve development rests on basic elements, health, education and water. Development also includes the generation of production , which also requires technology transfer. The Pueblo Panama plan, with the incoming Trans National Corporations, will negatively affect our culture and environment and we will lose control. Governments must take this risk into account. Until the time as we are able to define development policies we have difficulty protecting ourselves. This depends not only on the executive but also the judicial and legislative branches. These are realities which negatively affect Mexico's Indigenous Peoples. Asks UN to recommend appropriate recommendations to Mexican government

59. Mr. Joseph Ole Karia (MAA Development Project)

The Maasai live in Kenya and Tanzania. It is the most marginalised community. There are no decent schools and high level of illiteracy. Health infra structure is non existent. Communities have to survive through traditional methods of treatment, even with highly contagious diseases. We live in arid area and suffer from lack of water. The government has done nothing. During colonial era the Masaai were forced out of the hills to the arid areas. With modernisation the community has been further disadvantaged for their land has been grabbed for commercial purposes. This has left us without a sound base for food security. There is a lack of land for grazing and the youth cannot find work. Its not only the Masaai have these shortcomings. Governments do not have mechanism to involve Indigenous Peoples. Planning at the initial phases is not satisfactory. There must be unifromity in resource planning otherwise Ips will get a raw deal from the Governments and their ageincies. We call on the Word Bank and UN agencies and others to have programs that directly assist Indigenous Peoples so they know the project is their own and they have a sense of ownership

60. SPAIN; Mrs. Maria Noguerol

España se manifiesta activamente comprometida en el apoyo a la inserción de los pueblos indígenas en las metas de desarrollo deseables para la construcción de sociedades democráticas en un marco de pluralismo cultural compatible con el bienestar de todos los ciudadanos, ya que es consciente de que el respeto a la diversidad cultural y a los conocimientos tradicionales que los pueblos indígenas poseen, es decir, el derecho a la definición de su propio desarrollo, es de importancia vital para el futuro de la humanidad en su conjunto, según los postulados del paradigma del denominado "desarrollo sostenible" y del partenariado social.

En este sentido, en el año 97 se formuló una Estrategia española de Cooperación con los Pueblos Indígenas que tiene como objetivo general el apoyo a los procesos de autodesarrollo de los pueblos indígenas, con dos ejes principales : el fomento de la participación indígena en foros nacionales e internacionales por una parte, y por otra la orientación hacia programas y proyectos de capacitación, formación y educación, dando una especial atención a la educación bilingüe, a la formación de cuadros y líderes indígenas, y a la capacitación en medios de comunicación y nuevas tecnologías, campos en los que se han patrocinado numerosos proyectos desde el año 97 hasta la actualidad, en cifras que se sitúan en torno a los 6.286.000 euros anuales.

En el transcurso de este año 2001, la Cooperación Española, consciente de la necesidad de revisar su Estrategia de Cooperación con los pueblos indígenas a la luz de la experiencia acumulada durante los tres años de su ejecución y de la necesaria congruencia con los postulados participativos que la informaron desde su nacimiento en el año 97, ha emprendido un proceso de revisión de dicha Estrategia, partiendo de la base del respeto al derecho de los pueblos indígenas a definir y poner en práctica su concepto de desarrollo, así como a participar en las estrategias de desarrollo nacionales e internacionales, en el contexto de un compromiso firme de la Cooperación Española a favor del buen gobierno y de los procesos de concertación política en los que se inserten como actores los pueblos indígenas.

Otras dos consideraciones de peso en este proceso han sido el respeto a la riqueza de las culturas indígenas, visiones diversas que arropan a la humanidad en su conjunto y la especial relación y preservación que ejercen los pueblos indígenas con el medio ambiente que habitan.

El proceso participativo iniciado por la Cooperación Española ha contado con la colaboración de organizaciones no gubernamentales españolas, con expertos del mundo académico español de diferentes ámbitos (investigación sobre la cooperación, la antropología, la ecología, historia de América, el derecho, las ciencias de la comunicación.....etc. etc.), y funcionarios y expertos de la Administración española, con los que se han mantenido diversas reuniones y se estableció un Grupo de Trabajo que redactó un primer borrador de la nueva Estrategia, que ha sido puesta en común recientemente en junio pasado en Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, con representantes de 21 organizaciones indígenas con las que tiene relación de trabajo la Cooperación Española.

En esta oportunidad, los representantes indígenas transmitieron a nuestro país sus prioridades y visiones del desarrollo y realizaron aclaraciones orientadoras para la Cooperación Española en un comunicado final del cual se han dispuesto copias en la sala para conocimiento de todos los asistentes a este Grupo de Trabajo. Las líneas principales de estas orientaciones se han efectuado en el sentido de que España reconozca plenamente los derechos fundamentales de los pueblos indígenas, y el destino de los recursos de la Cooperación Española hacia la participación social y el buen gobierno, la inversión en el ser humano, la dotación de infraestructuras y creación de tejido económico, los programas medio ambientales, la atención a las necesidades sociales básicas y la prevención de conflictos.

Según los representantes indígenas estas prioridades deben tender al fortalecimiento y consolidación orgánica e institucional de las organizaciones indígenas como punto de partida para garantizar la promulgación, diseño y ejecución de sus propias estrategias de desarrollo en defensa y preservación de los territorios indígenas y sus recursos naturales, elementos constitutivos de la base identitaria y cultural indígena ,en el marco de sus derechos colectivos, con una atención principal al derecho a expresar el consentimiento informado previo respecto a sus destinos como pueblos ante las diferentes estrategias nacionales e internacionales de programas de desarrollo e intervención en sus territorios.

Este trabajo participativo de reformulación de la Estrategia española de cooperación con los pueblos indígenas continuará a lo largo de los próximos meses y se prevé disponer del proyecto definitivo antes de finales del año 2001.

61. Mr. Loyal David Hauheng (Bawm Indigenous People`s Organization)

The CHT is home to eleven Ips known collectively as Jumma. The Jumma people have traditionally practiced shifting cultivation. In the late 70s and early 80s the Government of Bangladesh transferred a large number of Bengali settlers to our region resulting in a complete demographic change. The 91 census reports Ips constitue 51% of the population, but in the south Bengali settlers already make up 61% of the population.

Most Jumma villages are poor andpeople have little access to health education and employment. The government is paying little attention to Ips. Despite the signing of the CHT accord in 1997 we are very concerned. It has been three years now and there has been little sign of action from the government. Indigenous Peoples have been dislocated by development initiatives such as hrydroelectric dams. Thes are our major concerns:

That economic autonomy of the Hill District Councils and the CHT Development Board has not been structured according to agreements; That the transfer of authority with regards to development programs, the channeling of funds and implementation has not been effective; Authority has not yet been transferrred to the CHT Development Board and the CHT Regional Council through necessary legislation and executive orders. That projects continue to be planned and implemented without assessing their likely impacts on human rights and cultural heritage of Ips, nor the natural environment and Ips rights to land and resources.

62. Mr. Mathieu Nda Yizera (Association pour le Développement Global des Batwa du Rwanda)

Le Rwanda est un pays situé au coeur de l'Afrique avec une supérficie de 26.338 km² et une population de 7.000.000 habitants repartis en trois groupes éthniques : Hutu, Tutsi et Twa. Ces derniers constituent une minorité (0,4%) et sont les premiers occupants du pays. Ils vivaient de la chasse et de la cueillette, ce qui constituait leur unique domaine de survie. L'arrivée massive des agriculteurs Hutu et des eleveurs Tutsi a eu comme conséquence la déposition des autochtones Batwa de leurs terres.

Depuis les temps de la monarchie jusqu a nos jours, les différents pouvoirs qui se sont succédé ne sont pas soucié du sort des autochtones Batwa, mais au contraire les ont discriminés ce qui aujourd'hui freine leur développement civique, politique, social, économique et culturelle.

A. situation politique
Les autochtones rwandais ne participent pas suffisamment à l'administration du pays et à la gestion de la chose publique. Ils sont toujours mis de côté dans les organes de prise des décision.
A titre d'exemple, lors de retours masave des refugiés d'avant l'indépendance du pays, une grande partie de domaine de parcs Nationaux a été officiellement occupée par les rappatriés d'autres groupes sans tenir compte des premiers occupants de ces domaines, les Batwa.
Lors des événements sanglants de 1994 au Rwanda qui ont conduit au génocide et au massacre des innocents quelques membres de notre communauté se sont retrouvés en prison alors que cette affaire ne concernait que les deux parties antagonistes (hutu et tutsi)Jusqu'à ce jour plus de 670 Batwa sont détenus dans différentes prisons des provinces et cachots des districts du Rwanda. Ils y sont maltraités et discriminés, ne sont pas visités et un grand nombre de leur dossiers ne sont encore instruits, après six ans de détention pour la plupart.

B. Situation socio - culturelle
Les autres groupes de la société rwandaise traitent les autochtones Batwa comme s'ils n'étaient pas leurs semblables. On les qualifie de retardés mentaux, de sous – hommes, de grands mangeurs, des bouffons, … et sont toujours rejetés.
A titre d'exemple, il n'est pas facile qu'un Mutwa fonde un foyer avec un conjoint d'un autre groupe. Même si le couple s'aime bien le famille de la fille ou du jeune homme s'y oppose farouchement et fait tout pour que ce mariage ne soit pas consommé. S'il s'agit d'un jeune homme mutwa, on avance comme raison qu'il ne trouvera pas la dote pour leur fille car, disent –ils, les Batwa sont des indigents.
Ce qui est dommage les Bahutu et les Batutsi prennent les filles Batwa comme objet de loisir et ne veulent pas les épouser légalement. Ils disent que les filles Batwa ont le pouvoir magique de guérir les maux de dos.

Sur le plan culturel, les danses qui jadis appartenaient aux Batwa sont aujourd'hui exploitées par les autres. Leur artisanat est méprisé.

C. Situation économique
Les Batwa, dépossédés de leurs terres, vivent misérablement et souffrent des différents maux et maladies. A part les Batwa Potiers, les Batwa forestiers vivent en dehors de leur domaine de survie; à la merci des autres groupes éthniques. Les forêts naturelles qui au départ appartennaient aux Batwa et constituaient leur domaine de subsistence, ont été converties en Parcs Nationaux interdits d'accès aux Batwa qui en ont été expulses de force sans aucune forme d'indemnisation. Il y a des projets implantés dans ces forêts. Mais les Batwa ne sont pas considérés dans les offres d'emploi.

Situation de l'après – génocide de 1994
Aujourd hui la communauté rwandaise souffre des maux causés par le génocide de 1994. Les rescapés de ce génocide et les orphelins sont assistés par le Gouvrnement Rwandais mais les membres Batwa de même situation ne sont pas prise en considération dans l octroi des aides. Comme dit, les conflits inter- éthniques du Rwanda n'étaient pas le fait dela communauté Batwa. Malheureusement, plus de 670 Batwa sont détenus accusés de génocide. Ceux qui ont réellement participé au génocide l'on fait par contrainte des autorités de l'époque profitant de leur ignorance et pauvreté. Les familles de ces détenus vivent dans des conditions tres miserables, les enfants ne vont pas à l'ecole et sont pour la plupart atteints des maladies liées a la malnutrition et des fois en meurent.
Les prisonniers Batwa ne comparaissent pas devant la justice, ne sont pas visités par les membres de leurs familles. Grâce a son projet, l'Association pour le Développement global des Batwa du Rwanda les visite et intervient aupres des autorités de ces centres penitentiers et auprès des juridictions afin que ces detenus puissent comparaitre devant la justice.
Les prisonniers Batwa ne sont pas soignés car leurs familles respectives ne disposent pas des moyens financiers afin de pouvoir adhérer a un mutuel de santé implanté au sein des centres penitenciers ou l'obligation de payement d'une somme de 500 FR soit 1.20 USD par prisonnier / année.
Les enfants dont les pères sont en prison ne vont pas a l'ecole par manque de la tenue de scolaire ainsi, matériels et frais scolaire. Les Batwa sera condamnée a etre toujours illetrée ce qui handicape notre développement.

CONCLUSION Au nom de la population Batwa marginalisée depuis des siecles, nous souhaitons:
- Que le Gouvernement Rwandais s occupe d une facon particuliere de l education des enfants Batwa et de l alphabetisation des adultes.
- Que les veuves Batwa recoivent des subventions comme c est le cas pour les rescapés du génocide et soient aussi considérées dans l octroi des aides du fonds public pour les indigents.
- Que les dossiers judiciaires des Batwa détenus pour génocide de 1994 au Rwanda soient instruits et traités afin que les coupables soient punis et les innocents libérés.
- Que les juridiction GACACA soient mise sur place et que les autochtones aient une parole dans lesdites juridictions.
- Que les autochtones Batwa soient représentés au sein des organes étatiques des prise des décisions.
- Que la communauté internationale intervienne dans toutes les activités visant le bien etre des autochtones rwandais.

63. Mr. David Yator Kiptum (Sengwer Indigenous Development Project)

It is a great pleasure, privilege and honour for me to represent my little known community Sengwer, a minority, unrecognised,marginalsied and discriminated hunter-gatherer IP from the North Rift districts of Kneya. As a result of our situation we are known by other communities as Dorobo, Mei, Cherangany – all these means backward, poor , uncivilized human beings destined for extinction.

. We are marginalised and discriminated against. We have achieved no development due to the colonial government. We were a developed group, peacefuly hunting, gathering and harvesting honey in our ancestral land until the colonial government divided us into three districts. This led to a destruction of our traditional development structure. We have now become a minority group with lack of representation at all levels. The colonial government demarcated our land as government forests. Therefore our houses in the Embobut forest in Marakwet were burnt and we were evicted. 38 years after independence we are still struggling for recognition as an ethnic group. You cannot find our names on the list. Tribal districts are important for ethnic groups. Without a district it is difficult to obtain development. At the district there is a body called District Focus for Rural Development, mandated to decide development and funding. We do not have representatives there, so we do not benefit. Only the dominant ethnic groups benefit.Without representation you have no possibility to benefit from development.

Recently, the government has given us a little part of the Kapolet forest which was ours. The World Bank is pressuring the government to stop allocating forest to the Ips. We get no support form the bank. The right to development can only be ensured if they are recgonized and have the will of the government. The right to development will only be realised if : Ips are given legal recognition as a separate distinct ethnic group ; Their basic fundamental and indigenous rights are respected by the government, There is political will from the government to recognise and implement them ; They have an active participation and capacity as leaders in their own development ; They have an access to their ancestral cultural and traditional resources such as land and forests ; They are provided with peace and security.

I humbly request the SR and UN agencies to give priority to the challenges faced by minority hunter- gatherers in Kenya ; .For an apology and compensation from the colonial government. For Kenya to include issues affecting the Sengwer in its constitution, legislation and development policies ; To recognize the Sengwer as a distinct ethnic group and alloww them to enjoy their rights as such.

64. Mr. Mikhail Todyshev (Association for the Shor People)

The UN declaration definition of development states that states bear the responsibility for development and to implement it. The Shor is an old population in Siberia which has preserved its language, culture etc. 300 years ago the first Khazaks came on our land and then the Russians took over. There is a great deal of minerals in Shor lands which is why we have become exiles in our own lands. We have large industry manned by non indigenous populations. Now we have nowhere else to retreat to. Towns have grown where we used to live but then we had no schools and facilities.

Social development: We have no facilities or financial resources to build infra structure. We have been trying to build and electricity line. When it is commissioned it will be possible to create jobs, but there is no money. The Russian Federation government is not giving us the right to development.

Economic Development. We have no right for we have no access to our own land and control of our natural resources. Reclaims traditional territories. We are not even getting any compensation form the mining much less sharing in the profit. We now have a little hope as the Russian government has signed a law outlining the principle of handing back the land to the IPs but we still have a great deal of work to do.

65. Mr. Lev Nerbyshev (Council of the Khakas People)

South of Siberia. We were already a self-governing nation 3000 years before Christmas. Our people were victims of degradation. The 20th century has been an important turning point. After we became a republic, tradition and culture reemerged. From the middle of 90s the problem of spiritual and restoration of the nation has been prominent. Unfortunately we have lack of funds. Economic influence of underdevelopment cannot be reached unless we are the owner of the resources. We want a rule that no one can start a business on the territory without consent of the Indigenous Peoples. Also want to prohibit sales of land of the Khakas. Our forests are rich and we are rich in minerals. Its difficult for us to guard this. There are other problems such as discrimination which means many youth have to leave the area. We have several objectives including the preservation of territories and prohibition of their sale; increased employment; support for young people and political protection.

66. Mr. Cecil le Fleur (National Khoisan Consultative Council of South Africa)

I am deeply honoured to preface my statement on Indigenous peoples and their right to development, including their right to participate in development affecting them, with some introductory remarks about the formation in South Africa of a newly formed unifying Indigenous peoples body, known since April 2001 as the National KhoiSan Consultative Conference of South Africa. It started at the end of March with an opening address by the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Jacob ZUMA. A few days after his speech, which is on the internet and of which a few copies are at the back of the hall, over 30 affiliated groups of KhoiSan people elected a Council of twenty representing 10 South African regions, with myself as Chairperson and Professor Bredekamp of the University of the Western Cape as patron of the Conference. It is however a NGO, without direct links with the SA Government. Our objective is unity amongst the First indigenous Peoples of our native land striving to address a set of issues not yet been attended to appropriately by the new rulers of the Republic of South Africa.

The National KhoiSan Consultative Conference held in Oudtshoorn from 29 March to 1 April 2001, also focused on the struggle for access to KhoiSan ancestral lands for economic development in rural South Africa. The Conference resolved that a KhoiSan National Ancestral land affairs Commission be established representative of the ten KhoiSan Regions to address the matter of land restitution and access to ancestral lands as a matter of urgency. Each nominated representative was requested to bring all relevant information regarding land claims of his/her region to this national meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to constitute itself, construct a database on KhoiSan land restitution and to develop strategies to tackle this complicated issue, fundamental to KhoiSan economic development.

The struggle for access to land has intensified in South Africa with the failure of the ANC government to return ancestral lands to indigenous Africans. The flaw of the negotiated settlement between the apartheid regime and the ANC is now appearing on the surface. The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 discriminates against Indigenous KhoiSan Africans by cutting off land claims in 1913 instead of 1652 when the dispossession of KhoiSan ancestral lands began. Whereas Europeans killed ten thousands of Indigenous Africans and robbed them of their ancestral lands during the past 350 years, the situation now changed drastically. There has been a sharp increase in the so called 'farm murders' where hundreds of farmers of European origin are killed almost daily in South Africa. Just as there was no law to protect Africans against European invasions and theft of African land, the current justice system seem unable to protect farmers today against ongoing ' farm murders'. Land invasions of State owned land in South Africa have started in a number of provinces. The European Immigrants and the government own more than 80% of the land, and Indigenous KhoiSan Africans do not have the money to buy back their stolen ancestral lands at exorbitant prices. This looming conflict over land is bound to disrupt social harmony in South Africa for many years to come.

The courts deny indigenous KhoiSan Africans access to ancestral land for self-development, as was the case of the Namas in the Richtersveld, Namaqualand. The Minister of land Affairs was appointed to assist Indigenous Africans with restitution of their land rights, yet she abused taxpayers' money and opposed the Richtersveld land claims in the Cape High Court. While ten of thousands of land claims were made during the past six years, only a small percentage of Indigenous KhoiSan Africans gained access to their ancestral lands. On the other hand her department offers the distribution of 30% of state land for the development of local rural communities. Financial assistance is also offered to emerging African farmers with an interest in food production.

The Department of Arts and Culture with the South African Heritage Resources Agency, in collaboration with the University of the Western Cape, which was the first higher education institute to confer an honorary doctorate on Mr Mandela after his release from prison, initiated the KhoiSan legacy Project. The purpose of this project is to engage KhoiSan communities to identify KhoiSan heritage sites throughout South Africa for the eventual development of a National Khoisan Heritage Route. While progress is made in certain areas, very little is done in other areas, which is bound to result in social upheavals, if Government does not stop dragging their feet, nor heed our call.

67. Mr. Carlos Mamani (Taller de Historia Oral Andina)

Indigenous Peoples have to continue path of development interrupted by colonialism. It must start from the recognition of the colonial system which still affects us. Its difficult to talk about development or participation, when the political system emphasises our exclusion. We are still under colonialism, it is just that we should have restitution so that we can administer ourselves. The Indigenous Peoples are disconnected from one another without a system to unify them. Participation must be based on the understanding that we are a collective people, otherwise colonialism will be practiced with false participation. Mentioned the false slogan used to attract investment 'development with identity'. We want return to the old concept of living from before colonialism.

68. Mr. Budimbu Bodard (Mission Mondiale de Refuge)

Our Non Governmental Organization for development of Indigenous Peoples in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The concept of development is multifaceted, covering many aspects. It is a quest for progress working together. There was a refusal to finance drainage in an indigenous community which led to the death of 300 people in a flood. This was a case of failure to assist people in danger. Notes discrimination in the Working Group. There is an absence of training for Indigenous Peoples elite to promote its own development and a lack of finance to develop our own resources to help us develop in an autonomous manner. Our governments are not promoting the development of the Indigenous Peoples. Suggests training schemes for IPs to be trained in health and other areas and also to get to know the UN. Also requests emergency assistance to move 43000 Yaka families to accommodation.

69. Mr. Goyo D. Cutimanco (IETSAY)

As part of Indigenous Peoples in resistance we are facing semantic manipulation of a term used in the cold war. Development meant we were to be converted to salaried workers as opposed to having our own identity. Today the role is taken over by the Trans National Cooperations. States had citizens, now the Trans National Cooperations only have clients. How can we talk about development? Is it to leave our traditions and forests to become salaried people? This is what we are trying to avoid. We have been accused of being against development simply because we defend our lives. The CIA say Abya Ala indigenous peoples are discordant elements standing in the way of development. We have been identified as the enemy of civilization. The Special Rapporteur should not wait to be invited by governments, the idea is to implement prevention, not to look at things in retrospective method.

70. Mr. Marcial Arias (Fundacion para la Promocion del Conocimiento Indigena)

There is no doubt that one should define development for it to have a holistic meaning. It does not have it at the moment. Why are they calling us poor when we have food and housing and natural resources? We all know the resources we have. They don't trust our people because they point us out as standing in the way of development. Mentioned examples of negotiation process. We have been marginalised in negotiations and this is direct discrimination. If we study international instruments about our participation it is still very limited because they do not want to recognise self-determination, so our participation cannot be full. 'Only those who have traditional style of life' This clause limits our participation, so we can only participate under that paragraph. What are we talking about? On the forum on forests left out Ips completely although it appeals for participation. We are ignored in the implementation, we are placed as concerned parties. We deserve real participation. The fact we have no right to self-determination leads us directly into poverty. In the Kyoto protocol there is not one word about Indigenous Peoples. They have thrown us out of our lands and our basic rights have been denied. We cannot talk about development without full participation.

71. Mr. Nelson de Leon Kantule (Asociación Napguana)

Development does not mean investment and cooperation from outside. It means respect for the people themselves and use of our own technologies which are not well known. Some want to sell our poverty as a merchandise. Other see us as an obstacle to the use of natural resources. In Panama Indigenous Peoples have become more aggressive because they do not want this kind of development. We do not oppose development or growth, but we have lost nearly everything so we have to express doubts and we have the right to oppose financial investments in our areas. These are lessons from our history. Not much has changed in the mercantile mentality. What forests can be negotiated for our external debts? If we sell our rich forests we will be left with nothing. We want to share but there are people who make us work but do not want to pay us. Other brothers will thank us for not using up mother nature in one go. We must respect mother nature. Appeals for those thinking of investing in their communities to take this into account

72. Miss. Maria Carrillo Segovia (Confederaciõn de Criadores de Llamas, Alpacas y Vicunas)

Over the years the civilizations of America based on collective development reached high level of development. This meant good sustainable development. Now states no longer play a role in economic model, leaving it to the forces of the market. There is a level of extreme poverty. Indigenous Peoples in Peru do not have an adequate standard of living and have high unemployment and crime. We have a loss of cultural identity. Environmental pollution of water is also a problem. Development is a human right for all people, however, we are going through a violation of this. It is only through participation of IPs that we will have development consistent with the right to self-determination.

73. Mr. Vincent Herman Mosafoa (Yapmar, Elsham, Icit, Alifuru People, Alliance of Indigenous Archipelago of Sulawesi)

It is with great fear we heard the news of Megawatti replacing Wahid as president of Indonesia. This is a threat to Indigenous Peoples back home. According to artificial boundaries created by colonial powers we are situated in Indonesia but we have never been Indonesians. We are our own people living on our ancestral grounds. The land is sacred to us. How to talk about development when our land is taken away? Who will benefit when we are not masters of our lands? How can we have development when our land is ravaged and pillaged and our people live in fear and peril. Last month Megawatti stated that when she becomes President the situation in the conflict areas will be solved by Mid August. This is a threatening statement. In other words our peoples existence as Ips are on the verge of being annihilated. When we consider the wars imposed by them on South Molluccas and Acheh we appeal to you to take the situation very seriously.Indonesia's suppressive system should be condemned all over the world. Our children deserve to live in their ancestral lands with dignity.

Vice President ECOSOC Siminovic addressed the UNWGIP at 1:30 p.m.

Madam Daes,
Thanks ECOSOC for speaking and adoption of Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples. ECOSOC has never disappointed the indigenous peoples. Any resolutions submitted by Indigenous Peoples, ESOSOC always adopted.

VP ECOSOC Siminovic:
It is my pleasure and honor to be here. Some faces are familiar. I would like to brief you on speaking at ECOSOC and also the discussion on resolutions. A number of delegations took the floor welcoming the establishment of PF. I am extremely glad that two representatives of indigenous peoples took the floor and expressed the views on matters under consideration. The resolution regarding the PF has been printed as a UN document. It will be on the agenda of ECOSOC this afternoon. I am already sure it will be adopted.
Another major step in the right direction will be taken in the course of the day. In the meeting at WCC on Sunday, I distributed the resolution. The contribution of Denmark pushing the document through is very important. It provides scheme on the regional distribution of places. I am speaking of 8 places that governments are allowed to appoint the experts. Those five elections taking place of 15 years should ensure that all regional groups will take part in the forum in an equal manner. There is also general message of support from ECOSOC I would like to convey to you. One agenda item was the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The activity goes on all year long. We will have plenty of time to hear how your developments are coming.
I think it is a remarkable achievement that you have negotiated a regional scheme of representation sending clear message that indigenous peoples fully capable to solve problems concerning mutual interests. There is a provision in resolution that if there are over 8 representatives - experts recommended by Indigenous Peoples, then it is ECOSOC president that makes the appointment. I believe it is extremely important that you avoid that. It is important message to world. It is not states, international organizations that make decisions on indigenous issues. I have been at UN in NY for 5 years and many times states cant decide and have to vote. I think for indigenous peoples and for their self awareness and for message to send that through painful, long and absolute necessary negotiations you manage to settle those issues concerning representation.

Madam Daes, Thanks to Siminovic VP of ECOSOC

Mr. Lazaro Pary, Indian Movement Tupay Amaru,
Indigenous peoples have been lobbying for the creation of the PF and we thank you for attending WGIP today. Indigenous peoples support the continued work of democratic body of the UNWGIP. We will select leaders of moral integrity.

Mr. Wilson , Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The meeting we had in May 18 and what afterwards with the Danish draft on the establishment of the Permanent Forum and the process to follow will be adopted this afternoon. I would like to thank you for appreciating indigenous peoples appointing own representatives.

Mr. Frank Guivarra, ATSIC,
Can you respond to questions asked at World Council of Churches.

Mr. Paldi, Youth Empowerment,
A large delegation of youth to participate at WCC. Youth submitted a resolution that youth come and be part of all bodies. Where are indigenous youth? Will youth have role in the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues?

Siminovic
answers the questions. If you have more questions and date sent it in writing. With regard to relationship between Permanent Forum and Working Group. WG did wonderfully pioneering job. It focused on human rights. PF widens the scope of issues at the UN. The issue of youth, education, health services provided to indigenous peoples those are all legitimate questions to be addressed at the PF. Forum should be an expert body that is pushing the bureaucratic UN structures to move. Forum gives ideas. Forum gives expertise of needs of indigenous peoples in broad social, economic relations. Therefore it is important indigenous peoples continue to push agenda. IP push questions of IP most immediate concern.
The composition of the body being elected by governments and 8 experts is being appointed by IP and I hope it will be a clean slate. It should represent experts of IP and this PF present views on decision making bodies of UN where governments are making decisions. ECOSOC consists of 54 member states. You will have representatives of states acting and not acting on issues. What has been raised on Sunday and has been raised now is financing. Financing is always a sensitive issue at UN whose budget is shrinking and not expanding. ECOSOC will not be providing financial resources. It will be other bodies at UN. At the end of the day it will be the General Assembly. It is very good if you have in mind certain aspects UN should fund. Think it over and put proposals to us. We will make sure it reaches the decision making bodies at UN. You cant influence directly but you can influence through ECOSOC.
The financial issues was relating to PF members and their work. Also, the secretariat issues was presented quite well on Sunday. Secretariat should have two important functions. First, secretariat must reflect the will exposed by members of PF. On the other hand it must be capable to find way through the labyrinth of the UN system. PF on II is obviously a body that will have to deal with UN forums and area. With regards to differences in the election basis for members elected by governments and members being appointed by IP. I do not think that in practice different systems will create a problem. It is important both systems create 8 candidates. The reason why 8 representatives are beign elected using that scheme is in the UN, the system of the groups in which elections take place is that we have five groupings. Concerning issues on Sunday, it is important to have five election rounds so all regions are represented.

Kristina Nordling, Sami Council,
Thank you Madam chair just answered my question. I would like to express that the Sami Council supports the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and that ECOSOC will urge the General Assembly to find adequate funding for the PF and its secretariat.

Siminovic
thanks Daes to organize the forum. Certainly there will be much more questions and I look forward. Welcome to the UN family.

Madam Daes
hopes to see PF be a free, democratic body. It was my vision to see development at national, regional and international level where IP, government participate as equal partners without discrimination.

Although indigenous peoples are categorized as poor by economic standards, in many cases they do not wish to be described as poor as they consider themselves rich in knowledge and culture.

Day 3, Wednesday PM, July 25, 2001
Working Group, Afternoon Session

76. Mrs. Nicole Pasche (Comité Suisse de Soutien Chagossiens)

Je tiens à vous saluer tous au nom de tous les Chagossiens. Le droit au développement est un droit fondamental qui permet à chaque peuple de progresser comme bon lui semble. Mais le déracinement et le droit à une identité sont requis pour pouvoir se développer. Or, notre identité chagossienne a été niée par les Etats Unis et la Grande Bretagne pour qui nous n'étions que des Tarzan et des Vendredi que l'on pouvait déraciner à volonté. Cette identité a aussi été niée par l'Ile Maurice pour qui tous les Chagossiens sont des Mauriciens comme les autres. Curieusement, seuls les Chagossiens ont dû renoncer à leur droit de retour en 1982 aux îles Chagos, et non pas tous les Mauriciens. Et seuls les Chagossiens doivent encore renoncer à travailler sur la base établie sur leur terre ancestrale, Diego Garcia, et non pas tous les Mauriciens. Des Philippins, Sri Lankais et bien d'autres nationalités peuvent aller travailler à Diego Garcia. Seuls les Chagossiens sont exclus car étant le peuple autochtone des Iles Chagos, nous sommes chez nous à Diego Garcia et nous renvoyer serait maintenant difficile à l'ère d'Internet. Ces occasions de travail et d'éducation perdus sont autant d'occasion de se développer ratées et des vies gâchées. En effet 80% des Chagossiens sont sans emploi et c'est extraordinaire que des emplois qui sont dans nos compétences et sur notre sol ne peuvent être occupés par des Chagossiens. Nous savons que l'agence chargée du recrutement des employés sur Diego Garcia, Anderson World Wide SC a reçu des consignes de discriminations envers les Chagossiens. Après le déracinement et notre exil forcé, rien a été fait pour faciliter la formation et l'emploi dans la société mauricienne. Au contraire, étant habitant des endroits les plus défavorisés, un curriculum vitae avec une adresse dans ces quartiers est une assurance de non embauche. Grâce à M. Louis Olivier BANCOULT, les Tarzan et Vendredi ont obtenu un vendredi 3 novembre 2000 à Londres le droit de retourner aux Chagos.
Ce droit doit être appliqué pour que nous puissions assurer le développement de nos îles et de notre peuple. En effet nous entendons prendre notre destin en main et développer notre archipel comme nous le voulons, afin que nos enfants aient le même droit de vivre aux Chagos que nos ancêtres. Madame le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs, Frères et Soeurs, merci de votre attention au nom du Comité Suisse de Soutien aux Chagossiens, du Groupe Réfugiés Chagos ainsi que de tous les Chagosssiens.

77. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Tripura (Parbatya Chatagram Jana Samhati Samiti) (Chittagong Hill Tracts)

Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development states: 'The Right to Development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.' In reality we see the opposite. In the CHT development experience is bitter. Development fails to respect our right to self-determination. The result has been eviction of people from ancestral lands, conversion of natural forests into industrial plantations, deforestation, biodiversity loss and total denial of land and resource rights to Indigenous Peoples. In CHT we have suffered from dam building and the appropriation of our forest and swidden commons and their declaration as government forests, as well as the creation of so called eco parks for the exhibit of wild life and human beings.

After the conclusion of the 1997 Accord, people in the CHT hoped they would be able to play a meaningful role in the development of the region, but racist, discriminatory attitudes prevented this. Recently ministry of forest has evicted Indigenous Peoples for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank. Further evictions have taken place with the financing of the World Bank. Racist attitudes of the government has impeded participation. The accord has yet to be implemented. Recently the home ministry has blacklisted local NGOs. Many of these have been subjected to state vigilance because they belong to Indigenous Peoples. Appeals for help in implementing CHT Accords. Requests constitutional guarantee of rights of Indigenous Peoples, and also that Bangladesh ratifies ILO convention 169.

78. Ms. Timoi (Dupoto e Maa)

We talk of development referring to men women and children and human and material resource development. In human resource development we talk of education, skills, health, housing, food water and pastoralist resource base in the broader sense. Pastoralists need the land which is the source of development. We need preservation in renewable forms. Development must be with the needs of the people. We the pastoralists of Kajiado have lost much of our lands and our development chances are hampered. We have lost permanent water points and when our resources are threatened our livelihood and survival is at stake. Lack of infrastructure means we have to travel afar for health and marketing livestock. Encourages education. The government has relaxed its stance against us but still not much has been done. Three sources of inputs for development: the Ips the state and the UN. The state has to protect the Ips against exploitation. The UN should monitor development. Resources are currently exploited without any returns. Call upon our Kenyan government to provide the needed services that promote development and the UNCHR to effectively use its available diplomatic means and pressure position to lobby for IPs to enjoy their right to development. Sustainable development cannot take place without full participation.

79. Mrs. Florida Barunte Sane (Ogiek Rural Integral Project/Borobo Centre for Borobo Rights)

We are gathered to share experience. We are the last hunters in East Africa. The colonial, post and present governments have never considered our lifestyle of hunter-gatherers. The colonial government in 1937 under the Carter land commission ruled that Ogiek had no right to be recognised as a tribe capable of a culture, values and tradition. The same went down in their legislative enactment, which was carried over by the succeeding government and remains the same to date. The Kenyan government has not come up with appropriate policies to spur Ogiek development. Dispossession of Ogiek land has impoverished them. The Forest Bill taken to the Kenyan parliament for enactment contravened the constitutional rights of the Ogiek.. Our greatest enemy has been the Provincial Administration who has used its power to evict us. Due to Ogiek minority status, we cannot elect Members of parliament therefore we have no participation in national policies affecting our lives. No seats are reserved for minority tribes resulting in isolation and neglect of important issues. Poverty is rampant. Absence of development projects in primary education, health and income generating activities. We call upon the world to assist our culture and life style which is vulnerable to land dispossession. Appeal for direct community development projects.

80. Ms. Kuuleinani Maunupan (Ka Lahui, Hawaii)

I would like to start with a quote used back home 'We no can eat golf balls' and to add to that, 'We can't eat bombs either'. Tourism and military development in Hawaii has not only displaced the Kanaka Maoli, Ips of Hawaii, but it has allowed the military , which occupies 25% of the land base in Hawaii, and multi or trans national corporations to freely develop. Hawaii has over one hundred golf courses, seven military bases on one island alone, bombing ranges, hotels and malls. This type of development has left the rich richer and the Kanaka Maoli homeless and poor. A new trend of gated communities for the wealthy is creating a further gap between IP's right to development and capitalist exploitation.

While hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars are spent to make Hawaii the playground for the rich first world countries, we continue to suffer from overcrowded housing conditions, poor health, homelessness and assimilation. Although the University of Hawaii is on ceeded indigenous lands, the doors are closed to the majority of the Kanaka Maoli. Instead of working and living on our land to house and feed our families, most Kanaka Maoli are forced to work 2-3 jobs, often in the tourist industry, in order to survive in their ancestral homeland. Also, violence against women has led to trans national companies to protect the assailants.

The Ips right to develop in Hawaii is non-existent. The wealthy entrepreneurs are given more sovereign rights and self governance than the IPs. Although we have indigenous lands, it is controlled and developed by the government, which often gives it away to businesses and non –Kanaka Maoli. The Kanaka Maoli choose to develop their own education and social system, system of justice and sustainable development. By doing so we can return to the land and grow the necessary food, provide decent housing conditions and help build a foundation for a better future. Development should empower, not disenfranchise.

I believe that the US federal and state governments, and multi and trans national corporations should follow a code of conduct or meet international standards of human rights that does not exploit or displace Ips. The Kanaka Maoli requests the US military leave the Makua Valley bombing range and withdraw from other training bases throughout the island.

81. Mr. Jose Morales (Organizaciones Tukum Umam, de SAQB'ICHIL COPMAGUA de Guatemala)

Exlpains the project 'Usakiribal, Time of Renaissance' with the creation of a wood workshop 'Trees of the 1999 storm for Maya children'.

Como miembros del Pueblo Maya de Guatemala, nosotros consideramos que el concepto de desarrollo debe basarse sobre los principios fundamentales que nos caracterizan como Pueblos Indígenas. Cabe señalar, que esta orientación no entra en ningún aspecto en contradicción con los valores que se toman como base para el desarrollo de cualquier otro Pueblo del mundo.

Podemos decir, que el principio básico que nos guía es la espiritualidad pues nos ayuda a entender mejor el respeto a la vida y a valorizar el esfuerzo comunitario. De la misma manera, nos guía el derecho a pertenecer a la tierra y a preservar esta noción como principio originario.

No obstante, seguimos constatando que nuestros valores espirituales y los de la sociedad en su conjunto, también padecen las consecuencias del deterioro de la vida espiritual y material.

Por esta razón, a nivel de la responsabilidad colectiva, llamamos a que se despierte la conciencia de que los Pueblos Indígenas tenemos el derecho a participar como actores de nuestros propios destinos.

En este sentido, instamos a que se escuche el clamor de este foro de representantes de Organizaciones, Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas de tal manera que los estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas reconozcan la necesidad imperiosa de mejorar las condiciones internas y externas favorables al desarrollo desde el punto de vista de las propuestas Indígenas. Los instamos a que adopten las medidas concretas para no obstaculizar el derecho inalienable al desarrollo de acuerdo a las innumerables propuestas basadas sobre la concepción Indígena.

Podemos señalar que para nosotros el desarrollo es tener acceso a los lugares sagrados para poder lograr el equilibrio con el Ajau (el que nos da la vida), con la naturaleza, con los abuelos. Desarrollo no es aprovecharse de los demás sino mas bien consiste en solidarizarse con los demás y ayudarlos para que entre todos tengamos lo necesario.

De igual manera señalamos que para nosotros, desarrollo significa tener derecho a nuestra madre tierra de quien por miles de años hemos sido parte, donde hemos convivido, quien nos ha cobijado y nos dio nuestro sustento pero que ahora se encuentra entre otras manos. Esto explica porqué hoy en día estamos luchando para que en adelante logremos de nuevo convivir con ella como madre que nos cuida, para que nos eduque otra vez y nos de nuevas perspectivas.

Mientras tanto, tenemos dolorosamente que señalar que hoy en día no solo nosotros estamos en una pobreza y una extrema pobreza, tanto espiritual como material, sino que también lo esta el creador y formador que nosotros comúnmente llamamos el corazón del cielo y el corazón de la tierra, la naturaleza y los abuelos. Y lo mas grave, cosa que para nosotros esta muy clara, es que también Ustedes Señores miembros de los Pueblos no Indígenas están viviendo una peligrosa extrema pobreza, fundamentalmente espiritual, de la cual Ustedes no se quieren dar cuenta y persisten en ello.

Eso es lo que nos hace decir, que todos estamos viviendo una gran pobreza, ciertamente que no es la misma para nosotros y para Ustedes. Por ejemplo, cada uno de nosotros ya no nos recordamos de los valores espirituales por lo agobiados que estamos con tantas necesidades y decadencias que confrontamos.

El desafío del desarrollo debe entonces ser resuelto por medio de un compromiso mutuo que nos lleve a trabajar de manera conjunta. Nuestra lucha como Pueblos Indígenas es un grano de maíz que debe cuidarse, que debe dar fruto pero sobre todo que puede mobilisar los dispositivos adecuados para fomentar un verdadero desarrollo justo y equitable. Un desarrollo que, de acuerdo a nuestro entender, es actualmente una de las pocas alternativas viables y concretas para transformar las relaciones sociales y espirituales del planeta.

Cabe señalar que estamos frente a una urgencia y que este proyecto debe realizarse ahora que los márgenes de la crisis todavía nos permiten un cierto tiempo.

Pero todo este horizonte podrá encontrar su viabilidad siempre y cuando se termine con las estructuras excluyentes de los estados conservadores, cuando lleguen a democratizarse y que tengamos acceso al desarrollo justo y equitativo, cuando tengamos acceso a los créditos, a las asesorías técnicas, acceso a los mercados, a la producción, cuando las transnacionales no sigan con sus planes de exterminio de los pequeños productores y artesanos, cuando ya no desarraiguen las culturas de los Pueblos.

Solo entonces podremos hablar de Desarrollo y en ese caso demostraremos que los Pueblos Indígenas si tenemos realmente todas las capacidades para impulsar un verdadero desarrollo que convenga a los Pueblos Indígenas y al resto de la sociedades donde vivimos.

82. Mr. John J. Lopez (Hoyaz de Hierba (Colombia))

All the causes and effects of problems take us back to structural problems of the community. When development is the sum total of imposed neo-liberal policies the impact on Indigenous Peoples is negative. In Columbia almost all resources have been used. Therefore all eyes are on the indigenous areas, as they are the last areas left intact for they have been protected by the communities from the greed of the market and irrational macro projects. Columbia is one of those countries with abundance and food, but now we have to import food because of single crop cultivation. Our genes are being patented and exploited by large companies. Our genetic information is kept in some north American laboratories, perhaps as an evidence of existence after we have disappeared form the face of the earth. Poverty is getting worse and wealth is not shared. In most cases the majority is excluded. They do not take part in consumption so they are trodden under foot. We can have no development when there is expropriation, massacres and fear. We believe we should re-evaluate development values and go back to the past. Sustainability must have the cultural component. We must not be objects for labour and control. Our people have to decide on their own development. It should not be carried out on the basis of fire-arms and exile.

83. Mr. Sebastian Lara UNESCO Etxea

From the devastated belly of the mother earth the Indigenous Peoples who have been made victims of development attempt to let the world know their situation. Technological development has exacerbated the situation. We are codifying people on the basis of DNA. Trans National Corporations are in favour of bio piracy. In India they even control access to drinking water. It's a mad rush to control the whole cycle of life The information society means that once more they are being excluded. The dream of a more interconnected society is becoming a nightmare. In as far as they are not in charge of their destiny and self- determination, they cannot have development. Serious thoughts should be given to closing the digital gap to allow Indigenous Peoples to participate in the world society.

84. Mr. Poncio Tayun (Consejo Tukum Unom (Guatemala))

On behalf of the council, as members of the Mayan people we believe the concept of development should be based on our values. This is the same foundation for the development of any other people in the world. In our case this is spirituality, the right to live with mother earth. It helps us to respect life and value communal effort. I appeal for an awareness that Indigenous Peoples can participate in their own destinies. I urge all to listen to the clamour from this forum, so the UN recognise the needs of Indigenous Peoples. Urge to adopt measures to ensure inalienable right to development. For us it means having access to sacred places where we can communicate with our gods, ancestors and nature. It involves helping each other. It means having the right to our land with which we have lived for thousands of years but is now in alien hands. In the meantime we regrettably indicate that today not only we are living in extreme poverty but the rich countries also are living in dangerous extreme spiritual poverty of which you do not want to become aware. So we are all living in our own kinds of poverty. The challenge of development must be solve by mutual commitment. This project must be carried out now for we only have a small margin. But this can only be made when we have true democracy and access, when our cultures are no longer uprooted.

85. Mr. Pthar Bom (Chin Human Rights Organization)

Absent

86. Mr. Jimid Mansayagan (Kebager Ked-Ingeo, Lumas Peoples Movement for Self-Determination)

I am working with the Lumad Peoples movement. I was sent by our elders and leaders to present urgent concerns with regard to development. Development is one of the urgent issues that affects our survival. Last October 1997 the government enacted a law known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, providing the right to 'free and prior inform consent'. But this provision was manipulated by mining companies and an administrative order was issued to suspend its implementation, allowing Trans National Corporations to continue mining without consulting with the IPs. At most all we get is lip services. We continue to be relocated and nothing has significantly changed for the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines.

87. Mr. Zuam Lian Amlai (The Bawm Social Council Bangladesh)

The major difficulties for Indigenous lie in the notions and implementation of development. Financing institutes have their own priorities. The best examples in our regions is the forestry projects financed by the Asian Development Bank. We came to learn about the projects long after the governments and banks had already started working. Such development cannot meet our priorities. We must not only be allowed to decide by forms of self-government systems, but we must also set mechanisms to ensure development will not harm us.

88. Mr Anil Marandi (Jatya Adivashi Parishad Bangladesh)

The largest Indigenous Peoples organisation in Bangladesh outside the CHT. We have been struggling for our basic rights through peaceful means for many years. Although development funds are allocated to our region, our people are not consulted, we have no representative in the ministry. Because of our socio economic marginalization very few representatives are elected to our local bodies. It is vital that concerned people have a say in the organisation and implementation of development projects. It is not enough for them to be consulted. This can only be possible if these people's institutions are formally recognised.

89. Mrs. Meureure Micka (Kanaky People New Caledonia)

90. Mr. Justa Cabrera de Flores(Capitania Guarani Yona Santa Cruz)

In Bolivia the Guarani is the third nation. We have gained some rights written in the political constitution and also reflected on the international side, but our rights are not always respected because of economic interests. We always have to deal with the ownership and management of lands. We lack lands. We give a lot to the state but are not recompensed. Many people have to emigrate and work in very hard situations, doing very difficult work for a tiny salary. The only reason that they work in the sugar cane plantations is debt. In the Southern provinces our brothers are virtually slaves. We have pointed this out time and again. Many Guarani colonies have been risking their life to retain their lands despite the efforts of latifundiarios and cattle ranchers. Furthermore other Indigenous Peoples are also victims of such land grabbing. We are saving the land and are guardians of the resources. We hope more will be done for a brighter future. Many institutions have had many projects, but with no results, probably because they did not listen. Development should not be linked to loss of identity. We must have full participation. We would like means to study and build our future on the basis of our culture. Then we can talk about development and not just survival.

91. Mr. Mohamed Ag Ewangaye (Promotion du Développement agro-pastoral Prodecap - Sadad)

To go to the centre of the topic, I cannot remain silent about the obstacles, which have always impeded achievements of goals. The main is the state and institutions that think only they have the right to think. When they just don't massacre the people, they at least oppress them. As an example I would like to cite the 1994 peace accords between the government of Niger and the Touareg resistance. All the content tied to development remained unimplemented because the partial autonomy which was central to the agreement never materialised. This autonomy, although central to the accord, cannot be given to the Touareg without a change in stance by the government and the mediating powers, France, Algeria and Burkina Faso. One must stop putting our problem within the context of security which gives rise to this ever present conflict. We would like above all to develop ourselves and to have the political means to think out our development, as we have the capacity and potential. Economic poverty does not mean we are mentally handicapped. In any case it should not be a pretext to oppress us and take away our lands and fundamental freedoms.

92. Mr. Chito B. Balintay (Pagkakajang Acta No Pinatubo INC. (Philippines))

It is the first time in the history the rights of the Indigenous Peoples has been included in national laws, under Republic Act 8371, otherwise known as IPRA of 1997. This law has suffered setbacks in implementation, as it was contested before the Supreme Court on its constitutional basis. Fortunately in December 2000, the rights of Indigenous Peoples triumphed when it was declared legal and constitutional The IPRA includes four major rights: These are the right to ancestral domains, right to self governance and empowerment, social justice and human rights and cultural integrity. In the view of government priorities, we fear that the implementation of our rights to development and self-determination will not be given importance. Our rights to ancestral domain that would lead us to economic, social and cultural development have never been realised.

93. NEW ZEALAND; Mrs. Georgina Roberts

The treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand and the basis of constitutional government of our country. It is a living document that provides a future basis for development. This provides a direction for future growth and development and has been expresses by the Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand as the right to development. The Maori should be consulted on development affecting them.. Te Puni Kokiri: Ministry of Maori Development is the lead government agency responsible for elaborating governments objectives for Maori development in collaboration with the Maori. Its vision statement: 'Maori leading Maori development'. Its mission 'to lead the state sector in enabling Maori to realise full potential as treaty partners and determine their own development.'

Since inception of our capacity building process last year there has been an encouraging response from the Maori. Some examples of these initiatives include:
Te Aitanga a Mahaki Trust- a marae based cultural initiative
Ngate Kap a Aotearoa Inc. – National Maori Blind Association
Ohomairingi Trust – a strategic plan for education
Mokai Community – a community development and employment opportunities.
Successful models may only stem from Maori organisations working in conjunction with government agencies.

94. Mrs. Elizabeth Gonzales Chamorro (Casa Nativa Tampa Allqo (Peru))

Incas of Peru. Thousands of young people yearn to study in university and make huge efforts to pass their exams. Graduating is just a trick to move the huge arms of the system. Its tricking them to work under the eyes of supervisors. The dream becomes a mirage. The parents will sell all for their children to study. How many of these young people do not want to be weavers like their fathers? How many no longer want to do the traditional occupations or even sow the land? Will they get up to give corn to their hens? What they are interested is in rock and they long for blond women. They no longer wear traditional clothes, they don't sing or dance the traditional songs. They are applauding events which have nothing to do with their own reality. They seek a VISA with the dream of living in another country. They lose self-respect. Our greeting is how have you been? We use the same expression to address living nature, which answers with the whistling of the wind, the chirping of a bird. The sun greets mother earth in the morning. Now it is up to us to raise the self-esteem of our brothers.

95. Ted Moses, Grand Chief of Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), a non-governmental organization in consultative status to ECOSOC

It is important that all Indigenous Peoples understand the rights which we have under existing international law. It is particularly critical that we understand that these are existing rights, and as such do not depend on the future approval of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples or any other new standard-setting activities by the United Nations.

General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 gives approval to the Declaration on the Right to Development. Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development states:

1. The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all people are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights are fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.
2. The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples self-determination, which includes, subject to relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.

On 7 April 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Commission published its concluding observations in consideration of the Government of Canada's fourth periodic report (CCPR.C/103-Add.5 and CCPR/SR.1737-1738) submitted under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil an Political Rights. It is most essential that every Indigenous People's Organization be familiar with the contents of this document, (CCPR/C/79/Add.105) which in § 8 states :

8. The Committee notes that, as the State party acknowledged, the situation of the aboriginal peoples remains "the most pressing human rights issue facing Canadians". In this connection the Committee is particularly concerned that the State party has not yet implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). With the reference to the conclusion by RCAP that without a greater share of lands and resources institutions of aboriginal self-government will fail, the Committee emphasizes that the right to self-determination requires, inter alia, that all people must be able to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and that they may not be deprived of their own means of subsistence (art, 1 § 2). The Committee recommends that decisive and urgent action be taken towards the full implementation of the RCAP recommendations on land and resource allocation. The Committee also recommends that the practice of extinguishing inherent aboriginal rights be abandoned as incompatible with article 1 of the Covenant.

The above paragraph clearly recognizes that the indigenous peoples of Canada possess the right of self- determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights. By virtue of this right under Article 1, these peoples also have the right to benefit and freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.

It is extremely important to observe that this is a decision of the Human Rights Committee taken under its oversight mandate regarding implementation and respect by signatory States of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - a power given to the Human Rights Committee under the Covenant itself.

Thus we have a United Nations treaty oversight body, that has come to the considered conclusion that indigenous peoples in Canada have the full right to self-determination under Article 1 of the Covenant. Please be aware also that the Committee has made similar findings with regard to indigenous peoples in Norway and Mexico (CCPR/C/79Add.112 (1999), §17 and CCPR/79/Add. 109 (1999), §19)

You will note that Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development is predicated directly and explicitly on the International Covenants. It follows that since the indigenous peoples enjoy the right of self-determination under the Covenants - as determined by the United Nations body with the specific mandate to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - then indigenous peoples have all of the rights and protections contained in the Declaration on the Right to Development.

These are not really debatable conclusions, they follow clearly and inevitably from the existing standard- setting instruments.

It remains to be said that the right to development is well understood to mean the right not to develop. In January 1990 I appeared here in Geneva as an expert with regard to the Global Consultation in the Realization of the Right to Development as a Human Right. At that time I said this:

I am not against development. But would like you to know that indigenous people know development primarily as victims of development. Our history, particularly the history of indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere since Columbus, is characterized by the extermination of indigenous peoples as a direct result of development. Indigenous peoples are not simply another social group affected by development policy. We are imperiled, our very existence is threatened as a direct outcome of development

Indigenous human rights, the right to life, the right to our own means of subsistence, have historically been denied to us because of development in our lands; forced development that ignored our needs, our economies, our very existence. That is the history of indigenous peoples in the Americas. But it is also contemporary history - it is still going on.

As far as my people are concerned, the debate regarding our right as indigenous peoples to control development on our lands is concluded. Those days are over. In 1990 I argued that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination under international law. Today I rest my case with the decisions of the Human Rights Committee.

We are the owners of the land and its resources. We will control development on our lands. And we will consider and judge any denial of our right to development to be ill-founded and defective in law. We will act accordingly.

96. Ms. Ujana Chakma (Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace)

Most of you are aware of agreements signed for right of Indigenous Peoples all over the world have not been implemented. The case of the CHT is one of them. Despite the signing of treaty we are concerned at the continuity of state-sponsored violence regard to development issues. The Jumma people have been deprived of involvement in development programs. While a number of development activities, including the construction of the Kaptai dam have dislocated thousands of families. Moreover military strategy based on road construction, pacification programs and other developments remain in the hands of the military. Current plans disregarded views of the community. Unfortunately the government has been insincere in implementing the treaty. The Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh are a forgotten issue

97. Mr. Nkitoria Ole Sakuda (Samoa Masaai Outreach Organization)

Among the Indigenous Peoples this is an important issue. The way of modern life is changing and marginalizing us as never before. Indigenous groups therefore need an ecological adjustment in an effort to acquire a balance in the use of resources in terms of existing and most appropriate technology. The solution towards sustainable development lies on governments appreciating Indigenous Peoples. Development theorists must involve Indigenous Peoples in laying of development strategies, implementation and operation policies development affecting IPs. Indigenous knowledge is easily applicable and still used. It can be used in treatment to be used for health since it is affordable and attainable. Knowledge can also be used in peace and conflict resolution programs. We need to secure land rights and definable land tenure systems for Ips to promote sustainable development. This is the most important

98. WORLD BANK; Mr. Navin Rai

Your travel from every part of the world, we are eager to hear you. We are also here to get a feedback on the World Bank's work around the world. From what we hear we are convinced we need closer cooperation. As you all know the World Bank has undergone major changes in the last few years. The WB recognises that Indigenous Peoples are among the poorest in the world. We have heard your views about the impact of WB projects in the past. We agree that their voices should be better heard. We want to make it clear that the WB is fully committed to addressing poverty and voicelessness of Indigenous Peoples in the following ways 1 By financing projects which benefit them 2 By engaging in policy dialogue with Borrower governments and other stakeholders 3 By applying safeguard policies 4 By building a knowledge base on development issues to be shared with stakeholders. More than 200 current projects involved Indigenous People issues. Specifically, the World Bank's Indigenous People Policy requires that: Indigenous Peoples are given a voice in projects that affect them; Adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples are avoided, and if not possible, minimized or mitigated; Project benefits are tailored to specific needs of Indigenous Peoples. Since the beginning of the policy revision process the WB has consulted broadly with a range of stakeholders including governments, IP organisations, NGOs, academics, experts and the donor community.

Judge MOTOC, Member of the Working Group:

Thanks all who have spoken. The first comment is the right to development is being used in a mainly unilateral way. We should not resign ourselves with this situation. We see that the Indigenous Peoples, despite their poverty are rich in spirit. So there are Indigenous Peoples who, we are told, are obstacles to development. Not only are they not but are actually they are at the door of development of human beings. Then they spoke not only about economic but also political and cultural development. But what happened with the implementation of these rights. The following up mechanism set up, and also the independent expert to analyze the right to development have encountered specific problems. So we should examine the right to development from economic and Indigenous Peoples point of view. 'Aggressive development' means that several rights of Indigenous Peoples have been denied, particularly right to land and natural resources. Responsibility: We speak about globalization and we see that the state is at two levels, supranational and local levels. The state does not control or says it does not control development, but it is still the state that controls and should oversee the implementation of development. All international bodies should take stock of the right to development. The main actors, the NGOs should be encouraged and they should have a permanent body in the UN for ideas to be translated into facts. We have to examine how organize ourselves. Studies should be carried out, particularly into the right of participation in development.

99. Mr. Kanakeswar Narzary (United Bodo Nationalists Liberation Front (India))

We the undersigned of this joint statement have the privilege to participate at the UNWGIP. We support the creation of a separate state of Bodoland in the Northern bank of the river Brahmaputra in the east and Sankosh river in the west of the province of Assam. We are the real indigenous peoples of the area. The demand for self determination started since 1967. The Bodoland Autonomous Council was created through the Bodo Accord singed in 1993. But still this Accord as assented by the President of India has not materialised in spite of requests to the State Government of Assam as well as the central government to hold elections to form an elected council.

The law of the lands of India as mentioned under article 36 and 37 'Directive principles of State Policy' as meant for the development of indigenous peoples are not enforceable in law courts, which affected the alienation of Indigenous People's lands and protection of cultural and linguistic rights. Even the voting rights are not given to be exercised by the Mongolians living in India. Over 160 of indigenous villages denied enlistment under the census operation 2001, and 25,000 adults were excluded from the voter's list. Without self-determination in the Bodoland, no development would come out for people in India.

100. Mr. Marcellino Diaz de Jesus (Asamblea Nacional Indigena Plural por la Autonomia)

I have come as a delegate of ANIA for the people to achieve the right of development. We are worried about neoliberal policies, which as in the past, justified in the name of nation state to dispossess us of our lands for national interests. This is the case with the Mazatecos and Chantecos of Oaxaca displaced by the dams of Cerro de Oro and Miguel Aleman. Today, we are living in poverty based on unkept promises of past governments. Forty years ago, we were displaced. Now there is a threat of a new dam that will displace us again. Such developments must be cancelled. Development policy implemented is carried out without regard for our people and is total alien to our communities. We want indigenous self policy for development to be incorporated in state policy and be sufficiently financed.. We propose to governments to support the Declaration on the Rights of IPs. Finally from this high podium we appeal to the government of Mexico to veto the indigenous law approved by the Congress of the Union of Local Congresses. To use its power of veto against this law which is counter to the San Andres Protocol and the COCOPA initiative. We need a guarantee of peace for the Ips of Chiapas and all of Mexico to have the necessary conditions to enjoy our right to development..

101. Mr. Terry Whitby (Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission)

Thank you madam chair and welcome brothers and sisters. I congratulate you on election as chairperson. let me express thank for all of your work. Indigenous peoples have the right to development. It is a specific right of the Declaration on the Right to Development. Under the Declaration the Australian government has the primary responsibility to implement the right to development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. ATSIC always believed policy should be based on rights not welfare. Therefore we urge the government to give full attention to the Declaration.

Our poverty directly results from dispossession of land, resources and freedoms. The exploitation of our land and resources is not based on our interests. Corporate and national interest are against indigenous peoples views. The situation of Ips interests are wrongly regarded as secondary to commercial interests. The 'national interest' is a contravention of the Declaration on the Right to Development. The 'national interest' becomes a catch cry when indigenous resources are being acquired for exploitation. A prime example was illustrated at Uluru. An uproar followed traditional owners' decision to close the park when mourning the death of an elder. The decision became a national debate on all major newspapers. The right of traditional owners were criticised by business groups and government because they said it may impact on commerce and tourism. In reality, they did not recognise the right of the owners of Uluru.

Ironically, it is cultural significance that is exploited for commercial wealth. The right to development means we have the right to strengthen indigenous power structures. This includes sharing decision making with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders when their lands and resources are involved. It requires our peoples are fully informed and fully consulted about programs, plans and projects affecting us.

We must convince the Australian government that our right to hunt and fish for personal use is only part of our full right to hunt and fish for economic development. We must also have the right to veto mining operations. We note that the Declaration allows that education and political autonomy, self determination and education structures are important components of development. ATSIC is giving specific attention to each in our campaign for a treaty with the Australian government. ATSIC disagrees with the Australian government's emphasis on welfare programs to deal with indigenous social disadvantage. ATSIC does not support focus on alcohol abuse, unemployment or poor housing without acknowledgement of development. Alcohol abuse, domestic violence are manifestations of poverty – but poverty is a result of denial of resources. It is these resources which should low from our right to development.

Why is money not available for development? Why is funds limited to welfare? Do we not have a right to development? Why is there no money available to do special projects for economic development and education projects?

The Australian government has to shift its thinking from 'charity' or 'good intention' to 'development as a human right'. This challenges the government not only to shift from welfare models nut to increase funds available for development.

102. Mr. Nepuni Piku (International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests)

Warm greeting to you. I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. South Asia consists of seven countries. We are more than 100 million indigenous peoples living under various governments from monarchy, dictatorship or democracy. NO government recognizes IP's right to self determination. IPs are internally colonized. I would like to express concerns of indigenous and tribal peoples that the denial of democracy, free flow and access to information in Bhutan and rehabilitation of the innocent Sharchhokps to the government vacant lands in southern Bhutan. We are also concerned about the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord's lack of implementation. Specially with regard to the functioning of the land commission, rehabilitation of the returnee Jumma refugees and withdrawal of the military from the CHT.

I would like to draw your attention to the anti-IP forest and protected areas policy of the Indian and Nepali governments and the displacement of indigenous peoples by hydro dams, including the Joint Forest Management Program funded by the World Bank. We call upon government of India to demonstrate greater will and creativity to resolve the protracted Indo Naga problem. Specifically about the militarisation and imposition of Armed Forces Special Act, 1958 in North East India. Sexual assault on tribal women across India is given impunity by the Government of India. We welcome the recent agreement between the government of India and the NSCN to extend the ceasefire and urge both parties to seek dialogue and peaceful resolution.

TThe indigenous peoples and minorities in Nepal also face discrimination with caste system. The state has denied the language rights of Ips after the Supreme Court gave an order in June 1999 prohibiting the use of local languages. To repeal the Court decision a draft Private language Bill is being prepared to bring to the parliament.

Nepalese Ips are also the victims of Maoist revolutionary warusing bonded labour and trafficing women. The 'Integrated Development and Security Project 2001' is no more than a war against rebellions.. We call upon Nepal government to exercise political will especially on Maoist war as it caused deaths of 1700 people.

Nepal government has created Public Security Regulation 2001 that deprives rights of the peoples. Nepal people are fighting under united banner of democratic Nepal. We call upon government of Nepal to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people of Nepal. The right of self determination of all indigenous peoples must be respected.

103. Mrs. Sirjana Subba (Kirat Yakthung Chumlung)

Thank you for giving me opportunity to speak in the forum. I represent indigenous peoples of Nepal. I would like to highlight the situation in Nepal. Nepal is multireligous, linguist, cultural but it is controlled by high caste Hindu. Government of Nepal included development of IP to include in national plan. However, nothing has happened. There is an increasing in gap between the have and have nots. IP are still bitterly experiencing discrimination and human rights violations. They are at mercy of high class group. IP have no influence at the policy decision level. At the decision making level, there are only 2.3 people representing indigenous peoples that represent 35 % of Nepal. Madam Chair, the employment policy in civil service is not favorable to us. We are still disenfranchised people. I have recommendations. I would like to invite members of the WGIP to study the situation of the indigenous peoples. I would like to request members of WGIP and nations to ask Nepal to take positive development. I would like to request WGIP member to donor nations to look at our communities.

104. MAURITIUS; delegation

We are sympathetic to cause of genuine Indigenous Peoples. Appreciates the work being done by the Working Group. Following the statement made by the Chagoissiens, my delegation would like to clarify: the Chagosse archipelago including Diego Garcia has always been an integral part of the territory of Mauritius, excised by the UK in violation of UN resolutions. Ever since the government of Mauritius has pressed UK government for the early return of the archipelago to Mauritius, which has never relinquished its sovereignty. It has also never acquiesced in the creation of the British Indian Territory. Mauritius has no Indigenous Peoples and there has been no Indigenous People on the archipelago. There was no one there till workers were brought over. They are not Indigenous Peoples, they are citizens of the republic of Mauritius, and they enjoy all the rights of citizens. The former inhabitants have been formally removed and banned from returning. Mauritius has expressed its concern over this and asked that the former residents evicted by the colonial power be allowed to return. As a plural society, Mauritius has always allowed the expression of identity. Moreover, Mauritius has always been supportive of its Chagoissien community.

Madam Daes, I would like to say we concluded all of Item 4. As you might remember, tomorrow is international day of indigenous peoples. There will be a celebration in the garden next to the cafeteria beginning at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Petrovsky, HCHR Mary Robinson and Madam Daes will speak and cultural events coordinated by UN Indigenous Peoples Fellow. We will immediately recommence work in Room 18. I look forward to see you all tomorrow morning including all governments. Furthermore, we have to start considering Item 5 and to make statement as concise as possible. We have over 150 speakers left on all items.

Secretariat Burger, meeting tomorrow from New Zealand government, Indigenous Caucus will meet and Special Rapporteur information and also to purchase a T-shirt to assist with funding of the party.

STATEMENT OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS
TO THE UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP
ON INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS,
July 23-27, 2001
AGENDA ITEM 4: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND DEVELOPMENT

We, the indigenous peoples, walk to the future in the footsteps of our ancestors.

From the smallest to the largest living being, from the four directions, from the air, the land and the mountains, the creator placed us, the indigenous peoples upon the Mother Earth.

The footprints of our ancestors are permanently etched upon the land of our peoples.

We the indigenous peoples, maintain our inherent rights to self-determination. We have always had the right to decide our own forms of government, to use our own laws, to raise and educate our children, to our own cultural diversity without interference.

We continue to maintain our rights as peoples despite centuries of deprivation, assimilation and genocide.

We maintain our inalienable rights to our lands and territories, to our resources - above and below - and to our waters. We assert our ongoing responsibility to pass these on to future generations.

We cannot be removed from our lands. We, the Indigenous Peoples, are connected by the circle of life to our lands and environments.

We, the Indigenous Peoples, walk to the future in the footprints of our ancestors.

-Kari-Oca Declaration, Brazil, 1992

Echoing the words of the World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory, Environment and Development at Brazil in 1992,

We, the Indigenous participants to the 19th Session of the UNWGIP state that for indigenous peoples, self-determination and sustainable development are two sides of the same coin.

Indeed, common Article 1 of the UN International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights state:

Article 1.

1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely determine their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation; based on mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of their means of subsistence.

3. The State parties to this present Convention, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall provide for the realization of the right to self-determination, and shall respect that right in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations.

Article 1 does not create the right to self-determination. It confirms that this right exists, and that it is a right possessed by "peoples". By virtue of that right, certain freedoms flow, and it is these freedoms that make up the content of self-determination.

The second paragraph of Article 1 concerns the use and benefit from natural wealth and resources, and has particular pertinence for indigenous peoples. We have the right to benefit from the resources of the land as an expression of our right to self-determination. We may not be denied a means of subsistence, moreover, we may not be denied our own means of subsistence. We have the right to use our land and waters to live by our own means as we always have, and by whatever means we choose. Self-determination protects our right to subsist in the ways we indigenous peoples see fit.

The third paragraph of Article 1 not only calls upon States to respect the right to self- determination, but calls upon States to promote the realization of the right to self- determination.

This framework can serve as a departure point in the UNWGIP's deliberations under Agenda Item 4: Indigenous Peoples and their Right to Development, including indigenous peoples participation in development affecting them."

INDIGENOUS LANDS AND SELF-DETERMINATION

Indigenous Peoples lands and territories are inextricably linked to self-determination, to our survival, to development in harmony with Mother Earth, and to indigenous Peoples identity and dignity, including our collective lives.

The United Nations Expert Seminar on Practical Experiences Regarding Indigenous Land Rights and Claims meeting in Whitehorse, Canada recognised the distinctive relationship Indigenous peoples have with our lands, and with the air, waters, coastal sea, ice, flora, fauna and other resources. The importance of the links between self-determination and the right to land are vital for indigenous peoples development and cultural survival.

Development, to be meaningful for indigenous peoples, must be defined by indigenous peoples themselves in furtherance of self-development. It is based on the strengthening and renewal of the diversity of indigenous traditional knowledge, as applied to our problems today. Indigenous peoples favour a holistic approach for development, one which builds on our respective values, traditions and spirituality. Accordingly, such an approach includes some of the basic principles of indigenous peoples generally:
- respect for and preservation of land, natural resources and all elements of the natural environment;
- consensus in decision-making;
- mutual respect for peoples' values and ideology including sovereignty over land and environment under the natural law.

The development framework of modernization, has its roots in colonialism and has resulted in the impoverishment of indigenous peoples and the marginalization our economies, governance systems, cultures and spirituality.

Indigenous Peoples have a long history of being victims of development projects throughout the world. Development depends on natural resources, and a large portion of the natural resources of the world is contained in the sovereign territories of Indigenous Peoples, and are the targets of development. The extraction of our natural resources results in a fundamental change in the natural environment, where we have culturally and physically adapted for thousands of years.

In Africa, the lands of hunters, gatherers and pastoralists were turned to wildlife and game parks to boost the tourist industry and to large-scale commercial farms which did not benefit indigenous peoples. On the contrary, it has led to depriving them access to natural resources such as pasture and water. This denial of access to natural resources subjects them to pauperization.

In South Africa, transnational pharmaceutical corporations are gathering indigenous plants for medicinal purposes, for example the Aloe Ferox which has been used by our ancestors as remedies. The Buchu plant is a well known cure for all ailments. In all these, indigenous peoples knowledge is taken without any benefit from its use and exploitation. Furthermore, the government is in the process of selling to developers, vacant lands rich in historical value, including transformation into car parks.

Many large dams in this century have been built on the lands of indigenous peoples and is a matter of grave concern to indigenous peoples in Asia. Fragile and precious ecosystems have been destroyed and entire communities have lost their lands and livelihoods to these structures. Governments dispossess indigenous peoples of their lands in the name of "public interest", yet none of the expected benefits and little compensation ever reach these displaced peoples. Many are compelled to migrate to urban slums or to territories of other indigenous peoples in order to survive. The creation of new territorial boundaries within states is used to spread conflicts and mistrust among indigenous peoples, in furtherance of State interests.

Uranium mining and nuclear testing have blighted the lands, lives and health of many indigenous peoples in the Nevada Desert, the former Soviet Union and the Pacific. Similar serious impacts, including forced displacement, are caused by military installations and on indigenous territories, such as low-level training flights over the lands of the Innu people.

GLOBALIZATION AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Today, forced upon Indigenous Peoples and Nations is globalization, which is the integration of trade, finance and information that is creating a single economy. The globalization mechanism for this to happen in North America is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is a radical experiment in rapid deregualtion of trade and investment among the governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada. Effective since 1995, NAFTA has resulted in lowered wages, worsening health and working conditions in Mexico, and the decline in environmental and labour standards across borders. Under a new Agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) free trade will be expanded into all the countries of the Western Hemisphere except Cuba. The agreement will not only liberalize trade but will also give corporations unprecendented rights to pursue their trade interests.

These economic and trade agreements like NAFTA, FTAA, MERCOSUR in the southern cone of Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) , in many instances lead to the denial of Indigenous Peoples' rights to ancestral territories and the violation of their rights to security of land tenure, including their spiritual perspectives on land and development; traditional knowledge; culture; and political and socio-economic systems.

The new paradigms of development are based increasingly on the advances of new technologies including information and communication technologies, as well as biotechnology, diirectly affecting the lives of indigenous peoples. This has implications for the intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. In many cases, depriving them of their access to and enjoyment of their own resources and their right to self-determination and self-development. There exists specific declarations put forth by indigenous peoples themselves at numerous international and United Nations conferences during these past few decades to this effect. (Examples)

This contemporary focus on new technologies is driving commercial interest in indigenous and traditional knowledge and biogenetic resources. The loss of the sacred in modern life, challenges Indigenous Peoples to be fully conscious of the threats and opportunities posed by modern science and technology while continuously renewing our knowledge and sprituality and renovating our technologies to address contemporary social and ecological problems.

ON FREE AND PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

In the context of self-determination of indigenous peoples, self-development and our free and prior informed consent to development projects and plans affecting us are fundamental principles in promoting our rights and welfare in the development process.

Learning from our experiences , it is increasingly urgent that the concept and application of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of traditional and tribal governments and the directly affected indigenous peoples is better understood and elaborated to guide the conduct of governments, corporations and development agencies. They must be directly accountable to local governance structures for the impacts of development projects.

Free and prior informed consent is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in national legislation, including the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of the Philippines. Prior Informed Consent is also the international standard for any projects involving displacement or resettlement of indigenous peoples by ILO Convention 169, Inter-American Bank policy, and also a number of national laws.

The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act defines the process of free and prior informed consent by the following criteria:
- All members of the community affected consent to the decision;
- Consent is determined in accordance with customary law and practices;
- Freedom from external manipulation, interference or coercion;
- Full disclosure of the intent and scope of the activity;
- Decision is made in a language understandable to the community;
- Decision is made in a process understandable to the community.

There are countless examples of blatant abuses of these fundamental processes in the development projects funded by multilateral development banks and other development agencies. An examination of past projects of the World Bank has shown that neglecting to secure the legal changes necessary to safeguard indigenous rights means that activities and processes later in the project cycle are distorted by implementing agencies. Learning the lessons from past projects affecting indigenous peoples is a high priority for all development agencies to reverse their harmful impacts on indigenous communities.

The history of corporate "development" in indigenous lands has mostly been of expropriation, destruction and abuse; thus building a legacy of mistrust towards corporations. Acknowledgement of this history and acceptance of responsibility for past actions is a first step towards the recognition and respect for indigenous peoples rights by corporations and investors. Corporations are increasingly prepared to endorse voluntary codes of conduct which are too general to be monitored and lack sanctions. But these same companies have campaigned and worked tirelessly to weaken laws and liberalize regulations protecting indigenous rights and too often avoid their responsibility in actual projects. Regulations are needed to control the actions of companies, but these must be few in number, universal in application, verifiable, enforceable and backed by sanctions against violators in order to enjoy the confidence of affected indigenous peoples and communities. Endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by corporations would be a positive step.

BEST PRACTICE

Looking to positive developments, Indigenous Peoples see the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the ECOSOC resolution on the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues within the United Nations as providing an opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to work at another level in pursuit of their development. It should be noted that the Permanent Forum shall serve as an advisory body to ECOSOC with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues within the mandate of ECOSOC which include economic and social development.

Also, the report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) – Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making published in November 2000, provides useful guidance for the implementation of water and energy development. Recognising the disproportionate impacts of large dams on indigenous peoples and local communities, the WCD recommends that public acceptance be promoted through negotiated agreements among all interested and affected parties including the free and prior informed consent of indigenous peoples to projects affecting them.

The Council of Ministers for International Development of the European Union have adopted a Resolution on Indigenous Peoples Within the Framework of the Development Cooperation of the Community and Member States acknowledging indigenous peoples' rights to self-development and recognizes their diverse concepts of development. The resolution also acknowledges the right of indigenous peoples to object to development projects on their lands.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the UN Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC and the General Assembly, adopt as a matter of urgency, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as developed by the UNWGIP and approved by the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, with a view to securing the basic rights to self-determination and sustainable development. of indigenous peoples.

2. International Treaties and Agreements confirm indigenous peoples rights to development. States are urged to respect and honour those Treaties and Agreements according to their original spirit and intent.

3. That the UNWGIP and its parent bodies, the Commission on Human Rights examine the impacts on indigenous peoples of the implementation of the policies, programmes and activities of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the processes of economic globalization, such as the establishment of regional free trade agreements;

4. That the UNWGIP continue its standard-setting activities in relation to national and transnational corporations with a view to ensuring corporate accountability and securing indigenous peoples rights in the development process;

5. That the UNWGIP examine the experiences of indigenous peoples and communities with regards the policies, programmes, projects and practices of various development agencies including the European Commission, multilateral development banks, other bodies for international cooperation;

6. That the UNWGIP take note of the final report of the World Commission on Dams- Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making for its forward- looking approach to addressing conflicts in relation to indigenous peoples affected by water and energy development.

7. Governments must ensure that there is active and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making processes affecting them. Governments must ensure that Indigenous Peoples are fully informed, are fully consulted and provide consent within the framework of deliberative democracy with regard to policies, programmes, plans and projects in Indigenous Peoples lands and territories.

8. Urge Governments to enact legislation recognizing Indigenous Peoples' lands and territories;

9. Urge governments to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights in legislation in the face of globalization and corporate transgression of these rights,

10. UNWGIP initiate representative regional level discussions through workshops among governments, corporate bodies including financial institutions, and indigenous peoples to bring about understanding on processes for decision-making and development.

--------------------------------------------------

Stated on Item 4 Working Group on the 25th of July, morning session

JUDGE GUISSE, Member of the UN Working Group: My intervention will be based on the causes of the chronic state of underdevelopment of Indigenous Peoples. I will present a summary of ideas. The functioning of the present world economy does not favor the poor generally speaking. Indigenous move between absolute and extreme poverty. Indigenous Peoples are the poorest of the poor. Two years ago the HCHR asked us to reflect on new language: extreme poverty. We all realized that this meant that the poor become poorer in conditions that are unlivable. Absolute poverty means one person only has one meal every 24 hours. Extreme poverty is less than this.
The poverty Indigenous Peoples result first from Indigenous Peoples always having been marginalized from decisions regarding their fate. They were not able to give their view of models of development imposed on them much less the implementation. Europe has not change its attitude in considering itself the only standard. It imposes Western concept of development. We must ask Indigenous Peoples to at least provide their input on decisions concerning their own development. We know colonialism and other forms of domination jeopardized the existence of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples were uprooted from their natural environment.
We know that the right to environment is a whole series of relation of the land. Once the industrial settlements force them to leave their land it forces them to become poor and take them away from what nature gives them we cannot talk about development but only about their poverty. Trans National Corporations are the most dynamic agents of globalization today. We know that Trans National Corporations are simply following their own interests and these are in direct conflict with Indigenous Peoples. They are interested in profit and only profit. All other considerations disappear. Their interest is to usurp the land of the Indigenous Peoples. Unesco said the development of peoples is done by participation with the people. This cannot happen when a Trans National Corporations settles somewhere. As the head of a Swedish Trans National Corporations once said 'Globalization for us means to settle where I wish, take what I want …[] without any social burden' How do you want Indigenous Peoples oppose this economic force which is only there for their own profit?
Forests are devastated, everything is bulldozed and nothing remains for Indigneous Peoples that is for their benefit. How can I talk about development for Indigenous Peoples? The establishment of the World Trade Centre the International Monetary Fund are all active in favor of globalization which all favor Trans National Corporations in the North. This is your way of seeing the development of Indigenous Peoples. If we want to establish an area for Indigenous Peoples we have to look in the mirror and the world must realize they are responsible for the extreme poverty. Today they are poor and the riches that were taken belong to them. When governments don't want to recognize Indigenous Peoples what do we do when they reclaim their status of Indigenous Peoples

Day 4, Thursday AM, July 26, 2001
Working Group, Morning Session

Item 5 – Review of recent developments pertaining to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples; general statements, including on land issues, education and health.

1. Mr. Terry Waia, Torres Strait Regional Authority:

We are of Melanesian origin and our population of approximately 8000 live amongst 17 island communities across the expanse of sea between Australia and PNG. I am chairman of Saibai island and Chairperson of the Torres Strait regional authority (TSRA), a commonwealth government authority established in 1994 by the parliament of Australia. Since last year the TSI has significantly progressed in its goal of improving the well being of the Indigenous Peoples of the region. We have made progress in areas of native title, infrastructure development, economic development and push for greater autonomy. The establishment of Regional Authority, board made up of island community chairpersons negotiate directly with the Commonwealth of Queensland government ministers. It receives funding from the Commonwealth Government and the board decides how best to use the funding. It is a strong foundation for greater autonomy. The autonomy push is guided by the Greater Autonomy Task Force. We have developed a 10 point plan to achieve our goals which we must take to the community for discussion. We will present it to both governments and commence negotiations.

The TSI people will not be able to achieve greater autonomy until we gain control of Torres Strait fishing industries, presently controlled by the government and non-indigenous organisations. Our fisheries have great potential for development, but we are concerned with commercial non-indigenous fishing in the region. Commercial fishermen fish our resources and leave the region. Our people do not benefit and are concerned our resources are depleting. Under current legislation they have every right to do this as they are operating within the law. We are aiming to change legislation and policy so that they may no longer do so.. Local fisherman have set up a Torres Strait Fisheries Task Force to develop a new structure for them to take part in decision making, advising the government on appropriate policy changes. Consultation with the Ips is an essential part of the process. TSI hopes to eventually be able to gain control of resources for the Indigenous Peoples.

Our push for autonomy is closely linked to our push to gain legal recognition of our native title rights over land and seas of the TS. Such recognition gives us greater negotiating powers. The TSRA has its own Native Title Office providing legal and anthropological services. Last month, through TSRA representation, the Meriam people achieved legal recognition of their native title for the islands of Waiar and Dauar. In May the Kaurareg people achieved legal recognition of their native title rights of seven of the region’s inner islands. We are now pushing for native title over our seas. TSRA is discussing with the island communities and will only lodge such a claim if the majority of our people support this approach.

TSRA is helping and encouraging Ips to start their own businesses, in an effort to try and move away from welfare dependence and develop a degree of economic independence. We are also aiming to improve infrastructure through the TS Major Infrastructure Program. It is thanks to some funding of the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments of Australia that we are able to implement this program. I thank the Minister for Reconciliation and the TSI Affairs - Phillip Ruddock, the Queensland Premier – Peter Beattie and Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and TSI Policy – Judy Spence for their cooperation and support.

2. Joram Jurgen Useb, Working Group on Indigenous Minorities of South Africa

Since independence in 1990 land reform is a big concern, particularly in regards to communal land. 44% of the land is in the hand of private land owners. Land inequality and allocation has importance for people living in communal areas. 2/3 of the population share 41 % of the arable land. Only a small proportion of the San community, which numbers about 38000 people retain rights to their ancestral land. The vast majority, though still residing in the land of their ancestors have been dispossessed of their natural resources and reside on land managed by others. Only in Tsumkwe District do San partially retain rights to manage their lands. As Indigenous Peoples of this region they have depended for generations on hunting and gathering. In 2000 the government of Namibia announced it was necessary to resettle over 20 thousand refugees from their present location on private land. They said it was to alleviate pressure on land and resources. It proposed to resettle the refugees in the heart of the land of the !Kung, a population of 4500. The San have questioned the government and the UNHCR. Why do they listen to the commercial farmers and not to the San? This will lead to water diseases and resource pressure. The present San will be outnumbered, their culture undermined. What will be the long term consequence of relocation? The point was made that the San were traditional hunters and gatherers. Recommend Namibian government look for a more suitable place to resettle refugees and a study be done into the impact on the San community prior to any resettlements.

3. ILO, Ms. Marianne Jensen

The ILO has been working on issues related to indigenous and tribal people. The ILO is responsible for the only two international instruments dealing exclusively with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples : Convention No. 107 and Convention No. 169. The ILO regrets that very little progress has been made on the important work of the Working Group of Indigenous People with regards to the Draft Declaration on the Rights for Indigenous Peoples. It goes without saying that the standards in Convention No. 169 are a foundation on which the declaration should be built, and that they should not be undercut.

On the subject on which this session of the Working Group is focussing, §1 At. 7 of the C169 says:

"The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development… and to exercise, control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development".

This provides a clear requirement that indigenous peoples and tribal peoples must not be mere targets of development, but must be an active participant in it.

A recent article by the Deputy Minister in Foreign Affairs of Denmark demonstrates that the Greenland-Denmark cooperation shows how such cooperation can benefit not only the indigenous people and tribal peoples, but also the state, and enrich the relationship between these.

The ILO has drawn up a document, available for those interested, in which we have described what has happened within the ILO on indigenous issues since last years' meeting of the Working Group of Indigenous Peoples. The ILO has continued to supervise the implementation of both Conventions, and that the issues that arise frequently are related to reluctance by the governments to consult the indigenous and tribal people openly and fairly about the effect on them of development.

Many indigenous and tribal people seek consultation with the ILO in their considerations in ratifying Convention No. 169. Other countries which have ratified the Convention sincerely signal the will to improve the process of implementation of the provisions contained in the Convention. Countries such as Mexico and Chile have now presented for us plans for concrete activities in this regard. Among those to take place this year will be seminars and conferences, which will include the participation of governments, and the presence of both presidents respectively.

The ILO is conscious that we can also do better. An inter departmental TASK FORCE is now in the process of drafting guidelines in order to improve the implementation of the ILO policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples throughout the organization, both at Headquarters and in our 50 field quarters. Among other officials dealing full time with indigenous and tribal peoples issues, the ILO has now for the first time employed three indigenous persons to work full time on indigenous issues.

As for the Permanent Forum, the ILO also shares your aspirations. We can assure that the ILO will do whatever it can to contribute to the development of a powerful Permanent Forum, served by an independent secretariat with qualified persons, including indigenous peoples.

ILO wishes to urge all nations to review critically the way they treat indigenous and tribal peoples and other disadvantaged groups. For many countries this will be a painful and difficult process. Even as individuals we know how difficult it can be to admit our failures. But the ILO wants to encourage countries to think otherwise. Who would blame a country, which wishes to do better in the future? On the contrary, the ILO trusts that - even with severe scars in heart and body - it would create respect and a sincere will to cooperate.

Together, in cooperation - if there is a will - we can change the future for the better for all.

4. Ms. Elizabeth Bell, Metis Nation of Alberta

We are fortunate to have this place to come together and we regret that governments are not hearing voices of Indigenous People`s. The WGIP an important forum for dialogue and genuine partnership. Where are the governments and why aren’t they here today?

Relating to Item number five - health is an ongoing item affecting all peoples. In the Metis population of Alberta the following health issues are prevalent: Diabetes type 2 is a huge problem; 4 to 5 times the general population. This is usually an adult illness and is now affecting Aboriginal children. Raising the awareness program of Diabetes, gestational diabetes and the risk factors and lack of access to treatment. Absence of awareness and education which affects the attitude of the young people to preventive healthy practices and lifestyles. Services in the urban settings, support and transportation for aboriginals with patients staying in the hospitals including facilities to do fitness programs appropriate for women and children

The theme from the 18th session of the WGIP “Indigenous children and youth” is very important for all peoples. We commend the people working on this issue for the work they are doing. Metis children as well as other Aboriginal children in Canada are suffering from many ailments such as SIDS, FAS and alcohol and drugs dependency syndromes. Depression and suicide is becoming an epidemic among children and youth.

The spiritual, emotional, social, cultural negative effects of the degradation of the natural and social environments are devastating. Due to families being compelled to live on settlements and reserves, alienated from their traditional natural and social environments, the impact on the indigenous peoples, children and women is considerable, leading to physical, social, emotional and spiritual illness.

According to the population in Canada, 16 % are Aboriginal, whereas the people incarcerated are 80% Aboriginals and most of them are youths. This indicates there is a disproportionate number of Aboriginals in our prisons. This is also indicative of a serious psycho-social health issue.

There is a growing number of children with disabilities due to environment pollution and hazardous waste.
-- Toxic waste from northern base affecting people; incidents of brain cancer and brain tumors.
-- Insecticides being sprayed during the 1960’s the effects of which are only now becoming visible
-- Uranium deposits from northern Saskatchewan showing a link with cancer, which are affecting peoples on the reserves.
To have a healthy society, first we need healthy planet our Mother Earth

First of July this year my family, participated in a Sacred Thanksgiving Ceremony from the Creator; a gathering of people to celebrate life, to visit, to sing, dance and play sports. To see how proud and tall the dancers were was a beautiful sight; all ages, all types of dancing, coming together to celebrate the year and being thankful for the next year. This is a display of a healthy community. Being proud of who we are is very important , to look forward to the day when all Nations, all Indigenous People`s come together in dance and songs. The process is being put into place to have an Aboriginal Health Centre in Calgary, Canada

Calgary, Alberta, Canada is hosting the Second Gathering for Aboriginal Health Conference on October 1,2,3, 2001. There are some information sheets at the back or if anymore information needed please contact me.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the causes of these illnesses. Aboriginal people are not tolerant to the type of diet, etc, with chemicals added. A lot of our people are being sick and the traditional way of food supply is non- existent due to the multi-national corporations who are taking up the majority of the land for there use, not allowing our people to be “Hunters and Gathers” as before.

After all is said and done, what are we leaving our children:
-- Chemically produced food to eat
-- contaminated water to drink
-- polluted air to breathe
What a legacy ! Thank you.

5. Mr. Mohammed Ikarbane, Tigrmi Kabylie ( Algeria)

To speak of Human Rights, of health, education or land is for us the right to claim our identity, our language and culture without repression or assassination, as has just happened. We can see the Indigenous Peoples are totally marginalised by development policy. Asks for solidarity in the face of exploitation. Requests urge authorities concerned that the Indigenous Peoples of Algeria have a right to language culture and respect, so they are not a second class citizens.

6. Ms. Sammy Toinneta, Seventh Generation Fund. (Lakota Nation)

We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Chairperson of the Working Group. We share the comments expressed by other Indigenous Peoples present during this 19th Session and would also like to express our dismay upon the prospect of losing your insightful and sympathetic leadership and your profound affection for Indigenous Peoples. Your presence will be truly missed. I would like to share some information with the Working Group and the Indigenous Caucus about Sacred Sites.

Sacred Sites, in the United States, as well as other parts of the globe, are under attack more today than ever before. Since there is no clear definition of what a sacred site is to the non-Indigenous people, there is not an adequate understanding of the term, particularly when it comes to commercial development of land and natural resources.

At the grass roots level, in the U.S. alone, there are more than a dozen long term demonstrations taking place in an attempt to preserve sites, many on reserved lands that were negotiated, nation to nation, through a treaty process. Other lands are being legislated out of our control. One of the latest infractions in the U.S. was an 8 ½ mile tract of ancient petroglyphs which were under federal protection but were instead given over to the state of New Mexico to make way for a new highway project. And today, as we sit here, the Valley of Chiefs, a national shrine, also presumably under federal protection, is on a short list for energy exploration to satisfy the unending search for additional consumable energy.

Because of such legislation, in today’s world, many traditional leaders do not have free and total access to their sacred grounds to offer tobacco or search for medicinal plants for healing. In many cases, payment is necessary and even when payment is not required, we compete with construction, tourists, rock climbers and other leisure activities for space.

In an historical context, difficulties over religious freedom in the U.S. have been recorded since as early as 1882 when the Secretary of the Interior banned all ‘heathenish dances’ and just two years later, a 30 day prison sentence was imposed.

Recently, during negotiations regarding construction on Mt. Graham, a site sacred to the San Carlos Apache as well as other Apache Bands, Fr. Coyne, a Vatican official, stated ‘Apache beliefs represent a kind of religiosity to which I cannot subscribe and which must be suppressed with all the force we can muster.’ Fr. Coyne made his statement in the mid 1980s. We, Indigenous Peoples and citizens of sovereign nations, must be entitled to the right to define what is sacred to us rather than being dictated to by governments, tourists and land developers.

That Indigenous Peoples share a unique relationship with the land is now empirical knowledge but what is not always understood is that sacred sites are places where reverence for the land is celebrated -- the spirits of the land are acknowledged, not a ski slope.

Policy makers frequently hold Christian assumptions about how spiritual practices should be conducted. They hold that all religion is belief centered and defined by doctrinal principle. However, Indigenous spirituality is a way of life, not a once a week or twice a year practice. The natural world was not created for our benefit but for our careful use. Our traditions tend to emphasize the inner-connectedness between humans and the land and all of creation.

Legislative struggles which began to institutionalize policies against Native Spiritualities began with the early military regime and continue through today. One of our inherent rights must include the ability to preserve and protect out sacred sites and grounds from the destruction of industry, commercialism and tourism to the Seventh Generation.

7. Ms. Tonya Gonnella Frichner, American Indian Law Alliance

, joint satement with nr. 8

8. Ms. Rosalie Little Thunder, Buffalo Nation

Le anpetu ki cantewasteya napeciyuzapi (This day, I touch your hand with a good heart.)

Because of the hardships that we endure, we are naturally given to much prayer. My relatives tell me that you are a compassionate person with great responsibilities and so, I too am encouraged by your leadership and will certainly offer my prayers for you.

I am here today because I have nowhere else to go, to seek protection for my relatives, the buffalo.

Most cultures have legends of creation and of their own origins and how we came to know the right way to live. The Lakota evolved from the buffalo and emerged from beneath the Earth as human beings, at a place called Wind Cave in the Black Hills of South Dakota. We have a pact of interdependence with our relatives, the buffalo. We followed their migratory path and learned from them how to live according to Natural Law, at peace with the natural forces. Our teachings on how to be good human beings were brought to us by Pte San Win, who came and left as a White Buffalo Calf. Our survival was centered on the existence of the buffalo. The prophecies of our future survival are also centered on the existence of the buffalo.

These beliefs are now being supported by the scientific community that recognizes the buffalo as a keystone species, creating habitat for other species. In the 1800’s, the U.S. Calvary wastefully slaughtered 50 to 60 million buffaloes, in order to deprive the elusive Lakota of their sustaining food source and thereafter, captured, killed, imprisoned, and took extreme measures to subdue the Lakota Nation. As a result of the massacre of millions of buffaloes from the Plains ecosystem, severe erosion occurred, and the land nearly became a desert. The damage continues to unfold, but our lifetimes are too short too see the long-term impact. Our ancestors’ wisdom; careful observation and intergenerational storytelling is not always acknowledged by decision-makers.

The remnants of the 1800’s buffalo slaughter is continuing in Yellowstone National Park. During the unusually harsh winter of 1996-1997, the buffalo migrated out of the park in search of food. The Department of Livestock of the State of Montana slaughtered 1,100 buffaloes, one-third of the last herd of wild buffalo in the United States. They justified their actions as an attempt to protect their cattle from a disease threat that is questioned by the country’s leading scientists. The buffalo are being slaughtered on the northern and western boundaries, in the jurisdiction of the state of Montana, where influential cattlemen graze their cattle on Forest Service land at very inexpensive rates. This public land is intended for wildlife habitat but the buffaloes are not allowed to inhabit this area.

There are federal mandates to hold government-to-government consultations with native nations, but the United States government does not respond to requests by the Lakota people to negotiate for the protection of the Yellowstone buffalo at the highest levels. National Park Service employees continue to attend consultation meetings on behalf of the government with our leadership, but without the necessary authority to negotiate.

Although a Long-Term Bison (Buffalo) Management Plan has been drafted and approved by the Environmental Impact Study team, it has excluded participation and comments by native people and only provides for alternative methods of continuing the extermination of the buffaloes.

That a species of wildlife can be massacred into extinction or domesticated so carelessly is of grave concern to the Buffalo Nations people. Since the buffaloes will never be truly safe in Yellowstone National Park, we have begun a campaign to acquire necessary land for a refuge for wild buffaloes. This refuge is not intended to domesticate or market buffaloes, but to return the land to the buffalo for healing purposes and to allow the buffaloes to exist in their natural state. This is no trivial matter to the Lakota people and the other buffalo-centered cultures. Our prophecy is: As long as there are buffalo, we will survive as a people. Beyond the survival of the Lakota, I believe the prophecy is about humanity’s survival. That in the carelessness of those whose vision is limited and who can only think in terms of ownership, control, and profit, we risk the survival of humanity.

Madame Chairperson, we respectfully request the Working Group on Indigenous Populations to acknowledge the Buffalo Refuge as a model of true Indigenous Development that is in keeping with Indigenous Peoples’ responsibility to the Earth and its inhabitants. We seek support in establishing true government to government consultation with the United States government, at the highest level, relative to the matter of the buffalo.

We further seek support in encouraging the United States government to honor its own mandates by returning Forest Service land surrounding Yellowstone National Park back to its main purpose, wildlife habitat, and to cease cattle grazing allotments. Finally, we urge the governments and this body to condemn the slaughter of the Yellowstone buffalo.

9. Mr. Tony Black Feather, Teton Sioux Nation Treaty

did not speak

10. Ms. Laura Lo Xiong, Hmong International Human Rights Watch

I have come here today to plead for your help in properly addressing the ongoing Hmong refugee crisis inside Laos and Thailand. Currently there are over 60,000Hmong refugees scattered across these two countries without any form of UN protection. The refugee flow has continued to increase over the past years because the UNHCR has continued to ignore this problem. This is the fourth consecutive year that we have come to Geneva to plead for the UN to take action on this issue, but so far nothing has been done. Please understand that the Hmong’s rights have been violated under article 10 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (removal and relocation) and article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to free movement in and out of the country).

A recent example of the continuing Hmong refugee saga are the 40 Hmong families which were arrested by Lao PDR authorities at Tha Din Daeng village, Vientiane on September 16, 2000. They had fled from Saysomboun Special Zone because of the danger there. Boun Her Thao, a high level LPDR army officer working in Vientiane, had tried to intervene on their behalf but was later arrested and killed (October 26, 2000) by the Lao government because of his opposition to the way the Hmong were being treated.

Another recent case occurred March 2, 2001, when Chao Yang and 8 other villagers were arrested at Tia Bla refugee camp near Muang Cha, Saysomboun Special Zone after refusing to be used as bait to lure the Chao Fa down from the mountains. LPDR soldiers shot and killed Chaos's son in front of all the villagers to set an example for those Hmong who defy their authority. Chao Yang and 8 other villagers were then taken away never to be seen again. One villager, Moua Zeb, was able to escape to Thailand, where he isstill in hiding waiting for UN protection and a country which will grant him political asylum.

There are disturbing reports we are receiving about Hmong who are captured in Saysomboun Special Zone. They are rounded up and put on buses destined for Vietnam, never to be heard from again. Coincidentally, on June 27, 2001, Reuters news agency in Hanoi reported a bus carrying 82 Hmong crashed in Ky Son district, Nghe An province. They even interviewed a police spokesman stating "The official said the Hmong people had been repatriated from Laos after crossing into that country illegally. The Hmong, many of whom practice slash-and-burn agriculture, had been living in a jungle area of Laos, he added." [Source: Reuters news agency - June 27, 2001 - Bus crash kills repatriated Vietnamese hill people]

There are over 3000 Hmong detained at La Khai and another 12 families at Pas Zaj Ntsuab/Green Dragon Lake internment camps. These Hmong must be allowed to move freely to other areas which are safe and where they can attain arable farmland to support themselves rather then relying on money from relatives in the U.S.

Earlier this month, the Bangkok Post reported that Hmong refugees residing at Wat Thamkrabok would be repatriated to Laos stating "An army source said Geneneral Chavalit Yongchaiyudh wants the panels to sort things out at the temple's Hmong village, Phra Phuthabat district, and arrange the repatriation of about 30,000 Hmong to Laos or other countries." [Source: Bangkok Post - July 4, 2001 - Five panels to look into temple issue]

I would also like to point out that the future of those Hmong refugees which were repatriated to Laos remains uncertain, especially since the two UN monitors in Vientiane will be leaving the country very soon. Recently, the UNHCR has intervened on behalf of the Montagnards seeking asylum in Cambodia. The Hmong have a similar history to these people because of their close association with the US during the Vietnam War, and their ongoing persecution by communist authorities after the war. If the UNHCR can go in to protect these people why does it not do something to intervene on behalf of the Hmong who live in the jungles of Saysomboun Special Zone

Since this year's theme is "Indigenous Peoples and their right to development, including the right to participate in development affecting them", I would like to point out that the Hmong in Laos have no such rights and will never have such rights until they are allowed to have freedom of movement. The UN is not even allowed access to Hmong areas in Saysomboun Special Zone, where there are over 10,000 refugees fearing for their lives on a daily basis.

At the moment, all Hmong in Laos live under a governmental policy of discrimination in which no Hmong are allowed to be promoted to General, nor to become members of the politburo, nor hold a Minister's position or ambassador to any country. The only positions of significance that they can get are to be used to fight their own people in Saysomboun Special Zone.

Hmong who have relatives in the U.S. or who worked for the U.S. before 1975 are not allowed a chance to pass the test which would enable them to continue with higher education in foreign countries. Now only the children of communist officials are allowed this privilege.

Here is a list of cases of current Hmong prisoners and Hmong who have been killed by the LPDR:

March 2, 2001 - Chao Yang and 8 other villagers were arrested at Tia Bla refugee camp near Muang Cha after refusing to be used as bait to lure the Chao Fa down from the mountains. The LPDR soldiers shot and killed Chao's son in front of all the villagers to set an example for those Hmong who defy their authority. Chao Yang and the other 8 villagers were taken away never to be seen again. One villager, Moua Zeb, was able to escape to Thailand where he is still in hiding waiting for a country to give him asylum.

March 2001 - Nao Tou Moua was arrested in KM 52 by officials never to be seen again.

October 26, 2000 - Boun Her Thao, a high level LPDR army officer working in Vientiane, was arrested and later killed. This was all because he tried to stop the government from arresting 40 Hmong families at Tha Din Dang village in Vientiane several weeks earlier.

October 26, 1999 - Boun Vang took part in the democracy march in Vientiane and was arrested and still being held in Sam Khe jail.

On July 3, 1999, Wa Kou Vang, Boua Yeng Vang, Chong Sua Yang, Bee Vang, Kou Xiong, and Chue Lee, who were being held as prisoners at Khang Khai prison were all taken away by truck never to be seen again. The wives of these prisoners fear that they may have been killed.

On June 26, 1998, Vang Pheng Yang was arrested at La Khai village and taken away to Khang Khai prison, Xieng Khouang never to be seen again.

October 20, 1996 - Boun Vang Lee and his wife See Xiong – Boun Vang Lee was killed by Lao police officers Thao Khaman and Thao Khamkeuth. Later on, in January 1998, the LPDR government killed his wife See Xiong and crippled their 2 year old son all because his wife had filed a lawsuit against the Lao government after her husband was murdered by the police.

July 1995 - Boua Chong Lee was a military leader for the Pathet Lao government for over 30 years, but was forced into early retirement after he complained about the unfair treatment the Hmong were receiving at the hands of the LPDR government. He was severely beaten and tortured, then imprisoned for life without any type of trial.

1995 - Nao Pha Her, Cheng Lor, Khamchai Her, and Sao Kue returned from Thailand to visit relatives in Ban Nagnao village, Vientiane. They were arrested.

1995 - Mao Her, Neng Lee, Kao Her, Va Her, and 2 other leaders from Pha Lak Pha Koui agreed to come down from the mountains to negotiate with Luang Prabang officials Kanechanh, Chansone, and Koua Vue. Right after they met with these officials in Muang Kasy they were beaten and tortured, then arrested never to be seen again. 1994 - Chong Yang Xiong, a Hmong refugee who had resettled in the U.S. and lived in Sheboygan, WI visited Na Tak Na Moo village, Vientiane. During his visit he was arrested and taken to Vientiane because of an expired visa. He has not been heard from since. His wife and daughter are currently living in Sheboygan, WI and have not had anyone to help them follow up on this case till the present day. September 11, 1993 - Vue Mai, the former leader of Ban Vinai refugee camp, was secretly arrested by the Lao government shortly after repatriating to Laos under the supervision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

1992 - Yang Va was a Hmong refugee who had resettled in France. He was invited to Laos by Lao PDR officials to negotiate the return of Hmong refugees living at Wat Thamkrabok, Thailand. The series of negotiations took place in Thailand and Laos with LPDR officials who claimed to be representatives of the son of "Kaysone", the LPDR president at the time. The intent of these negotiations was to set up a multi-political party in Laos, so that the Hmong refugees at Wat Thamkrabok could return safely. In early 1991, during the final negotiation stage in Laos, Yang Va was arrested and imprisoned for life without any trial. This was all because of the fact that the final negotiations ended in a deadlock.

Current Hmong Refugee Situation

Inside Thailand: Thamkrabok - 30,000; Napho – 35; Other parts of Thailand - 20,000

Inside Laos: Phou Bia - over 10,000; Green Dragon Lake (Pas Zaj Ntsuab), Saysomboun Special Zone (since 2000) - about 1 mile before Muang Cha town. - 12 families; La Khai refugee camp, Xieng Khouang province (since 1992) – Chong; Shoua Xiong, the Hmong leader, and a couple thousand refugees live here. They are used as bait by the Lao PDR to lure the Chao Fa down from the mountains. In order to survive they have to go to Phounsavanh town to get money from their relatives in the U.S. The UN is not even allowed to visit the area; 74 families in Khammoune province (since 1994) - over 40 of these families have moved to KM 52 and other villages in Vientiane province because no way to support themselves.

Immediate action to be taken: We request that the staff of Hmong International Human Rights Watch (HIHRW), along with Amnesty International, have free access to all parts of Laos to investigate alleged cases of human rights abuse carried out against the Hmong populace.

We request that the above mentioned prisoners be released immediately and unconditionally, and that a Human Rights committee, with Hmong members on it, be set up inside Laos.

The Declaration of Human Rights should be translated into Hmong language, particularly the RPA (Roman Popularized Alphabet) version, which the Hmong in Laos are most familiar with. Since the LPDR is a UN member we ask that they be responsible in distributing the Declaration to all the Hmong people residing inside Laos.

We request that the Lao and Vietnamese troops immediately withdraw from Saysomboun Special Zone, and that an international peacekeeping mission be set up to assist the Hmong in safely coming out of the jungle. The LPDR government must allow the UN, NGOs, and Hmong organizations to aide these Hmong until they become self- sufficient. The 50,000 Hmong refugees still remaining in Thailand shall be given the right to return to Laos unconditionally.

Education shall be equally guaranteed to the Hmong just as it is to lowland Lao and those children of LPDR officials.

More than 10,000 Hmong visitors to Laos have been denied visas over the past 25 years. The LPDR government should stop its discriminatory visa policy and allow Hmong visitors from abroad free access to visas.

There should be just one class of citizens in Laos. No more discriminatory policies requiring Hmong returnees to carry specially marked I.D.s. which prohibit them from traveling freely, obtaining government jobs, or attaining higher education.

Hmong traditions must be upheld and backed by the government. They must not be forced to change their names to Lao in order to hold a government position. e.g. Vong Phet = Xai Ker, Charern =Cha Her, Panny = Pa, Syvone = Va Tou, etc.

In La Khai (over 3000 Hmong) and Pas Zaj Ntsuab/Green Dragon Lake (12 families) internment camps the Hmong must be allowed to move freely to other areas, which are safe and where they can attain arable farmland to support themselves rather then relying on money from relatives in the U.S.

11. Canada, Mr. John Sinclair

The January 2001 Government of Canada’s Speech from the Throne captures the government’s commitment to Aboriginal people.

‘Nowhere is the creation and sharing of opportunity more important than for Aboriginal people. Too many continue to live in poverty, without the tools they need to build a better future for themselves or their communities…The Government is committed to strengthening its relationship with Aboriginal people. It will support First Nations communities in strengthening governance. Including implementing more effective and transparent administrative practices. And it will work to ensure that basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing and infrastructure. This commitment will be reflected in all the Government's’ priorities.'

We have spoken about the legacy of physical and sexual abuse at residential schools. Last month the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada, to coordinate negotiations and examine how to resolve claims.

On June 15 2001, the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act became Canadian law. It establishes the constitutional status of Kanesatake lands as well as the clear legal authority for Kanesatake to manage the use of development of those lands.

The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement in Principle was signed on June 25, 2001. We are now one step away from a Final Agreement on land claims and self-government.

The Sleiammon First Nation and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council are both moving toward final settlements with Canada and the province of British Columbia through negotiation of Agreements-in-Principle for comprehensive land claims and self-government.

A number of Aboriginal communities across Canada are initiating innovative approaches to governance. Canada is grappling with how to address governance concerns for First Nations still operating under the Indian Act. It is with this in mind that the Communities First: First Nations Governance initiative was launched in 2001. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said that he would like a change in authority to shift the primary relationship between the Government of Canada and the Chief and Council to one between First Nations Governments and First Nation members. It would better reflect the capabilities of First Nations operating under the Indian Act to create long term stability aand foster economic agendas designed by local interests.

Our Government continues to deliver on Gathering Strength: Canada’s 1998 response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The portal www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca was launched in March 2001 at the IP Summit of the Americas.

12. Dr. Vaug Pobzeb, Lao Human Rights Council

I would like to report to and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the Communist Lao and Vietnamese governments have killed over 300,000 Hmong and Lao People in Laos between 1975 and 2001. The killing fields, genocide and ethnic cleansing war against the Hmong People in Laos are still going on today. The Communist Vietnamese government sent more than five (5) Vietnamese military divisions to support and direct the government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (LPDR) in conducting an ethnic cleansing war and genocide against people in Laos, especially against the ethnic Hmong People.

The Governments of Laos and Vietnam have been using biological and chemical weapons to kill many thousands of Hmong and Lao People in Laos. The Communist Lao Government has imprisoned more than 25,000 people in Laos since 1990. In 2001, the Communist Lao government has arrested and imprisoned more than 100 religious leaders and has closed down more than 36 churches and religious organizations and institutions in Laos.

Therefore I am urging and I appeal to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to demand the governments of Laos and Vietnam to stop the ethnic cleansing war, genocides, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity and war crimes against Hmong and Lao People in Laos. The actions of the governments of Laos and Vietnam are violations of the Charter of the United Nations and international Human Rights laws and conventions.

13. Mr. Lazaro Pary, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru

Refers to evolution of Human Rights in Indigenous Peoples communities. Following travels in Bolivia and Peru and through meetings with communities, I have seen gross violations of Human Rights. There is an awakening the region against globalization and its threat. Bolivia is experiencing grave social conflict. Instead of solving urgent problems, the president and the vice without talking to the people went to the US to seek advice.
The Aymara and Quechua Indigenous communities, deprived of their land and condemned to poverty and discrimination blocked the roads and are surrounded by military with the result that many were killed. Since he took power in a coup in 1971. Hugo Banzer proclaimed new economic order. The government decided to open the country to foreign investment, and particularly various oil companies, most of which are headquartered in the US. In the 70s, 14 million hectares of land were handed over to companies for prospecting. Natural gas handed to Brazilian companies. This arrogance has provoked indignation. Banzer ordered an attack on a demonstration of 15000 indians, a peaceful march for land and dignity. According to the Bolivian Commission ‘Justice and Peace’, the military attack caused death of 200 indians, 400 were arrested. Following this attack 30 thousand natives were expelled from their lands by logging interests and began a march for dignity and land. They braved the elements to reach the capital for their legitimate claims for land and natural resources. They obtained no response but demagogic promises. In the present conflict general Banzer’s government shows no willingness to negotiate. Militant Indigenous Human Rights organisations were also dismantled by the Fujimori government. Many leaders are imprisoned. When people move from one country to another, the authorities confiscate their documents. I have been subject to attacks and insults. The documents I wanted to submit to the WG, were all confiscated from me.

14. Mr. Fagu Besra, Chotanagbur Adivasi Seva Samiti ( CASS), Tharkhand, India

In the continuing struggle our Non Governmental Organization is working on the protection of land rights against relocation. The Indian government is passing new laws against the interests of the common people. The government is trying to change the constitution to this end. Even the 5th and 6th Schedule of the constitution which gives some basic provisions to protect our interest is being liquidated. The province is one of the richest resources areas. Not fair dealt. Natural resource deposits have become curse for us. Mining has led to resettlement. 50 million people displaced in the last fifty years. The government is only advancing in making laws to displace us.
The river is sacred river for the Adivasis. Today it is polluted. In name of development everything is taken away without and compensation. Even the Supreme Court of India has failed to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the last years only one case gave a favorable judgement to the Indigenous Peoples. Our basic assets are being taken away. Once we become landless our society is scattered and we can have no respect. Our ancestors had unwritten laws, today customary laws have no respect. Requests protection of land and ecology, that the government of India recognie the Adivasis as Indigenous Peoples.

15. Mr. Paul Chartrand, Metis National Council

Recent events in Canada illustrate its persistent refusal to respect HR of Indigenous Peoples, including the recognition for the right to self determination and its equal application to Indigenous Peoples. In 1998 the Canadian delegation formally proclaimed the recognition of the right to self-determination and its equal application to Indigenous Peoples It is not being put into action.
Specific examples of breaches:
1 The vigorous opposition in courts by the federal government against action taken in 1981, in the Dumont case, by the Metis people to vindicate land rights guaranteed in the constitution, and the continuing refusal to negotiate a settlement for historic dispossession of Indigenous Peoples
2 Refusal of Canada to adopt a policy to negotiate land and self-government with representatives of the Metis. The current federal government is in breach of international standards but also of domestic policy.
3 Refusal to implement recommendations of its own Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples of 1996 in the spirit of partnership in action of the Decade.
This despite the repeated urgings of UN treaty bodies to adopt recommendations regarding:
a) The formal and legislated recognition of all aboriginal peoples with a view to negotiating the implementation of their right to self-determination, in particular refusal to recognize the Metis people.
b) amendment in consultation with IP representatives, of the Canadian HR act.
c) The failure to establish an independent tribunal to implement negotiations on self-government, especially with regards to land and resources and compensation for breaches of past obligations.
d) The termination of its extinguishment policy on indigenous rights to land.
These failures have deprived Indigenous Peoples of a domestic remedy, and has result in the Inter American Commission on Human Rights seeking mediation through international bodies. It has indicated the government is more interested in burying the 1996 final report. The appointment of Special Rapporteur is significant although he is not an indigenous Person.. He has unique opportunity to adopt standards contained in the Declaration of rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the Sub Commission. Article 4 of resolution E/CN.4/2001/L.63.19 April 2001 requires the Special Rapporteur to take into consideration all recommendations of the Working Group relevant to his mandate. Regarding the permanent forum, an effective secretariat staffed by Indigenous Peoples is essential and should be located at the UN headquarters.

Day 4, Thursday PM, July 26, 2001
Working Group, Afternoon Session

Alfonzo Martinez, Member of the WG

Refers to intervention of government observer delegation from Canada. Stresses that the diligence and assiduity with which the representatives made the intervention this morning. It deserves comment. Points to the courage of the intervention of Mr John Sinclair. I was impressed by the sincerity of the Canadian delegation. I think there is a clear reference to the inappropriate conditions resulting from relations so far between governments and Ips. The government gave detailed relations to help solve these problems. It is possible many of us may have reservation with regarding the approach of these initiatives, but it is important to note the efforts that have been made and some of the positive measures. The results will tell. A second point. There is something of concern which has to do with the studies carried out on the treaties. I am referring to the economic initiatives in those cases where IPs were involved which have agreements first with the British and then with the Canadians. The authority of the federal government can be undermined through this. To deal with this one should which have a bilateral commitment

16. Mrs. Kuzivanova Olga (Komi People Revival Committee)

Komi People Revival Committee's 6th Congress of Komi people last year adopted the Komi language act which now has status of state language. According to the constitution the Komi are considered Indigenous Peoples. However many problems remain unresolved: particularly with regard to compensation for extraction of resources. In December last year we held the world congress of Finno Urgic People attended by representatives of the government of Finland and Hungary. We have common problems with many Indigenous Peoples in how to counter assimilation and economic problems. UNESCO and the EU also sent representatives. Welcomes steps of the UN to help with solutions, particularly right to development and conserving habitat and environment..

17. Mrs. Chepilisich Fridah, World Coalition for Indigenous Children and Youth

World Coalition for Indigenous Children and Youth: The Coalition has noted its members continuing concern with problems of Indigenous Peoples children an youth and calls for the creation of a regular agenda item to focus on these issues. It further urges creation of similar agenda items in the CHR and the 3rd Committee of the GA.

The Coalition brings to attention the second international workshop for indigenous children and youth held 19- 20 July 2001, Geneva. It recommends it be held annually and that extensive youth participation be its primary goal. The coalition will have the mandate to organize further workshops and build networks among Indigenous Peoples children and youths. Approves the recommendations of the second workshop and the amendments to the proposed outcome document. 2001 UN Assembly Special Session on Children 'World Fit for Children'. Urges Special Rapporteur to give us priority to paragraph two which asks him 'to pay special attention to violations of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous children'

18. Mr. Louis Oliver Bancoult, Chagos Refugees Group

I would first like to greet you all and to express my gratitude to the World Council of Churches and M. Eugenio POMA whose help was determinant for me to be here today among you. It is a great pleasure for me to address a speech in the name of the Ilois community who have been uprooted from our Motherland since 1965 in order to make place for a US strategic military base controlling all the Indian Ocean. The base is on Diego Garcia, the main island, located 700 km away from the Maldives and 1800 km away from the Seychelles or Mauritius.

Our people was removed in a very shameful way to Mauritius mainly, where most of us still live in utter poverty. We participated in many street demonstrations, hunger strikes in order to alert the public opinion to our fundamental rights which have been denied.

We decided to go forward with a legal action in the Royal Court of Justice in London to protest against the British Ordinance 1971 which prohibited us to go back and live in the Chagos. On March 3rd 1999 we received the right to make appeal to this Ordinance in a judgement given by Judge Scott BAKER. An hearing of 5 days was held from July 17th to July 21st 2000 where our legal team lead by Sir Sydney KENTRIDGE Q.C., who is famous for having defended Nelson MANDELA, explained clearly the inhuman conditions of our removal, and our struggle which lasts since more than 35 years. Our case was broadly covered by media of many countries which exposed the matter to the world. Madam, I would like to draw your attention that since 1836, in a book titled "The Voyage of the Beagle" by Charles DARWIN, captain Moresby has described us as the natives of the Chagos. We have our specialities which are quite specific to our archipelago.

On November 3rd 2000, in a judgement given by Lord Justice LAWS and Mr. Justice GIBBS, our right to return to our Motherland, the Chagos Archipelago, was acknowledged. I was decorated by the President of Mauritius for my achievements concerning the right of the Chagossians to go back to the Chagos. We are now proceeding by claiming compensation for all the damages we have suffered during exile. The right to gain full British Citizenship has been introduced in the House of Lords. We are preparing ourselves to go back and pay tribute to all our beloved ancestors who are buried there. We know that the British Government is conducting a feasibility study, but we have no idea how long it will take. In the mean time with the help of consultants we are planing for future economic activities for the welfare of the Chagossians. The activities considered are:
-- Tourism
-- Fishing industries
-- Handicraft & other useful activities.
Brother and sisters, any advice based on your experience will be most welcome. All these activities will be managed by our community. We will put an emphasis on education and training.

I take this opportunity to make an appeal to all indigenous people to continue their struggle to remain united for the sake of their community. It was a resounding success for us to be able to fight for our rights against a big power, who considered us despictfully as Tarzans and Man-Fridays. But once again, tiny David won against the huge Goliath. I will end with the words of Nelson MANDELA:
"Our struggle continues and victory will be certain."

19. Mr. Kee Watchman, Cactus Valley/ Red Willow Spring Sovereign Community of Big Mountain

I am a representative of the very last traditional Dineh ( Navajo) whom are being forced to remove from their very own ancestral land under the US law, such as the 1974 Relocation Act PL 93-531 and the 1996 Navajo- Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act S1973.

Madam Chair, the indigenous Dineh ancestral land rights and our religions rights, human rights and fundamental freedom are not being respected under the US law. Today at Big Mountain Arizona some of our Grandmothers and their grandchildren are facing forced removal in the near future because they refused to accept and sign the Hopi Tribal Government's and the US government's Law.

Since February 2000 we are living under the jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribal Council and violations of our human rights have increased since then. We are being denied to practice our religion. Just recently at the beginning of a Sundance ceremony, for trespassing and for disobeying Hopi order. Among these five people were elderly women who were being physically brutalized by Hopi Police Forces. 300 to 500 citations were given to participants and observers of 500 USD.

The Hopi Tribal Government has also intensified livestock impoundments thereby reducing our subsistence base and threatening the survival of our people and culture. All this happened on ancestral Dineh homelands now under jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribal Government. The UN government Assembly just passed its first resolution protecting religious sites such as these past may. The physical removal of the Dineh, land-based peoples, is a form of genocide under the 2nd article of the UN 1948 Geneva Convention on Genocide.

I would like to inform this body that we are in the process of mapping our ancestral land including sacred sites with the help of the Navajo-Hopi land commission in order to have our ancestral lands and sites legally recognized and protected under UN general Assembly resolution for the protection of religious sites.

Therefor, Madam Chair, the indigenous Dineh People respectfully ask for a visit and investigation of the ongoing problems by the special Rapporteur on the violation of the human rights ad fundamental freedom of Indigenous peoples.

In Conclusion, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Dineh People for all the work you have done to promote the rights of indigenous peoples. And specially for your visit to our lands in 1988.

20. Ms. Tracey Whare, Ngatira Lands Trust

I wish to inform the working group on a recent development concerning Maori in Aotearoa.

Last year it was bought to the attention of this working group of a new government policy entitled 'Closing the Gaps'. The New Zealand government stated in this working group "A major priority of the new government in New Zealand is to close the gaps between Maori and non-Maori" (New Zealand statement to the United Nations Working Group, Geneva, 24 - 28 July 2000). This policy has required the New Zealand government to undertake a concerted amount of work to research and collate the statistical figures that show the gaps or shall we say chasms between Maori and non-Maori in relation to social and economic well being. These statistics, clearly showed that in all areas of health, education and employment Maori have the most negative and sobering figures compared to non-Maori. Armed with these statistics the New Zealand government sought to fund affirmative action projects within Maori communities.

However, in the last year the government has decided to redefine and reprioritise its commitment to Maori social issues. It has redefined its policy on 'Closing the Gaps' between Maori and non-Maori to now say the gaps are between those that are rich and those that are poor. In October 2000, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Miss Helen Clark stated that closing the gaps was "Not about gaps between Maori and Pacific peoples and others but about poverty."

The effect of this for Maori is very negative. This shift in paradigm implies that Maori social issues can be legitimately subsumed by a larger category known as 'the poor'. This is not what the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed. It also reveals a disturbing attack on the identity of Maori. By redefining Maori simply as a group within New Zealand society that is failing to achieve, it seeks to remove the inherent identity of Maori as the Treaty partner along with the New Zealand government and relegates Maori concerns to simply one more issue that the government should address. Further, the attack on Maori identity is a very aggressive attempt to once again integrate Maori people and their identity into the overall mainstream New Zealand society.

We question the ability of the New Zealand government to address Maori social issues when it seems unable to decide on the purpose of its own statistical information as well as its inability to maintain a consistent approach to addressing Maori social issues. Once again we find the redefining and reprioritising of Maori social issues to be a clear breach of our rights as described and affirmed within the Treaty of Waitangi.

21. Mr. Willie Littlechild, International organisation of Indian Resource Development

This is a joint statement of LOIRD, the Maskwachiys Cree Nation Members of Samson, Ermineskin, Louis Bull and Montana. As stated earlier, there is a situation of grave concern we want to address under this agenda item. Very recently, the Government of Canada embarked on a very aggressive smear campaign to gain general Canadian public support on a First Nations Governance Initiative. It disregards our elected leaders and elders and pays no respect at all to the recent criticism that there is rampant corruption and do accountability by Chief and Councils to their members is a matter we want to address.

First however, we remind the W.G.I.P Members of the Committee in the Elimination of Racial Discrimination General Recommendations XXIII(51) concerning Indigenous Peoples adopted at the Committee's 1235th meeting on 18 August 1997

"4. The Committee calls in particular upon states parties: (a) … ensure that Members of Indigenous Peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent.". [emphasis mine]

Please note also that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concluding Observations on Canada (December 10, 1998) on the rights covered by Art. 1 to 15 of the Covenant. In particular § 17 and I quote:

" The Committee is greatly concerned at the gross disparity between Aboriginal People and the majority of Canadians with the respect to the enjoyment of Covenant Rights." [Emphasis mine]

That includes especially the Article 1 Rights to Self-Determination.

Thirdly, the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on Canada dated April 7, 1999 also indicate areas of concern and recommendations. Again quoting:

"7. The Committee while taking note of the concept of Self-Determination as applied in Canada to the Aboriginal Peoples, regrets that no explanation was given by the delegation concerning the elements that make up that concept and urges the State Party to report adequately on implementation of Article 1 of the Covenant in its next periodic report." … "The Committee emphasizes that the Right to Self-Determination requires, inter alia that all peoples must be able to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and that they may not be deprived of their own means of subsistence [Article 1 §2]" [emphasis added]

It is our submission that when one reads these United Nations' Treaty Bodies' decisions together, Canada can no longer attempt to qualify or limit our Right to Self-Determination in any way like their current initiative. In fact, we would argue the Governance Initiative flies in the face of these decisions.

There are other supporting references which time does not permit us to detail, however they include, "We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action; §256 of the Final Report of the U.N. Treat Study and the U.N. Committee of Experts Meeting on Indigenous Governments [1991]",

Indigenous Governments, as for other Governments, is about Jurisdiction. The Greenland Conclusions, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Proposed OAS Declaration all refer to this matter.

For us the matter of Treaty 6 based Cree Government is very important. Of note we would remind the WGIP Members of Justice Marshall's decisions when he stated:

"What is a Treaty? The answer is , it is a compact formed between two Nations or communities having the right of self-determination… The only requisite is, that each of the contracting parties shall possess the right of self-government, and the power to perform the stipulations of the Treaty." [emphasis added]
In our view that is jurisdiction and Treaties cannot simply be ignored or set aside when one proposes to talk about self-government.

To set the record straight, we would inform this WGIP 19th session that some twenty years ago, we wrote in our constitution accountability and conflict of interest rules. While we have unwritten custom laws in this regard, we would also include a code of conduct, a budget law and other legislation. Our leadership is required to meet at least quarterly with the Tribal Members. No budgets are approved unless ratified at a General Membership Meeting. Audited Financial Statements are presented to members… Our Governments are accountable directly to out members, their decisions are transparent and conflict interest rules have long been followed. I mention these point to counter the allegations of corruption and no accountability that have been thrown at us.

It is not that we do not want to cooperate. With basis ground rules of honesty and respect we will sit down with anyone to seek resolution to problems. We want to improve our Governments, we want our Governments and their Jurisdiction recognized based on our International Treaty No. 6. However, where a negative campaign is launched against our Tribal Leaders and Elders to seek changes to domestic legislation, we have to respond. In conclusion we urge this WGIP19 to recommend a more positive alternative approach to resolve this potentially violent situation.

22. Mr. Debbarma Sukhendu, Indigenous/ Tribal Peoples Development Centre

All my indigenous friends from all parts of the world will agree that indigenous people's life is a struggle. There are people wanting to destroy and harm us in the past and that are active even now.

I have already had the opportunity in the 18th session of the UNWGIP to highlight as to how the Indigenous Peoples have become minority in our own land and all the resources of ours are now in the hands of the non- indigenous migrants. These illegal migrants have acquired Indian citizenship and are exploiting and dominating us, taking protection under the Indian Constitution, where rule majority is the main guiding principle

The Indian government is deaf to the genuine struggles of the indigenous peoples for survival in our own land. The frustrations of the youth have led to and armed struggle for survival and the government is using this to degrade the genuine struggle of the indigenous people by using terminology like extremist/anti-social and misguided. The genuine issues of the Indigenous peoples and their movement to improve their conditions are threatened.

The steps taken by Indigenous Peoples are only for our self-defence to protect the traditional rights for self- determination and the protection of Human Rights.

In the name of counter insurgency it is only the Indigenous Peoples who are the worst affected and the worst form of human rights violations are taking place every day. The areas where indigenous peoples live have been declared as Disturbed Areas and maximum numbers of security forces are posted in this region. Not only that the various laws such as Armed Forces Special Act 1958 etc. operating so that the Indigenous Peoples can be harassed, tortured, detained. The government security forces have no mercy or sympathy for the Indigenous peoples. Many villages were burnt, people have been detained, tortured, intimidated, raped. Such happenings go unnoticed for we have no access to mass media. Government denies the occurrences and sometimes they are given a political colour.

Land is the basic need of the Indigenous People for their identification as well as survival. However, the alien land Laws and Acts such as Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act 1960 and the amendments thereafter, did not recognize the age-old traditional land rights of the Indigenous Peoples. The main economy of the indigenous peoples is shifting cultivation and those areas were not brought under the laws and act. The government changed names of villages and roads to suit administration. Fertile areas were given to non- indigenous illegal migrants who now dominate us.

The government hardly bothers to set up health centers in areas with yearly epidemics and malaria. Roads are no longer functional and therefore ill people can not be brought to hospital in time.

Education in the Indigenous Peoples dominated areas are in a dilapidated condition. If there is an existence of schools then there is an absence of teachers. If there are teachers, then there is no building. The drop out rate is high (75-80%) The Indigenous Peoples are forced to study in the language of the non-Indigenous Peoples.

The government seems to enjoy having a development program for all Indigenous People of similar scheme, knowing very well it will not benefit the Indigenous Peoples. In paper money is spent on Indigenous Peoples, but in reality it is spent on others. The indigenous peoples who are inducted for rehabilitation under the scheme called Jhumia Rehabilitation i.e. rehabilitation for shifting cultures are all taken up in the far-flung interior areas where there is no facilities. Make belief reports are submitted and Indigenous Peoples are one step behind in the development process.

Recommendations :

- Government must take immediate steps to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
- Government must take immediate steps to solve the problems concerning illegal migrants and take strong measures.
- The Land Laws and acts must be revised and land rights of Indigenous peoples must be recognized.
- The Indigenous People must be consulted first if any development work is carried out. No development work should be carried out without the consultation of Indigenous Peoples.
- All the laws, specially the Armed Forces special powers Act 1958 etc. must be withdrawn from the Indigenous Peoples areas immediately.
- Restoration and protection of Human Rights.

23. Mr. Mario Agreda, Capaj

Our peoples suffer lack of understanding on the part of the government. We have occupied the greatest pt of the territory of 200 thousand square meters since time immemorial. The Puna desert survives thanks to the high Andean aquatic eco systems in the frontiers of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. Since 1996 we have organised to recuperate what was taken away by colonialists, who eliminated 12 million of our ancestors. We arrive in 2001 dragging the burden of internal colonialism that global societies exercise on our people. Efforts have been made to take away our water sources. The government of Chile claims to provide a protected area but it plans to take water from the subsoil for farmlands. Our org which has Ecosoc status and begun a struggle against desertification, making a survey into the Puna region as a desert zone. We sent a cooperator so that our communities could participate in the implementation on the agreement (Convention CLD) on desertification. When Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina met, we were marginalized, disqualifying IP representation and only allowing one person participate. The CLD agreement stated one IP representative from each country should participate. On one hand efforts are made by international organisations to ensure participation but governments do not intend to allow participation in spite of signing agreements. This attitude is painful, it increases lack of welfare among out people. Before coming we were told roads have been blocked by peasants and the city of La Paz has been blockaded. This has been ongoing for a war with no effort to negotiate. In Chile senators have been dragging their feet unwilling to ratify ILO convention, and the Argentinian government, which has signed, shows no desire to implement it.

24. Ernestina Ortiz Pena, Coordinadora Nacional de Mujeres Indigenas,

did not speak

25. Ms. Pavlina Diaz, Associacion Consejo nacional de Mujeres Costarricense " Aconamic "

Thank you For thousands of years we Indigenous Peoples have had the responsibility of administrating the resources nature has provided as we are her children. But we don't become its master, exterminating it, and exterminating human life with it. Indigenous women have played an important role in conservation of history and culture, and in development form generation to generation. I think this space is vital to say what we think. As indigenous women we have not had opportunity to say what we think. We need change in education into education which is integral that will help society know the problems our people are undergoing at all levels. A people immersed in an education system which doesn't take into account our way of thinking cannot work. Our ancestors dedicated time to education to a society who loved and respected nature and life as a way of development. This is why when one understands the steps for the recuperation of what has been denied us, it means to understand reality, making known that together with the systems of domination, the beneficiaries of those systems help make up a laborious gigantic structure of domination. The brother who has been annihilated and shamelessly reduced to subordination and exploitation will find in our history and in the understanding of reality the true alternative for autonomy and determination.

How can we talk about development with our legal system of law without justice? The inhuman and illegal exploitation that landowners and merchants make of the moral and material heritage of our society is illegal because it violates the constitution and is an outrage in terms of the declaration of human rights. By its persecution and exploitation it is fascist and repressive and a consistent swindling of our legal rights . Our organization recommends the government ratify convention 179 of the ILO

26. Mr. Mohamed Ag Edwangaye, Promotion du Development Agropastoral Prodecap- Sadad,

Did not speak

27. Mr. Roland Pangowish, Assembly of first Nations

Before going into particular developments within Canada, we need to point out that it is important that the recognition of human rights of IPs be recognized within the international community.

There should be no further delay in approving the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text must remain as it was previously approved by the Sub Commission so we can ensure Indigenous Peoples are assured the same standards of protection as that of any other Peoples. The weakening of such standards is unacceptable and we fear the declaration will not be formally adopted within the International Decade of the world's Indigenous Peoples. We urge the Working Group to reiterate that the Declaration be adopted without change as soon as possible. Also recommend the SR use the declaration as his standard for assessing the Human Rights violations against Indigenous Peoples. This would give us some comfort in looking toward him to acknowledge our concern with Canada's implementation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommendations, emphasizing Treaty relationship and access to land and resources.

Canada's Royal Commission and its courts have urged the government and First nations to negotiate, yet when we attempt to do so, government intransigence forces us back to the courts or into direct action. It is a matter of concern for we believe that our inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights must be addressed before practical arrangements for governance can be reasonably pursued. The government of Canada does not want to pursue what they call rights-based solutions. They fear such an approach leads to conflict, but First Nations know that the avoidance of rights and not dealing with rights is what leads to conflict. We are growing increasingly concerned about this profound difference leading to conflict on the ground as First Nation communities assert their rights to land and resources.

Canada's lack of significant response to the UNHRC concerns expressed in December 1998 and of April 1999 has to be noted (CCPR.C/103/Add.105 and CCPR7SR.1737-1738) The Committee was particularly concerned that State Party has not yet implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (CCPR/C/79/Add.105) These concerns noted the need for greater access to lands, resources, self-determination and an end to practices of extinguishment, making direct connection with economic marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

We want you to note that the confrontations at Brunt Church over fisheries are the direct result of Canada's refusal to accept the Supreme Court's Marshall decision, affirming First Nation treaty rights to a commercial fishery. The government incorrectly asserts it has the right to impose existing regulations on this fishery, when in fact it merely may make regulations in that regard, which must be justified and imposed only to the extent required to meet those ends.

People of the Skwelkwek'Welt Nation in British Columbia have been arrested this week as they protest the expansion of a ski report in their territory. The Sun Peaks Resort Corporation has secured the cooperation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to remove peaceful protesters camped within their traditional territory. They refuse to recognize the Aboriginal Title of the Swelkwek'welt and insist upon pushing forward expansion of the resort before resolving the issue. Three protesters and an elder were arrested in the past Monday.

Also note the lack of adequate responses to Supreme Court decisions that favour Indigenous Peoples rights to manage and benefit from lands and resources. Recent changes to the Supreme Court and a new trend towards negative rulings on Aboriginal and Treaty rights erode the feasibility of using courts to clarify rights to lands and resources. This is most recently illustrated in the Mitchell Case, where the Supreme Court has overturned a federal court's ruling the Mohawk Peoples have the right to freely cross the US-Canada border with goods for personal use and trade amongst First nations. It is especially disturbing because the court is relying on its own erroneous interpretation of the history of First Nation trade practices in a period before any Europeans were present in the area. It must be noted that this decision is a gross miscarriage of justice and may need to be brought forward into the international fora for urgent consideration.

We also note our concern with multi-lateral and regional free trade agreements that do not account for the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples. This growing trend in the international community might present the biggest threat ever to the recognition and protection of IP's rights and resources. Those very resources, such as forest products, minerals and fish are of great significance to the First Nation survival and international arrangements which ignore IP rights represent a new type of colonialism which could represent another major violation of human rights.

PRESIDENT OF WG FOR DEVELOPMENT, AMBASSADOR OF ALGERIA:

I am here to speak on the WG on Right to Development. I will include in the UN system the achievement required over time in the exercise in the right to development. Indeed, it has been adopted 15 years ago. The Right to Development is unfortunately coming up against the traditional and original problem. The Vienna Conference 1993 devoted the principle of universality, interdependence, interrelated to the right of development. At the same time, we had the Beijing, Rome and Geneva meetings not long ago and the Millennium Summit.
All of the international meetings have agreed on the right to development. The right to development is an inalienable right, under Article 1 in 1996 is a multigenerational right. In this regard, the WG on Right to Development can be considered a historic achievement. I would like to draw the framework for our discussion that follows the discussions that have been ongoing here. A few considerations: Development. When we talk about development and poverty we talk about problems of developing and developed world based on system of the international economic system. Any development can only be global. In relation to restructuring of international economic relations. Yesterday, I heard the expert Motok and I believe the reflections she expressed go along the same lines and I would like to thank her for her clear comments. World changes are guided by a North South relationship. Right to Development is interdependence between people to express their mutual interest and could give rise to international dialogue and development as a theme.
Hence there is a need to refocus the problem on the expression of solidarity. Indeed, the need for solidarity requires three divergences.
1. The need to found corporations on the link between economic and social development. The economic and social are integral components.
2. Human rights and democracy are fundamental indicators of development policy. We are masking the relationship between colonialism in the granting of assistance, required on influencing developing world.
3. Resources necessary for international financing for development.
Many countries are still silent on increasing or attaining the 0.7 GNP for official assistance. They also exclude the coordination of activities between the UN system and the Bretton Woods Institutions. The common trend is decreasing the involvement of Bretton Woods concerning poverty. Poverty and hunger in the world continues. This is not the area for urgent attention. We need to promote the idea for strengthening the coordination between the IMF, World Bank, General Assembly and Security Council. Bearing in mind replacing ECOSCO with an economic and social security council would be an approach. We suggest urgent treatment of international problems in solidarity for the people. Hence, the need to strengthen the UN system and not reduce multilateral action. The discussion on the right to development derives its sense from balanced development and one that is shared by giving appropriate sense of responsibility. It is important to give to this right effective realization.

The WG has made practical recommendations in favor of development and establish UN mechanism to monitor the realization of the right to development. It is in this symbiosis that international will connect democracy. We will recall that with Article 1 of the right to development in 1986 that the right to development is an inalienable human right that all people have right to participate in economic, social and cultural development where all freedoms are realized and benefit from this right. In the declaration and program of action that the right to development is an universal and inalienable right which is a basic human right. Vienna Declaration also underscored that at national level there must be sufficient policies for development as well as in the international level. I hope WGIP will also work in that direction. I would also like to recall that states should foster development and reduce obstacles. The commitment by states and governments should also guide our work. At the Millennium summit, they said right to development is also mentioned and guaranteed. Desire between actions at national and international level that development is individual at national level and collective at the international level. It gives holistic view of right to development. We had to clarify the right to development. The important research has helped the WG to Development to clarify, bear in mind specificity the realities of the communities. Paragraph 185, In the process to realize the right to development special attention must be focused on vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples. The 50th session on Commission on Human Rights agree and extended mandate of the WG Development.

The problem of the right to development has escaped the erroneous view of head of proposals of the need to encourage reform of laws and to encourage equal rights between men and women and the minorities and majority in society. In terms of recommendation 104, we broached the issue of poverty touching indigenous peoples. The right to development is a priority of the international community. The implementation requires a follow up mechanism in order to evaluate the implementation at the national and international level. There is a need to ensure participatory democracy. We should have principles of transparency and extend role of women in civil society as well as media associations. With regard to international standard, there must be favourable action for the right to development. We want markets that are open and equal.

28. Mr. Thangmawia, Zo reunification Organisation

Thank you Madam chair. Our land has been divided through colonization. The root of conflict lies in alienation from own land. Centuries of displacement led indigenous peoples to many forms of discrimination including violence. Development model of colonizers is where indigenous peoples are displaced and lose own livelihood.

Zo have been living independently before British occupation. The British started to invade in 1761. In 1824 to 26 the Anglo Burmese war was declared. The British won and after the treaty began logging and transforming Zo land into tea plantations. In 1888 to 1890, they made a final invasion from 3 areas. Zo was then divided into 3 administrative units: Assam, Bengal and BURMA.The British kept control with restrictions. The legislative council did not work and not responded so far. In 1964, many indigenous people were driven away. Dams are under construction that cover many kilometers and drive indigenous peoples to be homeless. I plead to world body so Zo race may survive and recognition of land rights.

29. Ms. Shoko Oshiro, Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus

As many of you may recall, although Okinawa is only one half of one percent (0.6%) of Japan's total landmass, fully 75% of the United States' military bases within Japan are on our land. Due to the presence of the bases, my people face severe environmental degradation of our islands, physical and psychological trauma from the constant noises of military training exercises, and other serious violations of our human and indigenous rights. Today I want to focus on the problem of crime and especially sexual violence against my people.

While the rape of an elementary school girl in 1995 was widely reported around the world, numerous crimes against my people go unreported every year. In addition to a serious hit-and-run accident in 1998, break-ins and incidents of sexual assault continue to happen on a regular basis. In January of this year, there was a sexual assault and other injurious attacks. In March, there was a shooting incident. In April, there was another hit-and- run accident. There were two more violent attacks last month. Madame Chairperson, US service personnel were convicted of 48 crimes in Okinawa last year and 12 crimes in the first half of this year.

In the midst of these already unacceptable circumstances, we Uchinanchu had to face the frightening and tragic news of yet another rape of a young woman by a member of the US Air Force last month. Because of the massive bases, the ability of Uchinanchu to develop in Okinawa is severely restricted. However, one project that was the result of careful planning and had the explicit goal of 'development with peace,' was a planned residential and recreational community where families, the elderly and young people could live and spend their free time. Therefore, we Uchinanchu felt added sorrow and extreme frustration to learn that it was at this peaceful, hopeful place that the rape happened.

Despite the shocking frequency at which crimes by US servicemen occur, the Japan-US Agreement on the Status of American Forces in Japan does not give my people any control over the arrest and punishment of the perpetrators of these crimes. We therefore cannot be certain that the rights of their victims are protected.

During the session of the Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination held in March of this year, the Japanese government confirmed that the rights of Japanese citizens are protected under Articles 17 and 18 of the Agreement on the Status of American Forces in Japan. In the case of the recent rape incident, however, even though the identity of the US serviceman who committed the rape was known and the arrest warrant was issued by July 2nd, the rapist was not arrested until July 6th because of the United States' Independence Day holiday. Furthermore, the very arrest of the rapist, as in any crime committed by US military personnel, hinges on nothing more than the good will of the United States. Because the Japanese government is concerned primarily with avoiding confrontation with the US, our rights are ignored.

We Uchinanchu must live every day within this structure of violence created by the United States and Japan. Given that the Japanese government insists that we are Japanese citizens and continues to deny that we are discriminated against, the governments lofty commitment to the Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination must be carefully reevaluated.

We call to the attention of this Working Group the fact that an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of military bases around the world occupy indigenous lands. Indigenous women and youth are therefore at a much greater risk of rape and all other forms of sexual violence. This problem is central among the general destruction of our communities that results from military occupation of indigenous lands around the world. Ultimately, only by acknowledging indigenous peoples' land rights and our right to self-determination can the international community end this destruction. But we also call on the UN to take steps to ensure that the sexual violence military bases bring to indigenous communities is stopped immediately.

30. Ms. Anna Pinto, Centre for Organisation Research and Education

We the CORE Network for Indigenous Children of the North East region of India, participating at the Working Group on Indigenous Populations would like to bring to your attention the increasing problems facing us due to government neglect and disregard of the rights of children and of indigenous children.

The Government of India has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992 and has submitted its initial report to the Committee in 1998, following which the Committee has examined the report and made it conclusions and recommendations to the Government in 2000 January.

We regret however that the Government of India has made no efforts to implement these recommendations in regard to children of our region, over the past one and a half years. The recommendations have not even been disseminated, as is one of the primary obligations of the State Party under this treaty.

Plans implying large scale displacement of our communities for strategic and development purposes continue unabated despite the well-recognized impact on the survival and development of indigenous children. This displacement and absence of rehabilitation measures together with the neglect of investment in infrastructure and services for health and education mean that indigenous children have no future to anticipate or prepare, nor the means with which to prepare for this.

This intentional vacuum is deliberately exploited by the Government in disregard of the spirit and explicit provisions of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to engage in intensive recruitment of our youth to the military forces. Of late the Government of India has deliberately targeted promotional and recruitment programmes at indigenous youth in the North East region. Large numbers of young people, finding it impossible due to their inability to access education, to find job or even livelihood opportunities either locally or away from home are compelled to join the armed forces of the Government of India as a survival strategy.

The long duration conflict in the region has intensive and inter-generational impact on our children who know no other social environment than a situation of low intensity war. We are living with several generations of conflict-induced trauma on our communities and people. The impact of this on the mental health of our children is devastating. Despite recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Government of India has made no effort to develop policy or programme interventions to address these. The increasing vulnerability of our young people to substance abuse, violence and self-harm demonstrated by surveys conducted over the last 3 years is a clear indication of this trend. Indigenous children and youth in Manipur are increasingly being targeted in violence, torture, arbitrary detention and other forms of human rights violations. According to official sources from healthcare institutions and the police, the suicide and attempted suicide rate among children and youth below 25 years of age is now a horrifying 1-2 every week.

The collapse of education due to the conflict situation, resulting in over 20,000 (twenty thousand) indigenous children returning their school books to the Governor of Manipur in protest over the continuous curfew and prohibitory orders since 18 June 2001, which has prevented them from attending school, indicates the seriousness of the situation. During these protests by indigenous children and youth, nine have been shot dead and hundreds injured in police brutalities since mid-June this year.

Madame, we also wish to bring to your notice that the United Nations Special Session on children scheduled for September 17 – 20, 2001 is at present in process of negotiating the text for the Outcome Document: "A World Fit for Children". We urgently request this Working Group to strongly urge the General Assembly to accord due attention and specifically include the all the concerns and problems of indigenous children in this document. We also request this Working Group to be present and to intervene as may be appropriate at this Special Session in order to present the case of indigenous children to the General Assembly.

In accordance with previous requests and keeping in mind that one of the foremost concerns of indigenous peoples everywhere is the situation of our children and youth, we also urge this important forum to include the issue of children and youth as a permanent item on the agenda of this august forum, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.

We also request the Working Group to urge the Committee on the Rights of the Child to inquire with countries submitting reports for review, to appropriately and with due attention inquire specifically into the situation of indigenous children, especially with regard to the provisions of Articles 17, 29 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In regard to this Committee we also draw to your attention, Madame, that the Committee holds every year a General Discussion Day. We request the Working Group to urge the Committee on the Rights of the Child to devote the General Discussion Day of 2002 to the theme of Indigenous Children.

We request this Working Group to also recommend to the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples to urgently inquire, as a matter of priority, into the situation of indigenous children and youth as is specified in his mandate.

We also request this Working Group to request the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as soon as it begins its work to prioritise the issues concerning indigenous children and youth particularly under the Forum's mandate on education, health and human rights.

31. Mr. Tony Gonzales, Committee on Indigenous Health and IITC

We must admit that the health gap between IPs and other societies are widening despite efforts by governments and NGOs. The central question of the continuous onslaught on our lands in numerous ways resulting in dispossession, displacement and destruction of cultures must be urgently addressed if our survival is to continue.

The neglect and loss of our traditional health systems and practices, which we still rely upon, the disappearance of our medicinal plants, the violation of our land under various pretences such as so called development, forced relocation and involuntary displacement, the pollution and deliberate dumping of pollutants in our lands and many other current practices continue to threaten our survival and health.

The new forces called 'globalization, 'liberalization', 'privatization', 'economic structural adjustments programs' and such like are wreaking havoc among our peoples. These forces, which are being claimed as beneficial to all peoples, are clearly being driven by uncontrolled greed of the ever expanding corporate world, which has now even crept into inter-governmental institutions and organisations.

For example, at the 2000 G8 summit, leaders of some of the world's richest countries announced a grand commitment to achieve substantial reductions in the global burden of disease and death due to HIV infection and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria by 2010. This new global health fund, which was also highlighted at the Genoa G8 summit last week, is being set up with major contributions from the major pharmaceutical companies. We are deeply concerned that this new fund will be yet another high profile effort with grand notions but no benefit to those who really need attention. The private sector's increasing role in health funding means that the agenda is also being set up with private interests as the foremost consideration. However, this effort is being promoted as yet another new example of governance. We are aware that there is no emerging clarity on how this fund is going to be used nor where are these funds really coming from.

Yet another new development is the effort being made within the WHO to begin elaboration of a global plan of action.

We urge the WG to reiterate its recommendations to the WHO in 1996 and the recommendations of the Committee on Indigenous Health in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 as well as the recommendations of the international consultation. The WG is requested to urge all relevant agencies to continue to pay particular attention to the suggestions and advice derived from extensive consultations and debates among Ips. The WG is further requested to direct its attention to the new global health fund established by the G8 to ensure that the utilization of the fund give particular and equitable attention to IPs.

We welcome the appointment of the SR and congratulate Mr Stavenhagen on his appointment. We urge him to give special attention to the denial and violations of health rights and related rights of IPs.. We request the WG to urge the SR to take up on a suo moro basis, investigations and inquiries into many serious violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of IPs.

We also look forward to the establishing of the Permanent Forum and the Committee will submit annual reports to the PF on the issue of the health of the world's IPs.

32. WHO, Ms. Jacqueline Sims

During the 57 Session of the HRC this year, we expressed concern that the often unsatisfactory health status of Ips in realtion to others demonstrates failure of their right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, as laid down in the WHO constitution. The right to food, living conditions, healthcare are similarly lacking. Together they translate into a failure of the right to development.

At this year's WHO Assembly, the secretariat underlined to Member States that systematic and organized work on accurately identifying and documenting health disparities between Ips. Tribal peoples and others was not taking place in most countries. Without this it will be difficult to achieve change at either policy or intervention level.

Now, in collaboration with an indigenous research institution in Canada we are preparing ethical guidelines on participatory research management. This will spell out the rights, obligations and responsibilities of all parties involves in health research. The second preparatory task is the compilation of a Compendium of Research Institutions addressing IP health issues.

The WHA has requested us to prepare for its next meeting in May 2002, an outline for a global plan of action on IP health. Consultation with indigenous and tribal organisations will be required in the production of these documents.

WHO is now engaged in four related areas:
1. Providing support to the preparations of the Permanent Forum.
2. Preparing to strengthen the existing evidence on health disparities through a participatory health research program.
3. Promoting efforts to improve ethnicity measurement in national data collection systems.
4. Taking initial steps to establish a global plan of action on indigenous health.

33. Mr. Moh Sibelkace, Congres Mondial Amazigh

Did not speak

34. Ms. Doreen Spence, Canadian Indigenous Women's Resource Institute

Canadian Indigenous Women's Resource Institute: The most essential for the promotion and protection of HR of Indigenous Peoples is the draft declaration. It must be given the highest priority. Its adoption and implementation must not be delayed. Appeal to all levels of the UN to ensure the adoption of the draft declaration as a vital means on moving forward. In the eyes of the creator we are no less or no more than any other lifr form nor are we any greater than any other life form. These are the natural laws. And it is passed the time for us to take our rightful place in society and enjoy the same as other peoples living within our territories.

35. Mr. Buddy Gwin, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

Sends greeting to all and to the Creator. Wants to acknowledge the intervention of grand chief of the Cree, Ted Moses as well as Tony Gonzales. Development of natural resources of Indigenous Peoples by colonial governments is tantamount to their destruction. Such rules designed to protect Indigenous Peoples have served to perpetuate 'twistory' the most insidious form of genocide. Especially with the most vulnerable, the children. 'Twistory is tantamount to ethnocide. It starts in the class rooms that we are sending our innocent children to learn. They are stripped of their language, their history, their beliefs. They become non-indigenous peoples, their bodies are indigenous but without the spirit of the Ips. We need to protect that spirit. If their spirit is destroyed, so is our future is destroyed. Calls to hasten the already existing documents and no longer leave them idle in these hallowed halls

36. Spain, Ms. Maria Noguerol Alvarez

Did not speak

37. Ms. Nelly Tunggang, Sarawak Peoples Campaign

Our land is being destroyed because the government law does not recognize our nomadic way of life. All forests that are not cultivated are State Land. But we did not cultivate crops 50 years ago, we live from the wild sago plants and animals. We are in a dire situation because of development projects permitted by the government. They are logging our forests and polluting the rivers. The animals are gone and the plants need for our survival are destroyed.

We are not used to the life of those settled tribes. When our land is destroyed, we will die. In the modern term, the land is like our supermarket, the hospital and the educational institution. It is our stomach and our breath!

Our life is now like fish that is thrown on the land; like a flower that is withering or like the tree whose branches are pruned off. Most Penan People in the watershed of the Bram, Limbang, Magoh and Tutoh have been arrested and some put in jail as a result of our blockades trying to stop these destructions.

We Penan People are very distinct in our way of living, our language and our world-views. Their treatment of our people is unjust in every aspect.

? we call for a memorandum on Penan territories from all logging activities until the land is being recognized by the government.
- We seek compensation on all destroyed territories. Money from this compensation will be put in trust funds for development in Penan areas.
- Assist us in Education and training the young people so they can adapt to new lifestyles.
- Assist us in providing for adequate health system like setting up clinics in our communities.
- Assist us in documenting our language and culture for future generations.

38. Mr.Jason Pan, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact

"Liak Sasanuwan", this is the traditional greeting from our Pazeh language. I represent the indigenous Pazeh peoples of Taba, Furuton, and Auran communities. I thank you all for allowing me to participate and to make a statement here at the WGIP sessions on human rights issues pertaining to indigenous peoples and about the situation of my people.

The right to the protection of our traditional homeland, management of the natural resources, and the preservation of indigenous culture must be recognized. Like what is happening elsewhere, we must sadly report that our traditional Pazeh language and culture is fast disappearing. Right now, most of the Pazeh-descendent people can not speak the language of our ancestors, and do not have any understanding of our precious cultural heritage.

The main reasons for this situation are the loss of our homeland, the break-up of our traditional communities, economic exploitation by new settlers, cultural assimilation pressure, and school education policies, where the teaching of our Pazeh history and our indigenous language is not allowed. Another serious violation of indigenous human rights is the state-government's continual denial of our right to be recognized as indigenous peoples.

To preserve our Pazeh culture and the traditional knowledge passed down through the generations by our Pazeh ancestors, in recent years at our Taba, Furuton, and Auran community, we have initiated projects to record our people's history, and to teach our language at the elementary level.

One of our Pazeh elder has completed a book on the history, spiritual belief, social customs, as well as the hunting, fishing, and harvesting practices of our people. In the book, there are detailed accountings of the painful history that our people have suffered since the colonial era: of military subjugation and economic exploitation of my people, loss of our land, destruction of our natural resources, and forced relocation of my people from our traditional homeland in the lowland plains and river valley regions.

In one of our education projects, we have gotten together five of our community elders, to make recordings, to construct a mother tongue textbook and to compile a basic Pazeh language dictionary. It has been a slow and arduous process, because we have little funding and rely mostly on community volunteer work for this effort. And also the elders can only work for short sessions at a time due to their advanced age and being in conditions of suffering from chronic illness.

Given these efforts, we are still lagging far behind and school's educational policies still ignore us. The state- government and the society at large continue to discriminate us by denying our existence as indigenous peoples. Many in the society still look down on indigenous peoples and hold prejudice views against us. We still have much obstacles to overcome, as we seek the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to address these situations of rights violation against indigenous peoples.

We ask for your support in solidarity with my people in our struggle for the recognition of our rights, to fight for our rights for the use and teaching of our mother tongue, and the return of traditional homeland and the natural resources to the indigenous communities.

39. Mr. Nepuni Piku, Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights

Let me share with you the recent developments in our land. We have seen 4 years of peace in these last fifty four years. The social space allowed by the ongoing peace process has allowed civil society groups in India and Nagalim to meet more frequently and contribute to the peace process. As part of this coordination between two civil societies, a team of civil society groups from India toured various parts of Nagalim and interacted extensively with members of the public as well as the Indian military and civilian officers in March 2001. This was part of a response to the Nagas 'journey of conscience' to Delhi in 2000. The visit of Indian civil society culminated in a joint consultation from 18-20 March 2001 in Kohima.

Following intensive consultation the Kohima Declaration was adopted by the 2 civil societies. Based on the spot findings, the Indian civil society groups submitted a memorandum to the President of India stating: 'We in the rest of India can no longer escape the consequence of a military suppression of the Naga people, which throws away human the nation's human and material resources and carries the real danger of subversion of our democratic process.' The consultation set up inquiry to investigate HR violations and democratic rights of Nagas, and this commission is a process of putting together a report. A Peoples Commission comprising imminent personalities from India and Naga is being constitutes to study the report and recommend measures to address the basic needs.

The controversy over the cease fire area has continually endangered the cease fire. In June 2001 a joint statement was issued that they will observe the cease fire without territorial limits. It was welcome as a minimum requirement for meaning for political dialogue. For the people of NE of India the cease fire holds the hope of demilitarisation of the area. Although the extension of the cease fire has been restricted to only Naga areas, Meitis have resorted to mob tactics to frustrate the cease fire in our villages. Since the eruption of violence in Imphal of Manipur, thousands of Nagas have been forced to leave their homes by mob terror campaigns. Manipur police have done nothing to prevent this. We have always tried to bring an understanding to the Meitis through dialogue and sharing. Unfortunately they have not been coming forward due to Hindu segregation. Through this statement we appeal to the Meitis to restore peace in Nagalim

40. Ms. Ruth Marcus, Pacos Trust

In order to give full an adequate protection to Indigenous Peoples over their land, land legislation has to be enacted to confer the right of Indigenous Peoples to acquire land including their customary rights in land, and to provide adequate protection against exploitation of indigenous land. In Sabah state the land ordinance allows an IP to hold any type of land title, native title or country land. It further provides provision to prevent lands being transferred to non-indigenous peoples. By all means of sale, purchase, sublease, creation of trust, and power of attorney. Sadly I have to report that despite the existence of this law it did not prevent lands from leaving the hands of Indigenous Peoples. Officials have compromised the integrity of the office. Marriage between Indigenous People and Non Indigenous Peoples results in mixed marriage as Indigenous People. In recent years it has been discovered that many people had been rushing to claim they were descendants of Ips and applying for land. Some were genuine but many were doubtful. Despite this these applicants have managed to obtain certificates endorsing their indigenous status. To these people it is like obtaining a passport to all privileges and rights reserved exclusively to IPs. These new Ips could have put this certificate to good use. Instead they have changed the landscape. The practice of conferring certificates to all is tantamount to a sell out. They have no respect for Indigenous culture, customs and heritage. We are pleased that measures have been taken by the government to put a stop to the practice, but the damage has already been done.

41. Mr. Joseph Olekaria, MAA Development Association

The Kenya government claims to represent all Human Rights and be committed to democratic principles of good governance, to justice, equality and the rule of law. In practice in almost all these areas it demonstrates the contrary. Opposition parties and NGOs are not allowed to participate freely and many are intimidated and affected by breaches of law and unconstitutional activities. This has been extensively reported on in the past during the national election of 1997. Although some improvements, much can be done to equate all citizens of Kenya along their ethnic backgrounds. Another danger is the growing ethnic conflict. Many have lost their lives in the conflict between the Pokot, the Keyio, Masaii and Kelnjin Maasai and the Kisii. There has been no sign of interest from the government to this chronic situation to prevent loss of lives and relocations. Such migrations have reduced the resource base of Indigenous Peoples and made them vulnerable. In addition they become minorities in their own areas and thus subject to domination and assimilation. The Indigenous Peoples territories have been grabbed by mainstream society. Governments not want to see the negative impact on the Indigenous Peoples.

Kenya is undergoing constitutional review and many Indigenous Peoples would like a federal union. But the majority fear this because they want to continue sucking the blood of the Indigenous Peoples. The land commission have started to review land laws in the country but we have the feeling that they will try to conceal numerous irregular land transactions done to deprive Indigenous Peoples of their land. The Maasai have lost much land from colonial rule to independence. Must condemn these acts to rescue the community from extinction.

42. Mr. Mikhael Todyshev, Association of the Shor People

EI would like to talk about events which took part in legislative rights of IPs in Russia over land. The Duma is adopting a new land code. We are grateful for the studies you have been conducting. The results should be made aware to the Russian Parliament. The people of the North have been working with the Duma to draft a report which established the status of the territories. Experts have also studied the draft text. Of course the final version is the result of compromise. As an NGO we have no right to make suggestions and we cannot speak in parliament. But we have contacts with the Duma and through them we are submitting proposals. In May the President of Russia signed a law on how nature can be protected. It took 9 years to draft. This law protects IPs. It has special status, protecting territories, and handing them back to IP communities, free of charge. But it also depends on who is the owner of the territory for much of the land is in the hands of the Russian Federation. The civil servants have little experience in this type of work so we are making an inter-ministerial working group for methodology. We have carried out preliminary discussion on land use policy with the Ministry of Resources. We may use the Canadian system. In March this year we signed and agreement on how cooperation can be extended. Here Russian representation of UNDP was prepared to help. We had a meeting with the UNDP in Russia and began to work with them.

43. Mr. Vasilie Robbek, Institute of Problems of Indigenous People of the North (Russian Federation)

The current reason for our problems is we were born on lands rich in resources. Our survival is directly linked with land use. In Russia there is legislative work done in land use. In Sakha there is no solution. In various entities we have problems. All forests are properties of the Russian federation. Their management belongs to another entity. We need agreements on renting the forests. Industry is intruding on our territories with a negative impact undermining survival, such as: rezoning of rain deer pastures as industrial land; mass pollution of land and aquatic environment with the result of loss of fish and wildlife; destruction of forests, and destruction of tundra; not to mention disruption of ecosystems by hydro electric dams. We now have appearance of eco refugees. The land is inalienable. These measures of development should be taken only in cooperation. If Russian federation ratifies ILO convention. It is desirable to set up UN monitoring body for land disputes. The year when the decade will come to an end, it would be good to hold a conference on aboriginal land. We have also set up a school for aborigines. Our participation in the use of this school will help us to train the future leaders. The school participated in the international East West Euro Intellect and won a medal. Thanks this school.

44. Mr. Tim Coulter, Indian Law Resource Centre

It will take more than principles and legal rules to make states respect the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. The Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, and many other instruments of international law already establish the principle of non-discrimination and respect for the fundamental rights of all peoples. And yet nearly all countries continue to treat indigenous lands and resources in a manner that expressly and deliberately discriminates against indigenous peoples and denies them land and resource rights that practically all others enjoy. We must of course continue the task of declaring the rights of indigenous peoples. But it is now very clear that concrete measures and new international mechanisms will be needed to review actual state practices concerning indigenous lands and resources and to promote genuine respect for the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources. It is not too soon to begin consideration of what international measures might be truly constructive for promoting respect for indigenous lands and resources and indigenous sovereignty over these lands and resources.

Lands and resources are the very center of the historic conflict between indigenous peoples and the colonizing peoples that have now become states. These resources were and still are the supreme objects of desire, greed, politics and warfare. Lands and resources are literally the reason why there is such a thing as "indigenous peoples," peoples surrounded by a dominant settler population. For this reason, it is on this issue of lands and resources that we see the most intense injustice, the most stark racism, and the harshest assertions of state power. The stakes are very high: substantial resources of great value, the preservation of the environments where indigenous peoples live, and the future survival of indigenous peoples. It should be no surprise, that special measures will be necessary to encourage and promote respect for indigenous resources – literally, to promote the decolonization of indigenous peoples.

Madam Chair, your Working Paper on Indigenous Peoples' Relationships to Land discusses many of the most important issues. I want to thank you for that Working Paper and to call attention to some of the cases mentioned in that paper that the Indian Law Resource Center is working on. The situation in Nicaragua is especially important. The state has refused to institute effective processes to demarcate Indian lands. Just as in many other countries, this means that the indigenous peoples have no legal means to protect their lands and resources from exploitation by others. The Indian people of the village of Awas Tingni have asked the Inter- American Court of Human Rights to render a judgement declaring that Nicaragua has an obligation under international law to demarcate indigenous lands. We are hoping for a favorable decision in that case, but I am aware that most indigenous peoples have no such international court or other body to turn to for assistance and enforcement.

The Western Shoshone people in the United States, for example, are continuing to battle for their land rights against the United States government. They have no court to turn to at this time. The United States actually boasts that it has the legal power to take away Indian land and resources without due process of law and without compensation. The United States is unashamed of this rank discrimination, and they are using this terrible power every day. Just this week, the government sent a formal notice to some of the Western Shoshone people (the Dann family) saying they will soon begin impounding the Danns' cattle if the Danns do not remove the cattle immediately. The government is literally trying to drive the Western Shoshones off the land where they have lived for centuries. In the case of the Yurok Tribe, the United States is taking a similar position: that it can take the property of an Indian tribe at will, without paying fair compensation as would be required if non-Indian property were taken. This is what the United States did to the Yurok people just a few years ago. It is particularly discouraging that the United States would take this position openly in the Supreme Court of the United States, even though it constitutes absolute racial discrimination. It is especially discouraging that this situation occurs in a country where the rule of law is well-established and where the law prohibiting race discrimination is otherwise well- established. The situation is far worse in other countries.

I point out these cases to illustrate my point: Certain abusive state practices will not yield to principles and law alone, no matter how well-established the principles are. That is why I believe we must begin to discuss what other practical measures could be taken to achieve real respect for indigenous land and resource rights. In my earlier statement I referred to the UN Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. That agency played an important role in the process of decolonization. There were other bodies of the UN as well that were created to oversee and promote the process of decolonization. These bodies provided various forms of oversight, and in some senses they provided a means for encouraging countries to give up their colonial powers and claims to resources. The present record of the conduct of countries is powerful evidence that special international measures will be needed to bring countries to respect indigenous lands and resources as a practical matter.

There are many sound reasons why countries should as a matter of urgent policy move to repudiate their discriminatory practices and give true respect to indigenous lands and resources. It would promote economic and political stability in many areas that are now rife with conflict over indigenous resources. It would create a sound business environment that would promote development. It would contribute greatly to peace and security in many regions of the world. And it would promote environmental protection and conservation of natural ecosystems where so many indigenous peoples now live.

I recommend and urge that this Working Group and indigenous peoples themselves consider what additional measures could be taken to promote respect for indigenous lands and resources and for indigenous sovereignty over these resources.

45. Mr. Sinafasi Makelo, Action d' Appui pour la Protection des Droits de Minorites en Afrique

I would like ot draw attention to the spoiling and deforestation is undermining the future of the pygmies, the first occupants of central Africa. Today they are the citizens of the lowest ranks, with no lands. It is the cause of their lack of development in relation to other peoples. This is the case of the forest Pygmies, hunter gatherers, Bambote, from Kivu in the east of Congo. The forests belonging to them were a vital space for them which were illegally invaded and destroyed. The pygmies have been uprooted in spite of legal provisions. They have watched their loss as well as the vital loss of this forest from which they gained their lifestyle and energy. They suffer the effect of uprooting and difficulties in adapting to new hostile environment. Those near the Kahuzi- Biega, Virunga and Maiko national parks and the Okapi d'Epulu reserve have the same problems. Timber societies have also devastated the forests and forest eco systems to the clear detriment of Pygmies. The Thai society Dara-Foret in Mangina/Beni is an eloquent example of deforestation. The ease with which they acquired the forest makes us fear that soon there will be no forest left. In addition Pygmies are considered sub-human beings without the same rights as others, and so they don't care whether we survive. We are launching an SOS. We recommend the WG deal with this urgent problem to set up land legislation and regulation, to ensure there is only environmentally friendly exploitation of forest.

Day 5, Friday AM, July 27, 2001
Working Group, Morning Session

46. Ms. Tatiana Tyerlyetskaya, Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North of Chukotka

We are a 13000 population living near Alaska. We have no fewer problems than in Russia. Unemployment: After the soviet era rain deer herders became owners of their herds. However, we have lost all managerial and entrepreneurial skills and have difficulty of selling our deer. We were incapable of getting credit at banks. We had to sell the rain deer very cheaply and as a result had to kill most our rain deer. Nobody wanted to buy. Since the farms disappeared, Indigenous Peoples became unemployed, and they are not needed because they only know rain deer life style. Many become alcoholics. Some are losing everything. This cannot continue. There was one family who started a teetotal society. It is a small progress. In soviet times there was no tuberculosis now we have it. There is also cancer because of the nuclear power station. Education is poor. Children are downtrodden by imported teachers who say there is no point in teaching them. All desire to learn disappears. That is why we need our own teachers. Ecology: gold panning pollutes our rivers affect the fish but nobody is consulting the rain deer communities. The outside managers are controlling this. They grab the best places and lease the rights for fifty years. Life expectancy for men is 35. Elections to the Duma have given a little hope. Vladimir Yetilin became the only member of parliament among the Indigenous Peoples. He will try and improve our problems

Madame Daes, Chairperson. UNESCO now has a department to deal with IP education, which may be of help.

47. Ms. Galina Alotova, Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North of the Khabarovsk Region

The situation culture and education is important in defining the ethos of the people which is why we are trying to save our mother tongues. A society of women are producing traditional items and clothing, but material is scarce. Tourists are interested in our area. We began building an ethnic centre. Hunting and fishing are traditional activities. There are two communities who are hunter gatherers but they are not owners of the land. Regional authorities decide, and this year they lost their hunting rights. It is full of loopholes that allows those groups who do better lobbying to prevail. We are only speaking about survival

48. Ms. Maria Eugenia Choque, Taller de Historia Oral Andina

Workshop of oral history of the Andes. Ayamara people. My participation is about education which is essential for our possibility of understanding. The IPs, which as the Great Nation Tawantinsuyana, before 1532 have been continuing developing science and knowledge. There was no hunger and misery. The state managed the resources so that all had what they needed. When the Spanish arrived they described it as utopia. We had a happy society. Day turned to night, our know-how was then called ignorance and we were marginalized. Our poverty is now 500 years old. It is not only due to the current the system of education, the colonialists tried not to educate us. I want to thank those who have been educating our children in our own language. If we do not do this our children will be lost. Otherwise colonized people cannot develop. It is our right to self-determination to teach our children in our language. In our country it is impossible to eliminate the resistance. The children, what will they learn? Not culture. If they do not consider our culture it is not intercultural education. We should have Ayamara education by the Aymara for the Aymara which once brought us our well-being. We should not have government control, and teachers who are just translators of outside content.

49. Finland

Let me, first of all, congratulate you on your re-election to the Chairperson of this Working Group. Let me also take this opportunity to express, on behalf of my delegation, appreciation and thanks to you for the extensive and valuable work you have carried out in the exercise of your duties. You can count on the full support of the Finnish delegation. I wish you and the other members of the Working Group every success in your challenging and important tasks.

Bearing in mind the distinctive relationship which indigenous peoples have with their land, the Finnish delegation will concentrate under agenda item 5 to land issues. On the national level there has been some progress achieved of which my delegation is pleased to be able to inform the Working Group.

The right of the Sami as an indigenous people to maintain and develop their own language and culture as well as the Sami cultural autonomy, which have been guaranteed by the Finnish Constitution, were strengthened by the Act on the Sami Parliament in 1995.

The said Act gives contents to the linguistic and cultural autonomy. The Sami Parliament can have its say on issues concerning the Sami culture, livelihoods, language, social position and status as an indigenous people. National, regional and municipal authorities are obliged to negotiate with the Sami Parliament in all far-reaching and important matters which may directly and in a specific way affect the status of the Sami as an indigenous people.

In practice, however, this negotiation obligation does not give the Sami sufficient powers to affect land use decisions as changes often take place gradually and never fall into the mentioned category of far-reaching and important matters. It can be questioned whether the Sami Parliament with its limited decision-making powers actually is a master of cultural and linguistic autonomy. Land ownership issues were left out the cultural autonomy as this complex issue was at the time under consideration by the predecessor of the Sami Parliament. This extensive work then later passed on to the Sami Parliament and is still going on.

In May 1999, the Ministry of Justice, after having negotiated with the Sami Parliament, appointed Dr. Pekka Vihervuori as Special Rapporteur to clarify how obstacles to ratification of the ILO Convention No 169 could be removed. It was not his commission to tackle the question of land ownership, but firstly to examine especially, how to guarantee the rights of the Sami to their own traditional natural sources of livelihood that are part of their culture in the Sami Homeland, while taking into account the international conventions.

Dr. Vihervuori´s report was published in September 1999. He came out with two major proposals. First, proposing that a Land Rights Council of the Sami Homeland would be founded in connection with the Sami Parliament. The Council were to consist of representatives of the Sami Parliament and of the municipalities in the Sami Homeland. The suggested Council would have the right to speak and the right to appeal in matters concerning the application of the laws on the use of lands and waters, in parallel with the owner´s representative, the National Board of Forests. In practice, the proposal would mean giving a certain veto-right to the Council whilst the state would hold title to the land.

Secondly, a Land Rights Fund would be established, the idea being that a part of all income arising from permit fees, compensations, sales proceeds and other equivalent money payments would have to be channelled to the Fund. The resources of the Fund could be used for the development of traditional livelihoods, repairing damages caused by the use of the lands and promotion of the interests of the Sami in general. In addition, Dr. Vihervuori proposed modifications to a number of acts concerning the use of land and waters, the main idea being to better safeguard the interests of reindeer husbandry and the Sami culture directly and indirectly.

In November 2000 the Ministry of Justice set up a committee to make a proposal as to the arrangement of the rights to the land, water, natural resources and traditional means of livelihood on state-owned land within the Sami Homeland. Half of the committee members are Sami. The most important duty of the committee is to examine the question of land rights and to suggest how the rights of the Sami to maintain and develop their culture and traditional means of livelihood may be ensured while taking the local conditions and the need for their development into account. The committee proposal should fulfil the minimum criteria that are required for the ratification of the ILO Convention No 169. The committee should especially asses to what extent the proposals made by Dr. Vihervuori as to the establishment of a right to use the land may be implemented. However, the mandate of the committee does not cover decision-making on the question of land ownership. The committee should complete its work by 30 November 2001.

Another step was taken when the Ministry of Justice appointed, simultaneously with the mentioned Committee, a new Rapporteur, Dr. Juhani Wirilander to elaborate on the land ownership issue. Dr. Wirilander is in the process of finalising a legal assessment, from real estate law point of view, on the existing reports and analysis of the land ownership issue in the Sami Homeland. The report of the Rapporteur will be available by August 2001.

As a focal point, it is obvious that the possibilities of the Sami to influence various land use decisions need to be strengthened. The question of their land rights will get further elaboration when the report of Dr. Wirilander is available. Depending on the results, what ever they are, it is possible and even seems necessary to reflect those in the work of the new Committee.

It must be remembered that, as far as the land rights of the Sami are concerned, the conflict situations are not the usual type of conflicts between the interests of the State and those of a private individual, but conflicts of interests of different population groups that have lived together in northern Lapland for a long time and pursued different means of livelihood. The Government is of the view that the dispute over land rights should be resolved as expeditiously as possible, in a manner that will contribute to the protection of the culture of the Sami without interfering with the rights of the local non-Sami population. Considerable efforts, which are constantly being made, are still needed in order to resolve the problems.

50. Mr. Bobby Castillo, Leonard Peltier Defence Committee

Mr Peltier, a Lakota Anishinabe and life long advocate of traditional, cultural, civil and human rights of Native Peoples, is currently incarcerated at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in the US for a crime he did not commit. He has become a world-wide known symbol of injustice toward Ips. His personal testimony of the case is recorded on the UNHCR document E/CN.4/1997/NGO/80.

Mr Peltier has been unjustly held in US federal prisons for over 25 years, his illegal extradition from Canada, unfair trial, and failing appeals, parole hearings, and executive clemency processes have all shown that Mr Peltier is not, and never has been in prison to pay restitution for a crime. Rather, he has been held in prison for vindictive and political reasons. All domestic remedies to bring justice to Mr Peltier have been obstructed by the US Prosecutors and the FBI.

In 1977, Mr Peltier stood trial in the US where he was denied due process in violation of the US Constitution and international human rights standards. The trial judge made rulings, which made a proper defense impossible. Furthermore, this judge has consistently refused to hear new evidence supporting Mr Peltier's innocence, thus skewing his avenues for redress in a severely unfair manner.

We note that for the last 15 years, the US has consistently conceded that they cannot prove who is guilty for the crime Mr Peltier was convicted of (see Peltier v Henman, 996 F2 at 469). Moreover, the Appelate Court has found that MR Peltier might have been acquitted had the FBI not improperly withheld evidence. Yet, a new trial was never granted and the FBI and Prosecutors have continuously obstructed all other avenues for redress and release.For example, they have continued to conceal information and to make false/ or deceptive statements to investigating officials, court and parole officers, White House officials and even the public, in an effort to prevent the detection and correction of their own abuses, and evade liability.

Mr Peltier is also long overdue for parole. He has been held 10 years in excess of the US Parole Commission's own guidelines for release. The justification the Parole Commission has articulated for denying parole has been arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and in violation of his civil and human rights.

In 1993, Mr Peltier's attorney filed a petition for executive clemency, requesting that President Clinton commute Mr Peltier's sentence to time served. An intensive campaign supported by Ips and HR advocates from around the world was waged, escalating into a national issue during the last year of Mr Clinton's presidency. Just months before the President would leave office, the White House announced that Mr Peltier's request was being seriously considered. In response, the FBI launched an intensified disinformation campaign both in the media and among key officials. On December 15, 2000, over 500 FBI agents marched in front of the White House to pressure the denial of clemency. Mr Peltier's name was not included on the list of clemencies and no explanation was given.

We encourage the UN and all IP and HR defenders to join several US officials and the European Parliament in calling for an investigation into the judicial improprieties involved in gaining of Mr Peltier's conviction. We also ask all of you to recommend that the US government release 6000 documents pertaining to the case, withheld by the FBI.

Mr Peltier invites members of the WGIP to visit him to discuss the case, meet other IP prisoners at the Leavenworth Penitentiary, and discuss IP issues world wide.

Madam Daes: I cannot recommend anything to the US government since they are outside my mandate. Expresses regret for his situation, but is unable to put it in the report

51. Mr. Goyo D. Cutimanco, Instituto de Estudios de la Tradiciones Sagradas de Abia- Yala

Did not speak

52. Mr. Marcial Arias, Asociacion Napguana

Land, health, education are essential elements for the survival of our people. We are vulnerable without these. This is what all the studies by the experts from the WG have shown. At the moment, I want to stress education, since in the era of economic globalization education has been used as a tool to change the culture of our people, affecting the most vulnerable. I would like to talk about intercultural bilingual education. It is necessary to take into account the philosophy and cosmo– vision of Indigenous Peoples since without this we cannot implement bilingual inter cultural education, since that would only serve to debilitate and colonize the ancestral cultures of our peoples. That is how the dominant take advantage of the fragile cultures of our peoples. This is why governments must take intercultural bilingual education seriously, not only for Indigenous Peoples but for all those who share their territory and nationality. All who inhabit our countries should receive such education so that they will not sleep with fear, with worry, which is why many government have raised the specter that one day we will expel them from their country, that we want a state within a state, and that we want to keep the country backward and underdeveloped. This is why we need to invest in the future of our children, which is our responsibility. Education should not merely be in the hands of academics and pedagogues. Racist, colonialist and globalist education should be should be eliminated since that is what undermines the current education of our governments. We should have egalitarian, free, pacifist and human education that can benefit our people and which can strengthen identity, culture and philosophy. Lets build a society united in our diversity. Only in this way can we secure a future.

53. Mr. Hassan ID Balkassem, Tamaynut

Basic rights and freedoms protection are proclaimed by the constitution, the state itself and the law. But how can we have these rights to protection of the right to self-determination within this frameork when the constitution does not recognize the identity of Indigenous Peoples in North Africa. There is virtually no limit to it. For thousands of years Berbers have been trying to protect their language and culture. But lack of protection gives rise to arbitrary actions, such as the army killings in Algeria. This creates a very serious situation. The families are suffering. In Morocco the constitution does not recognise the situation, the Berber associations were prohibited from organizing any meetings at all even for those which authorities were organizing. This happened two months ago. The meeting in June devoted to the cultural and political strategy of the Berber was prohibited. Army forces intervened, the venue was surrounded and nobody could access for two days. Even local inhabitants were prohibited access simply because the Berbers submitted a document for discussion, asking for federal democratic organisation. We have been subject to arbitrary rules and decisions. Berber names are denied to their children. Berbers suffer from laws enacted by French colonists making it possible for colonists to affect land grab. The current regime just inherited the land lost and did nothing for us. Asks for recognition of the Berber people.

54. Mr. Kjuilliar Paccha Jerez, Pueblo Indigena Salasaca, Ecuador

The situation affecting Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador. The political project of the Indigenous Peoples has been in place since the 90s. The process of political organisation of identity and development has been broadening. Different strategies have been used. The participation of youth, women and elders have ensured that the struggle has been accepted by most of the poor. Yet all of this has cost human lives. The indigenous movement has received no gifts from any parties. Repression and persecution is the answer of the state. The rights enshrined in the constitution have remained a dead letter. The movement has come to represent the hope for new change of the defunct structures, to one in which is more democratic and respects diversity. One of the hardest strategies we have had to use is mobilizing the people and uprising so the governments can hear their clamour. After five months of negotiations between indigenous associations and the government an accord was signed on the 7th of February, steering forward schedule for dealing with social security, Plan Colombia, indemnities and decentralisation . Instead of honoring the agreement the government has given preference to small groups of the elite and the IMF. Only a true dialogue can make true development possible. A single heart, a single thought, we are indigenous people.

55. Mr. Nico Souisa, Maluku Sovereignty Front

Underlying the right to development is the right to self-determination. In May 98 General Suharto forced to step down. Student movements in Ambon several months later held demonstrations for democracy which were violently repressed. In January 1999 this was translated into an ethnic war orchestrated by military intelligence. It was designed to militarize the region. Last year military Muslims and paramilitary presence was increased, encouraged by high politicians which must be seen as a scenario with the final target of ethnic cleansing. The conflict lasting 32 months has resulted in circa 30,000 deaths; dumping of bodies in the sea during voyages; forced islamisation of christians; depopulation; destruction of villages; 860 thousand displaced and refugees This is the job of the indonesian army who are sympathised by the generals, who have vested interests in industry and fishing in Mollucus. Since the government was unable to stop the conflict several organisations under the banner of the Mollucan Soverignty front were forced once again to demand our sovereignty which existed for a couple of months after the proclamation of independence in April On 17 August we will launch a world wide a protest manifestation for HR, democracy. None of the officers responsible for atrocities have been court martialed or investigated

56. Mrs. Matilda House, National Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders' Legal Services Secretariat

The past year has seen increasing disenchantment within mainstream Australian society with the economic and social policy of the federal government, which faces elections at the end of 2001. As criticism of the government mounted, there has bee increasing focus by conservative media aligned with the government on problems associated with Aboriginal communities, families, alcoholism, domestic violence, poverty and health issues. Attempts have been made to identify Aboriginal organisations and communities as being solely responsible for the problems and for the poor health levels, education and economic well-being. That the government removed over 400$ million in funding intended for programs to address family and alcohol and health issues was rarely mentioned in the media

One cannot help but consider that the situation of indigenous land, education and health will be used in the light of recent negative statements in the media, to divert the attention of mainstream society from the failed taxation reforms and from the lack of any realistic social justice programs and funding from the Australian government. The rise of extreme right wing political groups advocating anti-indigenous sentiment demonstrates the style of government which the federal level politics has attracted since the current federal government came to power in 1996.

The Australian government observers have yet to demonstrate clearly what advances if any have been made since 1996. There can be no denial that colonialism brought Ips alcoholism, dispossession, illiteracy, loss of language, culture, legal and political rights, loss or denial of participation in political and economic processes, and disruption or disintegration of family as well as community/tribal networks. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have been left by governments to do little by being able to spend nothing to fix just about everything and are widely being blamed and criticised when the outcomes are nil. By comparison, it is very easy for governments and businesses enjoying favor with the governments to be able to spend a lot to fix very little

The recent media campaigns tell us how desperate governments are to divert attention away from their own failings and lack of commitment to promoting human rights equally. The WG might perhaps examine the role of the media and the modern portrayal of Ips in their future work. With such an examination, the WG might invite representatives of the world's media to attend and provide proposals on development strategies in cooperation with Ips, to enable better presentation and promotion of Ips and their cultures, to the benefit of all.

57. Mr. Kenneth Deer, Mohawk Nation At Kahnawake

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced a judgment on the border rights of the Mohawk People of Akwesasne. As you know, Mohawks have occupied our part of the world for centuries, and live on both sides of the imposed Canada-US border. While lower courts held that Mohawks do have a historical right to travel and brings goods across this border, the Supreme Court of Canada somehow decided that Mohawks did not have this right. The court ludicrously concluded that Mohawks traditionally only traded east and west and not north and south. This is typically linear thinking by a court who did not want to see how we Mohawks travelled and traded in all directions of the compass.

What is most ominous about this decision is the extremely colonialist reasons for their decision. As a protectorate of Canadian Sovereignty the Supreme Court asserted all rights as a sovereign, while simultaneously disposing of fundamental Mohawk rights, customs, traditions and practices. While the judgment did not recognize our border crossing rights because it did not want to accept our historical travel and trading patterns, the real intent of the judgment was to extinguish all of our Indigenous rights in one decision. The court held that the sovereignty of European powers over rode or were superior to Indigenous sovereignty and therefore Indigenous sovereignty was subject to European sovereignty. This is a fundamentally racist position of the most diabolical kind. This kind of thinking has led to the rape and occupation of our lands, the theft of our natural resources, wars of national defense and, at times, the genocide of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Madame Chairman, we are not exaggerating the tragic consequences of this kind of racism. The cornerstone of Canada's existence is its claimed sovereignty over all the lands inside its borders. That sovereignty is morally indefensible. The Mohawk have never agreed to surrender their sovereignty nor have we acquiesced to Canada's assertion. The Supreme Court of Canada is not competent to decide such an issue. The very existence of the court is based on this racist assumption of superior sovereignty.

There has to be a neutral arbitrator for such cases. A forum where issues of colliding sovereignty could be resolved peacefully and with the full participation of all parties. The United Nations was created to bring and maintain peace in the world. The UN could have a role in deciding these fundamental issues if the UN also decides to put aside its racist and colonial attitudes towards Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Justice for Indigenous Peoples is still far off. This Working Group, which has drafted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is the only body that could have written such a far reaching document, still has much work to do. Racism, both flagrant and institutionalized, and discrimination are still rampant even in the most industrialized countries. Your work on standard setting is still not done. We are still looking to this working group to create standards that will eventually bring justice to our peoples. Our right to self-determination is at stake. The denial of this right by states transcends the legal domain and is a racist position for political ends.

58. Ms. Tara Taurars, Commission of Churches on International Affairs (New Zealand)

Thank you for this opportunity to address the meeting. I am a Maori from Aotearoa New Zealand, representing the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Throughout the past two years the WCC has facilitated three significant meetings for Indigenous Peoples exploring issues of land and identity, environment and racism, and inter religious dialogue. In each of these meetings, Indigenous Peoples said the same thing. "We continue in the struggle against oppression, against that which would make us less than who we are, against that which would seek to separate us from the core elements of our identity, that is - our land, language, culture, and self determination."

The WCC remains committed to the struggle of Indigenous Peoples. We welcome the incremental progress of the establishment of a Permanent Forum and the recent creation of the post for a Special Rapporteur. We look forward to the adoption of the draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and we view each of these mechanisms as vital to ensuring that basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples are upheld. Of course, in tandem with these developments is the need for full and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in these same processes. Indeed, the preceding interventions have also highlighted this same issue. Indigenous Peoples continue to call for consultation that is cognisant of their right of participation in processes, which will impact upon them. The WCC takes seriously this challenge, and within its own limited means, continues to accompany Indigenous Peoples in the regional processes for the selection of indigenous representatives to the Permanent Forum. We would encourage member states and relevant UN representatives to do the same.

The processes and forums of the United Nations are very much removed from the day to day realities of ordinary people who wish merely to enjoy a fullness of life that should be theirs by right. As we sit in meetings, children grow up in the midst of war; as we lobby delegates and other UN representatives, parents wonder how they will find the food to feed their families today; and as we argue over words and semantics, entire communities find themselves subjected to a jurisprudence of oppression that is overwhelming in its power.

I would like to end with the words of an indigenous woman from northern Ghana, shared in a WCC meeting, who faced with the onslaught of desertification on her tribal lands, as a result of poor development models says: "If I had poisoned darts, I would shoot at this monster that dries up the streams, that drives dusty winds into my eyes and blows the top soil away. The heartless monster that dictates what we eat, and that has enslaved me to work for it." There is an urgency to these words that we cannot ignore. There is a cry for help that we cannot turn away from. The responsibility is ours and the moment is now.

59. New Zealand

Increases Maori social and economic participation in all aspects of New Zealand life is seen as bringing benefits for Maori and for the country as a whole. Maori currently make up 15 % of the popu