The UN Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
• 25 years in the making
• Adopted by the UN General Assembly (September 13, 2007)
• 144 states in favor, 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand
and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya,
Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine)
• Since - Australia and New Zealand endorsed; Colombia and
Samoa support; US reassessing its position (as of April 2010)
moves are being made for the province of Quebec (within
Canada) to support on their own
UNDRIP HIGHLIGHTS:
• comprehensive statement addressing the human rights of
indigenous peoples
• emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to
- live in dignity;
- maintain and strengthen their own way of life; and
- pursue self-determined development
• 46 articles
- 17 are on how to protect and promote indigenous culture
- 15 are about direct participation in all decisions that will
affect their lives
RIGHTS ENSURED:
• right to fully enjoy all human (individual and collective)
rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• right to be free from any kind of discrimination
• right to self-determination
• right to maintain and strengthen distinct political, legal,
economic, social and cultural institutions
• subsistence rights and rights to lands, territories and
resources
• right to participate fully, if they choose to, in the political,
economic, social and cultural life of the state
UNDRIP SIGNIFICANCE:
• while technically non-binding - an “aspirational document” it’s a giant step in international legal norms
• significant tool in eliminating human rights violations
toward 370 million indigenous people worldwide
• requires new approaches to global issues, e.g., development,
multiculturalism, devolution of power and decentralization
• requires participatory approaches based on effective
consultation and partnership
UNDRIP IMPLEMENTATION:
• instrument of litigation to set precedent as part of
international common law
• support efforts to implement “Free Prior and Informed
Consent” (FPIC) in international agreements and national
Legislation (see Articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29, 30)
• force full disclosure of risks and violations of UNDRIP in
annual reports of corporations and international agencies
• use UNDRIP as an analytical tool to generate alternatives to
current trade and investment agreements
• Indigenous communities must become proficient in it
• must be actualized by Environmental NGOs (ENGOs),
Business NGOs (BINGOs), Foundations, and corporations
• get US and Canada to endorse it
Case Study: International Society of
Ethnobiology (ISE) Code of Ethics
• ISE - founded in 1988 - intl gathering in Belem, Brazil - meets every 2 years
-“Declaration of Belem” - philosophical grounding for the Code of Ethics
• 1992 - formal decision to create a “Code of Conduct”
• 1996 - 1st draft of a Code of Ethics • 1998 - principles further elaborated
• 2000 - progress derailed when one group involved in bio-piracy controversy
• 2002 - Darryl Posey (main advocate) passed on, Code lost further steam
• 2006 - Code of Ethics finally adopted - it is an honor system – works by peer
pressure – requirement of membership when you join ISE – you check a box
that says you agree to abide by the ISE Code of Ethics - ongoing ctte review
• 2010 - potential cross-influence/reference with other societies, NGOs, funders
Case Study: UN Commission on
Sustainable Development (CSD)-18
• Chair’s Summary - May 2010 - 22 mentions of indigenous peoples’
issues
• Paragraph 163
Mining companies, including multinational companies, need to respect
human rights and human rights instruments such as the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention
169 and respect and adapt to local and indigenous cultures, protect
biodiversity and ensure the sharing of benefits with the local
communities including through investment and rehabilitation.
Respecting free prior informed consent and obtaining legal permission
are very important. In this regard, corporate social, economic and
environmental responsibilities in relation to mining extraction
activities should be more effectively coordinated to ensure the positive
contribution for sustainable development.
Case Study - United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change / REDD
• Indigenous Caucus at the UNFCCC working for inclusion of principles
and implementation of UNDRIP in all outcomes
• IFG convened 3 meetings (Aug 2007, Oct 2008, Nov 2009) to educate
non-indigenous NGOs on provisions of UNDRIP and work
to build alliances between non-indigenous NGOs and indigenous leaders
• 2007-2008 - efforts to include UNDRIP launched at UNFCCC
• 2009 - ongoing collaboration between NGOs and Indigenous Caucus
w/ regular meetings facilitated by IFG to check in on strategy in
Copenhagen. UNDRIP “noted” in the REDD text under Long
Term Cooperative Action (LCA) - in spite of initial objections by U.S.
• 2009 - “Copenhagen Accord” - last minute text put forward by
US, Brazil, China, South Africa and India failed to reference
UNDRIP - next UNFCCC meeting - June 2010 - Bonn
UNDRIP IMPLEMENTATION:
Recommendations for Funders
• review the 46 provisions of UNDRIP
• conduct trainings for board, advisors and staff on
UNDRIP’s provisions and implications
• obtain “Free Prior and Informed Consent” of
Indigenous Peoples when funding projects in their
territories and communities
• recruit and add indigenous members to Boards
(Trustees and Advisors) and staff
• use UNDRIP as a guide to financial investments
• support efforts to educate policy makers on the
implementation of UNDRIP in policymaking at all
levels
UNDRIP IMPLEMENTATION:
Recommendations for Funders (cont.)
• require grantees working with Indigenous Peoples to review UNDRIP
and to prepare action plans for how they will implement UNDRIP in their
projects and proposals
• offer trainings for grantees in UNDRIP history, implications and
implementation
• create an active working committee on UNDRIP implementation
including members of your board, staff and grantees including indigenous
representatives that would, among other activities:
• conduct an annual review of progress in UNDRIP implementation,
- internally, within the foundation/grantmaking agency
- externally, in the work that you are funding
- collaboratively, in your work with other funders and agencies
UNDRIP IMPLEMENTATION:
Recommendations for Funders (cont.)
•
there is a responsibility for IFIP – which funds indigenous peoples – to support
the UNDRIP and articulate the implementation of the UNDRIP within their own
structures
•
if, for example, a foundation would adopt the UNDRIP
then part of their funding would support implementation
•
should IFIP have its own internal Code of Ethics or simply adopt UNDRIP?
•
IFIP could create an UNDRIP implementation tool kit (similar to ISE Code of
Conduct toolkit) providing tools for practical implementation of UNDRIP
•
appending a Code of Ethics or recognition/honoring of UNDRIP to
funding agreements – could be a very helpful tool
•
supporting indigenous governing bodies – tribal councils, community councils,
to imprint the articles and provisions of the UNDRIP In their govt structures