Françoise Hampson, WGIP expert

I should like to welcome the report on the protection of the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and particularly the innovation of a report written jointly with an NGO. I congratulate the authors on bringing together such a wide range of materials. I think that it is necessary to define what is mean by heritage. It clearly covers indigenous knowledge, life-forms in indigenous territories, sites, both historical and cultural, in indigenous territories. I think that it also covers indigenous artifacts. There are two separate phases in the protection of indigenous cultural heritage. First, consent has to be given before there is any exploitation of the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. That is a condition precedent. I emphasize that because I see a danger in the proposed international regime on access and benefit sharing. There is a risk that the working group on access and benefit sharing (WGABS) will assume that the heritage with which they are dealing is the "common heritage of mankind". That phrase is used to describe resources which are not owned by anyone but the benefits of which should be shared, such as the resources of the deep-sea bed. It is not an appropriate concept to use for any part of the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, including their genetic heritage. Indigenous peoples own the whole of their cultural heritage, including their genetic heritage and the heritage of the life forms in indigenous territories. There can only be access to those resources on the basis of free, prior and informed consent. The second phase, where consent has been given, is the right of indigenous peoples to benefit from any exploitation of their heritage to which they consent.

At the legal level, it is important to distinguish between two legal instruments, which underpin intellectual property law. One is copyright and the other is the patent. They are different and give rise to different problems. I understand that a member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is currently examining patent law and its implications for human rights protection, particularly in the context of the cost of medicines and the right to health.

Where should we go next? I agree with the recommendations in the report. I think that there is a need for Guidelines, rather than a treaty. The difficulties being encountered in the elaboration of a mere Declaration suggests that there is no realistic chance of obtaining a treaty that would contain the necessary provisions. Guidelines are more likely to contain suitable provisions, more likely to be adopted and more likely to be available within an acceptable time-frame. The Guidelines will take some time to evolve. I would suggest that there is a need for more information from UNESCO on the protection of cultural sites and cultural artifacts. There are, for example, rules restricting the circumstances in which items important to cultural heritage can be sold, exported or trafficked. To what extent are they applicable to and are they in practice being applied to the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples? There are also rules on the protection of cultural property in situations of conflict (Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 & second Optional Protocol 1999, Article 22, extends its application to non-international armed conflicts.) It is important to ensure that indigenous cultural property is brought within that system of protection in practice. To make that possible, it is vital that indigenous peoples should know of the protection regime that is available.

It will take time to elaborate the Guidelines. It is important to get them rights. There is, however, one issue in relation to which we cannot afford to wait. The Working Group on ABS is due to begin its work soon, to elaborate an international regime on access and benefit sharing. I would like to propose that this Working Group should seek to ensure that the WGABS will include a member with expertise in indigenous issues and also that it will enable the participation in its work of representatives of indigenous groups and that it will take into account the right of indigenous peoples to their territories, indigenous knowledge and indigenous life forms in their territories. The WGABS should accept as a starting point that those resources cannot be used without the prior, free and informed consent of the indigenous people in question.

Les Malezer, FAIRA

We take this opportunity to give our strongest support to this example of high utilization of expertise from human rights experts and the authorities of Indigenous Peoples, and to the pooling of knowledge and ideas. We are certain this is the intended approach in the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples' Program of Action which gives emphasis to our participation at all levels of management and decision-making.

There is a very strong link between the colonization of peoples, the assertion of racial superiority, and the exploitation of the cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples. We could assert, for example, that doctrines of imperialism and international supremacy, which preceded the Second World War, still survive intact today in the management of Indigenous Peoples' cultural heritage.

A common interpretation of Indigenous cultural heritage, as seen by States, might be fascination over the ancient arts, religious practices or manufactured relics. The living and dynamic nature of our cultures is not appreciated. This was expressed succinctly during this meeting by one participant who said our past is 'something we push ahead of ourselves, not drag behind'. We are who we are, by defining who we have been. Do we not seem to have the right, for example, to value our contemporary culture and history noting that western culture can develop also cultural concepts as living human treasures, ambassadors, or even knighthood? I am trying to point out that for Indigenous Peoples, 'culture' is unfortunately more limited to those things which make us curiosities, rather than those things which make us peoples.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it is also important to point out that Indigenous Peoples carry most of the cultural diversity in the world, such as over 90 of the world's languages. Indigenous Peoples, according to UNESCO, hold a significant place in the planetary cultural landscape and are representative of cultural diversity. Indigenous Peoples personify a global vision of the world and of humankind that continues to be intimately linked to nature and the earth to which we all belong.

Western definition and control of cultural heritage also leads to conflicts. As we try and gather the ancestral remains of our Aboriginal Peoples from the museums of the United Kingdom we are trapped in idiotic debate over scientific interest and propriety interest. Three years after starting a government review over the repatriation of our ancestral remains the United Kingdom is still undecided on policy and law. They are concerned that if they give Indigenous remains back to Indigenous Peoples they will have to return the Elgin Marbles back to the Greek peoples, or return their Egyptian treasures. They have now made a stupid arrangement with the Australian Government to remove Indigenous Peoples from any responsibility or negotiations about our ancestral remains. Why is the Australian Government sponsoring the Aboriginal Art collection outside (for which we thank them very much) yet refusing to assist Aboriginal people to attend this Working Group meeting, not attending the meeting themselves, and refusing to give contributions to the Voluntary Fund. Is this not imperialism at its highest? Who gets to display our culture?

Mr. Chairperson, I end my general statements by pointing out the national legislation to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage is the product of the mining and extractive industries. The most important role of the national laws, in Australia, are not to protect our rights but to ensure that our interests do not prevent mining or extractive industry on our lands, waters and sacred sites. One of the strongest methods of control is that the government defines who are the traditional custodians, what is 'heritage' and what importance or significance that heritage holds.

We turn our attention to the recommendations in the expert paper and strongly advocate the recommendations, especially in Paragraph 31, which proposes that the guidelines be developed in the form of a legal instrument. To this purpose we reiterate our support for the 1995 report by the Special Rapporteur for the protection of the heritage of Indigenous Peoples (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/26). The report has languished for nine years without further action, yet almost all the information remains relevant today. The only change, as we note, is that WIPO now accepts a role in the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage, for which we are grateful and encouraged.

The justification for an international binding instrument is the continuing procrastination by States over Indigenous rights of ownership and control, and definitions of Indigenous heritage. For thirty years our organization has been advocating regional and national heritage legislation in Australia. We have managed to influence six laws, three at the national level (in 1985, 1993, 1998) and two at the regional level (in 1984 and 2004), but still cannot accept these laws meet more than the most basic principles set out in the Special Rapporteur's 1995 report. It is a human rights issue, that Indigenous Peoples be able to end the ongoing exploitation and loss and destruction of our cultural heritage. We hope that all Indigenous delegates to this session will, at the minimum, support timely development and implementation of an international instrument for our heritage protection.

We conclude, Mr. Chairman, but confirming our support for the working paper and its recommendations, and again thanking Mr. Yokota and the Saami Council for their presentation of the issues.

Contact: FOUNDATION FOR ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDER RESEARCH ACTION PO Box 8402. Woolloongabba. Old. 4102. AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61 7 33914677; Facsimile: +61 7 33914551 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, Tebtebba—Asian Indigenous Peoples’ Network

Working Group, a small group of representatives of indigenous organizations and some support NGO members, held a workshop-seminar on "Bio-diversity, Traditional Knowledge and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". This was organized by Tebtebba in coordination with the Third World Network, an NGO doing lobbying work at the WTO, UNCTAD, CBD and WIPO, among others, and GRAIN, another NGO doing work on Bio-diversity conservation and traditional knowledge. A report of this workshop was done and this was send to the Saami Council and the secretariat before the working paper was made. The Saami Council was one of the participants in the workshop.

We are happy to note that several of the observations and recommendations from this workshop were echoed in the working paper. In particular, we appreciate the fact that the working paper consistently used the term traditional heritage, instead of intellectual property. In our workshop we shared our experiences and views on the issues and also looked into how these are being addressed in various multilateral bodies which include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO), the World Trade Organization and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. We looked at the various ways in which these bodies are addressing traditional knowledge and see how these compare with the work done by this Working Group and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. We also discussed in more depth our critique of the western intellectual property rights regime (IPRs), public domain, private property, disclosure of information, free, prior and informed consent and access and benefit sharing.

We agreed that the fundamental flaw of the existing national and international IPR regimes is their failure to acknowledge and recognize customary laws and systems developed and used by us to protect, safeguard and perpetuate our heritage and indigenous knowledge. We think this is discriminatory and racist because they ignore other systems, which do not conform to their dominant economic and legal frameworks. The dominant IPR regime is a system based on Western legal and economic philosophy and theory and western property law. This has its own theory of human nature and believes that private incentives are needed for people to perform labour, innovate and create wealth. It is a historically constructed worldview, which arose during the industrial revolution to protect mechanical inventions. Now it is being perpetuated as natural law or universal law.

Indigenous heritage, knowledge, and innovation are created collectively, accretionally and inter-generationally. This knowledge is held by individuals, clans, tribes and nations and the use, sharing and protection of this is guided and regulated by complex collective systems and customary laws and norms. Indigenous knowledge or heritage cannot be alienated from the community simply by selling or transferring ownership to another person or corporation because this knowledge is part of the distinct and collective identity of the people and it has meaning within the context of that community, not outside it. Thus, the idea of an individual or a corporation claiming intellectual property rights over a certain innovation or an aspect of heritage is laughable. For most indigenous peoples, consent to use, display, depict indigenous knowledge and innovations is temporary, and given only on the basis of trust that recipients respect and uphold the conditions and customary laws that are attached to whole or particular aspects of the heritage. Indigenous knowledge is to be kept in perpetuity to be safeguarded, developed and transferred from one generation and the next. IPRs on the other hand, are meant to grant protection for a limited period of time. We can ensure the viability and preservation, safeguarding and protection of our heritage through continuous use, transmitting it to the next generations and sustained revitalization.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the western IPR system, of which the WIPO is main the guardian and implementer, cannot adequately protect our indigenous knowledge and heritage. We further stress, as the paper has done, that the protection of indigenous peoples' cultural heritage is closely linked to the protection of indigenous peoples rights, in particular, territorial and resource rights, cultural rights and the right to self- determination. We agree with paragraph 30 of the paper, which states that there is a clear need for an effective international mechanism since the processes currently dealing with these do not adequately address indigenous peoples' concerns nor employ a rights-based approach. The importance of elaborating a rights-based instrument for the protection of indigenous heritage and knowledge is crucial and remains the biggest challenge for the international community.

We also strongly support the proposal to open the possibility of transforming it into a legally binding instrument, in particular a convention on the protection of indigenous peoples' cultural heritage. This process can be discussed further in this working group and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

The call on the United Nations Secretary General and the governing bodies of relevant specialized agencies to carry the main burden of coordinating international cooperation in this field. This is one way of ensuring that the rights-based framework will take precedence over commercial frameworks. We do not like the World Trade Organization under the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRINDIGENOUS PEOPLES) to be leading a process on the protection of indigenous heritage.

Finally, we support the proposal that the draft principles and guidelines for the protection of indigenous peoples' heritage should be the starting point for these proposed processes but it must be ensured that on all these processes and mechanisms, indigenous peoples will play key roles in either preparing drafts and final recommendations and conclusions.

Contact: TEBTEBBA FOUNDATION No. 1 Roman Ayson Rd., 2600, Baguio City, Philippines Tel. 63 74 4447703 Tel/Fax 63 74 4439459 Website: www.tebtebba.org; e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Hialmar Dahl, Inuit Circumpolar Conference

In the outset, allow the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to congratulate Mr. Yokota and the Saami Council for preparing the Working Paper at hand, which we believe constitutes a very sound starting point for the discussions on this agenda item. The World Community's interest in issues relating to genetic resources, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and cultural heritage has literary exploded in recent years, as described in the Working Paper. These issues are also of paramount importance to indigenous peoples. One need only mention that indigenous peoples have been estimated to be the custodians of about 80% of the world's collected traditional knowledge. Regardless, as highlighted in Mr. Yokota's and the Saami Council's Working Paper, protection for indigenous cultural heritage remains more than inadequate.

My organization would therefore like to commend the Working Group for the decision to revisit and possibly revise Mdm. Daes' Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference believes that these Guidelines, although probably in need of an update, include many of the elements that must be present in a relevant instrument for the protection of indigenous cultural heritage. Again, we commend Mdm. Daes for her outstanding work in this regard.

Mr. Chairperson, The ICC supports the proposal made in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Working Paper, suggesting that the Working Group should commence the work with a legally binding Convention on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples Cultural Heritage. In doing so, we believe that the Working Group in particular shall take the following elements - arising from recent discussion - into account:

- Any instrument of protection of indigenous peoples' heritage must be based on indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, which, at least with regard to resources in indigenous territories, must have priority over state claim to sovereignty over natural resources and traditional knowledge. In the context of self-determination, we also believe it natural that the Convention addresses the right to free, prior and informed consent and must also acknowledge indigenous peoples' right to their land, water and natural resources. - A Convention must recognize the crucial role indigenous customary legal systems plays for the protection of indigenous peoples' resources and knowledge. Indigenous heritage must be protected in accordance with the concerned peoples' own legal practices and customs, which should be reflected in international and domestic law. - A Convention must acknowledge the collective nature of indigenous knowledge and resources, recognizing that the knowledge and resources vest with the people as such, compared to the individual nature of intellectual property rights. - A Convention should aspire to protect also elements of indigenous peoples' cultural heritage that conventional intellectual property rights mechanisms regard to be in the so called public domain.

Finally, Mr. Chairperson, The ICC also concurs with the recommendation in paragraph 33 of the Working Paper, that the WGIP, in coordination with other relevant UN bodies, holds a technical seminar or workshop to discuss the contents in an international instrument for the protection of indigenous peoples' cultural heritage.

Tarekegn Chimdi, OROMO-IGES

Although, the Oromo constitute the majority (50, more than 30 million) of the population in Ethiopia, their participation in political, economic life of the Ethiopian empire was undermined since the date of colonization by the Abyssinian at the end of 191 century. The human rights violations contravening the international instruments and the constitution of Ethiopia were enormously carried out against the Oromo people in Ethiopia. Despite repeated calls from different sectors of the Oromo community for the democratic and human rights Oromo people, violations continued on daily basis. People are killed, physically abused, subjected to forced exile and migration and mass detention above all. It is a mimic when the government of Ethiopia opts for development without consideration of the Oromo people as a determining factor.

Several hundreds of Oromo students and teachers from different parts of Oromia and Finfinne (Addis Ababa) were arrested, severely beaten and tortured after January 4, 2004 peaceful demonstration called by the Mecha Tulema association (MTA) against the move the capital city of Oromia from Finfinne to Adama. On the same day, hundreds of Oromos were severely beaten and taken to custody (Amnesty International (AI) see UA 30/04, AFR 25/001/2004, 6 January). This act of the Ethiopian government is against the UDHR Articles 9 and convention against torture.

On January 21,2004, 350 Addis Ababa University Oromo students were rounded up from the front of the President's office while requesting the release of their eight colleagues arrested on 18 January 2004 (see UA 30/04, AFR 25/003/2004, 23 January). The students were ill-treated and forced to walk on sharp gravel for long hours without food at Kolfe police training camp. When later released on January 24,2004 (see Human rights watch (HRW), letter to the Minister of Federal affairs) they were made to walk on sharp gravel for many hours to humiliate them. Their ID cards were collected and ordered not to go to the university. On their release, the police authorities could not produce any criminal charge against them. Later their expulsion was informed on the government mass media, diametrically opposes the UDHR Article 26(1) and shows the Ethiopian government discriminatory policies against the Oromo people. They have nowhere to go, had no subsistence and accommodation as most of them are from the rural areas far from family. They were unable to go to their family as they were hunted and arrested by the local authorities at their birthplace. The Oromo elders requested the university president and the prime minister to readmit the students, but in vain. The Macha Tulema association appealed to the citizens and coordinated financial help to earn minimal living for the suspended students for which the government accused and arrested its leadership (see UA 180/04, AFR 25/006/2004, 21 May).

The government also blamed the MTA and members of civic organizations, experts, journalists as they were working for the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) whom the government of Ethiopia accuses to be a terrorist organisation. In the last four months, several thousand students and teachers were arrested in different parts of Oromia in relation their demand for their rights in accordance with the constitution. The unparalleled huge force from the government was mobilized to suppress peaceful demonstration and terrorise the community.

The Ethiopian government considers every independent thinking for the Oromo rights as the one instigated or agitated to serve the OLF. The government ordered the journalists to cover false orchestrations. When the journalists did not avail themselves for false drama, they were targeted as informants for the OLF. Several journalists left the country for exile and some are still incommunicado in the custody (see UA 180/04, AFR 25/006/2004, 21 May). In the same manner several hundred students crossed border to Kenya to be saved from persecution (CNN, BBC report), 28 suspended Addis Ababa University Oromo students were arrested incommunicado at the border town of Moyale. The Information minister told that it was the OLF who promised the students for scholarshIndigenous Peoples to the Western countries, and not from persecution. Is this justification not contradictory? On the one hand it says the OLF is bombing the students and on the other hand promising the scholarship.

From the last decades Oromo students were peacefully demanding for the rights of the Oromo people. Barehanded students were fired at and score of them lost their lives. Thousands were thrown to jail. It should be remembered that the current government of Ethiopia, in 1997 rounded up the independent Oromo civic organization leaders, journalists and elders labeling them as terrorist cells. After four years they brought them to justice and the court did not find them guilty and later released free at the end of 2002. The government of Ethiopia put its finger on others who are victims of its deeds. There were several massacres and cross-border killings as well as extrajudical killing it has to be charged with. To site few examples, the Shakicho and Mazanger massacre in 2001, and the Luqo massacre of Sidama in 2002, the Gambella genocide that is still going on are the testimony of the active state terrorism.

Recommendation - Those responsible for the extrajudicial killings, torture and severe beatings in different schools around Oromia should be brought to justice, - Indigenous association leaders, journalists, teachers, students and thousands of Oromo citizens arrested without charge should be released unconditionally, - The government of Ethiopia should be condemned for the atrocities and genocide of the indigenous peoples of Anuak,Ogaden, Oromo, Sidama, shakicho and others

Radine Amen-Ra, Foundation for the Indigenous Americans of Anasazi Heritage (FIAAH)

The Foundation for Indigenous Americans of Anasazi Heritage has spoken before to support the rights of Indigenous People in general and in particular for the recognition of the largest Indigenous American Indian population still living in North America, currently under colonel occupation to the United States.

It is an ignored, but undeniable fact the racial identity for the largest population of Indigenous American Heritage is represented by brown skin with wavy to extremely bushy hair. The original name for the race of American Indian people is Anasazi. The name Anasazi was replaced by the termed Negro by the colonizers invading the Americas to exterminate, enslave the people, and exploit their heritage culture, and lands. Today, I take this opportunity to be a voice for 35million Negro Americans representing the factual descendants for the continuation of the direct American Indian/ Anasazi bloodlines, and let their unspoken expression of spiritual, emotional, and physical suffering from generations of dehumanizing violations.

The Anasazi people or Amerindians of North America comprised of woodland people with over 500 nation/states, including Cherokee, Chickasaw, Muskogee, Comanche, and Apache, with a population at time of discovery of over 150 million people. The Anasazi People was a tremendous matriarchal culture and civilization developed by Negro women for over 8000 years, represented by the Statue of Liberty for America. The wealth from the Anasazi heritage is the foundation for the creation of wealth the United States enjoys today.

Since the discovery of the wealth in natural resources, bio-diversity, cultural, intellectual property, arts, and heritage knowledge, within the Americas, over the last 500 years to the present, Anasazi descendants have been surviving through a holocaust of magnanimous proportions from systematic and institutionalized systems of racism directed towards them. The enormous impact of colonization over generations against the humanity of Amerindian people has allowed the tremendous rape of the Amerindian heritage from the Descendants to Amerindian heritage by non-indigenous people. These violations ranging from being deprived the human right to human dignity towards the respect for their Indigenous ancestral heritage identity, recognition of our humanity as a race of people to our Ancestral names, artifacts, culture, sacred ceremonies, ancestral remains, ethnic and racial identity distortion, cultural exploitation, poverty, police brutality, intellectual property theft, including genetic harvesting of DNA from the afterbirth of Negro/ Anasazi children, by bio genetic corporations to sell to European people, who want the genetic qualities of Amerindians people but not the racial identity. The Anasazi people as Negro's are forced through assimilation into accepting a false ethnic identity for integration into the U.S, allowing their future generations to be classified as non-indigenous nationals without the right to live to sustain our race in our homeland.

The violations to our human rights are compounded by in-direct to non-indigenous people posturing as representative of Indigenous ethnic and racial identity, allows the continuation of the rape of our heritage, artifacts, culture, to continue, and maintains our invisibility.

To combat against the miss- education of their children into a very distorted western view of their ancestry, The grandmothers, still continued to tell there stories of the truth of their ancestry to the children, However, if truth be known, enslavement is an experience of a people; it is not the ethnic identity of heritage for a people. Today, because of the mis-education about the racial identity and ethnic heritage belonging to the Anasazi children by the United States. It has allowed people of in-direct decent to claim the heritage protection of another race for themselves and to capitalized from the theft of heritage belonging to direct descendants of the Anasazi Amerindian/ Negro heritage. We recommend to the Working Group on Indigenous Populations to recognize the factual representation of racial identity for tribal connections belonging to Anasazi American heritage and include legal instruments, which foster against racial and ethnic identity distortion towards Heritage claims by in direct/non-indigenous people. This will allow indigenous people living under colonization recovery and restitution against the theft of their heritage. 2. We urge the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. 3. We support the Commission on Human Rights draft principles and guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous people. 4. We recommend the working group on Indigenous populations to extend its principles and guidelines to rectify the effects on the morbidity of Anasazi people from the destruction of the indigenous Forest (tree's) environment belonging to North America. In conclusion, the Anasazi People request the Commission on Human Rights to support the efforts for the promotion and protection of Human Rights belonging to the Anasazi people in the United States.

* Susanna Chung, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

This statement aims to contribute to the conversation on the working group and then highlight ways to be involved in WIPOs work. It is built on work on folklore that dates back decades. Traditional cultural expressions have been adopted in name of folklore. It seeks to respect traditional knowledge. This also entails close consultation with other UN agencies and international processes. The first step is to visit traditional knowledge holders from 1998 – 99. The fruits of these consultations were in a report in 2000. The prospective have provided traditional knowledge guidance. IGC is a policy forum for issues and continues to meet. It has met six times. It analyzes legal and policy options. It also crafts tools and also take into account traditional knowledge. Meanwhile, WIPO has continued with other elements hosting and taking part in forums of how best to apply intellectual property. The first phase laid a firm basis for concrete outcomes. These means shared objectives and core principles. These principles give consideration to this agenda items. It is hope that these outcomes will become a common platform. Indigenous and local communities have had an important and growing voice for the IGC. Over 100 NGOs represented at IGC and also in 2002 there was a welcome to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to attend. The WIPO General Assembly has led to a practical initiative and a proposal for funding mechanisms. We are at the disposal of the Indigenous Peoples participants to enhance work in this area.

End statement for item 5(b)

View of rapporteurs on item 5(b):

*Yakota

I am grateful to WIPO for updating us on these activities. We are very much interested in working together. We hope our work can be mutually encouraging. I am grateful to members of the WG to make strong support and also constructive comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to WGIP members for precise comments with useful suggestions.

I agree that the term should be embracing all aspects of indigenous heritage. All aspects mentioned should be included. I also appreciate the legal advice. We might refer to drafting guidelines and also focus on distinction between patent and property law. I thank the members. I am speaking on behalf of Saami council to save time. I also want to thank him for the introductory statement

Each UN agency or organ or convention that addressed Indigenous cultural heritage but their approaches are limited to the mandate. A holistic, comprehensive approach is needed. The international effort lacked in the aspect of human rights. The rights based approach should be used in the future work. The recent effort and development are still very ineffective. We need some effective international instrument but we have to think about suggestion if it is worth encountering difficulties for a convention but still have a legally binding instrument to be more effective. Not always have such efforts been made with the effective support and participation of indigenous peoples and communities. In future efforts, we have to include all the views and wishes of the Indigenous Peoples and communities.

The cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples is owned commonly by Indigenous communities and the cultural heritage must be held by Indigenous Peoples and communities in their own law and tradition. I am glad she clarified common heritage of mankind as common ownership. Protection of Indigenous heritage is related to well-established international law principles. Those two principles are well established from the 1960s and international law practice that happened after that. Indigenous heritage cannot be adequately protected under western-based system and concept specifically to intellectual and cultural property.

We have to look at intellectual property and public domain. International efforts we acknowledge it is a good direction and we propose a rights-based approach. We have to reflect all the developments. We have to embrace the participation of states, UN agencies and organs as well as the participation of TNCs. We should develop and include Daes report to protect future work.

I am very encouraged that many indigenous peoples representatives supported our recommendation of holding a technical seminar. I look forward to looking further on this important topic. I look forward to working with Saami Council and Indigenous Peoples, governments, TNCs and other involved in this important topic of indigenous heritage and in broader context their human rights.

*Guisse

I hope we will next year see a report that takes into account the recommendations from all of the bodies that have brought ideas forward. We will move to agenda 5a to present her report. Ms. Motoc and representatives of Tebtebba will come forward. This example of partnership was also followed by Motoc and Tebtebba.