This report presents the real-life experiences of Indigenous Peoples as they make their own decisions through the Indigenous Navigator’s tools and resources.

This report shows how the Indigenous Navigator framework has been used not only as a data collection tool, but also as a way to support Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination. In this process, Indigenous Peoples have also seen the need to enhance communication with other communities, local and national governments, and even international organisations. In other words, through the exploration of the Indigenous Navigator data and contact with other actors, Indigenous Peoples have adapted the tools and used them to meet their own needs in a spirit of self-led governance and open dialogue.

The report draws on data collected in collaboration between IWGIA and the Indigenous Navigator consortium, analysing the experiences of Indigenous communities under the UNDRIP and SDG frameworks,[1] which are also at the core of the Indigenous Navigator. In June-August of 2020, the Indigenous Navigator conducted a series of surveys and interviews with national partner organisations and coordinators from all 11 countries participating in the initiative: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Colombia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, the Philippines, Suriname and Tanzania. This covered more than 200 participating Indigenous communities. The data gathered and submitted by the communities, individuals and national partner organisations were collected and shared with their consent. The information was analysed and coded according to topics related to the abovementioned frameworks, which are central to the Indigenous Navigator.

After using the Indigenous Navigator to turn their priorities into real-life projects, a key commonality experienced by participants is the sense of autonomy to organise themselves, and take action. Through the data collection tool, the advocacy component and the small grants facility, Indigenous communities have reasserted their self-determination, and been able to seek the respect and implementation of their rights at all levels – local, regional, state and international. Common key challenges still remain, especially as regards Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories, and resources, consultations and free prior and informed consent, as well as equal political representation to ensure development opportunities in the economic, health, and education sectors. What is most apparent is the need to continue providing opportunities for all stakeholders to access data to extend the geographic areas of action of the Indigenous Navigator to increase dialogue and improve communication, as well as the critical role Indigenous Peoples and communities serve in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals when they are empowered to do so.

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic added to the challenges that Indigenous Peoples face on a daily basis. In October 2020, the Indigenous Navigator launched a report to document the experiences of the Indigenous communities that are currently working with the Indigenous Navigator during the pandemic. The report highlighted how preventive measures against the virus and community assessments were insufficient, as well as to what extent the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples were affected by pandemic mitigation efforts, and the slowing global economy. Conclusions emphasised the urgent need to respect labour and land rights.[2] This report also analyses how the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be a challenge to Indigenous Peoples, but how these resorted to the Indigenous Navigator and their own knowledge to overcome the additional burden that the pandemic brought to their daily struggle towards the fulfilment of their rights.

In the pages that follow, selected topics from these interviews are discussed, supported by direct quotes, additional material made by the partnering organisations and readily available online, and legal and academic texts that provide additional input to the analysis.

The report starts with a brief introduction to the Indigenous Navigator. Then, it moves on by presenting the factual achievements of the initiative, followed by the persistent challenges towards Indigenous wellbeing. It finally discusses the possibilities to improve the framework and tools based on suggestions made by Indigenous Peoples. Each section refers to the linkages between the UNDRIP and the SDGs, which represent key elements of the Indigenous Navigator framework, as well as COVID-19 boxes emphasising the issue.

Source: Indigenous Navigator

Author: José Aylwin – Johannes RohrNumber of pages: 65ISBN number: 978-87-93961-30-2Publication language: English Financially supported by: Christensen Fund, DANIDARelease year: 2021Release month / day: June

PREFACE

The drafting of this White/Wiphala Paper was coordinated by the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and edited by a Technical Editorial Committee that summarised the main points received. The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems is the result of collective work by indigenous and non-indigenous experts, scientists and researchers. The initial draft received over 60 direct contributions from indigenous organizations, indigenous experts and institutions from six socio-cultural regions. We owe our thanks to all who contributed, and whose names can be found at the beginning of the paper.

This White/Wiphala Paper offers a constructive, evidence-based contribution to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The contributors and co-authors of the paper look to the leadership of the UN Food Systems Summit to incorporate the principles and values of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems in the Summit’s agenda, and in the policy discussions and programmes beyond the Summit.

This paper articulates the importance of respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples to ensure the protection and preservation of their foods systems, and the value this can add to tackle emerging global challenges. Furthermore, it advocates that lessons learned from Indigenous Peoples’ approach to food will contribute to the resilience and sustainability of other food systems worldwide. In this vein, the paper provides evidence on the sustainability of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, including the ways in which they have proven resilient over time.

To date, the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit has not paid sufficient attention to the food and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples challenge the Summit’s current conceptualisation of food systems, which is not representative of their realities, beliefs, livelihoods and food systems.

The paper also challenges some widely accepted ideas and paradigms about food, food systems, sustainability, biodiversity conservation and territorial management. This is intended. Indeed, reassessment of such paradigms is needed to fully grasp Indigenous Peoples’ views and the possible contributions they can make to food systems’ thinking and approaches. Whilst there has been widespread acceptance of Indigenous Peoples’ capacity to preserve biodiversity, there has been only incipient understanding of the important ways that biodiversity conservation intersects with indigenous cultural diversity, language diversity, spirituality, cosmogony and food systems.

This paper highlights the risks of not taking on board the time-tested contributions that Indigenous Peoples have and continue to make for sustainability and territorial management, amongst other dimensions. It also addresses the ongoing policy contradictions and limitations in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Climate Change Conference of Parties’ (COP) debates and international agreements about sustainability. The White/Wiphala Paper authors expect Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems to be recognised, respected and valued with equal consideration and integration by the scientific and academic communities informing the Summit, and beyond.

Whilst we hope and expect that this paper will invoke greater respect for Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge, a number of important considerations must be taken into account.

First, we must be mindful of the ways in which this knowledge is used. There are important differences between scientific formalised knowledge and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, but also points of complementarity. Researchers have often been extractive in their use of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional ix knowledge. We advocate for the creation of platforms upon which Indigenous Peoples and scientists can work together to co-design sustainable and resilient food systems in support of wellbeing of people and ecosystems.

Second, the multiple and different contributions from Indigenous Peoples across the world manifest a way of understanding reality and communicating that is predominantly oral. The transcription of oral thoughts and knowledge into written form is often a challenge. As much as possible, we sought to retain the diversity and richness of the contributions received, whilst acknowledging that we could not reflect many of the subtleties of the comments within the limited pages of the paper. The contributions received from Indigenous Peoples often covered an intersection of topics, including cosmogony, territorial management, food, and rights to their lands, resources and territories. The Editorial Committee has in many cases presented a selection of the concepts and ideas in minimising repetition and structuring contributions into the paper’s final format.

Third, Indigenous Peoples and their perception of their food systems and their traditional knowledge is fundamentally systemic. Indigenous Peoples look at the overall, observing the total plus the relationships and interactions between the elements in the food system. When communicating, they give as much importance to the balance and harmony in the system as to elements that compose it. This systemic approach is now being actively sought by scientists to analyse other food systems. Indigenous Peoples have it intrinsically due to their understanding of food, spirituality, nature and relations.

Fourth, whilst scientists base their analysis in modelling and experimentation, Indigenous Peoples refine their knowledge systems through accumulated constant observation of the environment, adjusting their responses over time. This has enabled Indigenous Peoples not only to understand natural cycles, weather patterns and wildlife behaviour but also to develop a day-to-day practical de facto experimentation based on this observation. The accumulated knowledge created during the constant observation is passed on orally through the inter- and intra-generational transmission of knowledge. This way of analysing reality and the phenomena is already a unique contribution by Indigenous Peoples to the scientific community and the world.

To support the process leading up to the UN Food Systems Summit, the White/Wiphala Paper puts forward proposals under each of the five Action Tracks pursued by the UN Food Systems Summit. This silo-creation and piecemeal approach created by the five Action Tracks when analysing food systems is not the way in which Indigenous Peoples would have approached the analysis, opting instead for a more holistic and systemic look.

The term “white” paper is used broadly to refer to frame documents and papers that, at the global level, establish important conceptual references for discussions and debates. Because this paper was written by Indigenous Peoples with Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge, it was suggested it be called the White/Wiphala Paper. “Wiphala” refers to the colourful flag of Indigenous Peoples in the Andes that portrays an idea of the diversity of knowledge and views that have been included in the drafting process. Therefore, the White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems does make reference to its characteristic as a frame paper that will inform global discussions yet maintains the diversity of knowledge and peoples that have informed its drafting process, both of which are integrated into this paper.

We invite readers to reflect on the millions of people around the world who feed their families through food systems that are different from the urban, commercial and value chain food systems with which they may be more familiar. Often these unfamiliar food systems are grouped together as “traditional” food systems. However, as this paper shows, traditional food systems are not all alike, and Indigenous Peoples’ food systems present characteristics that render them unique and must be better understood.

Download the Paper to know more.

Source: FAO

A guide to writing and speaking about Indigenous Peoples in Australia

Macquarie University prides itself on the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in its curriculum and is committed to producing graduates who value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and knowledges and the importance of these in our nation’s history and future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The terms “Aboriginal” and “Torres Strait Islander” are collective names that do not emphasis the diversity of languages, cultural practices, worldviews and experiences that exist across the continent now called Australia. Studying at Macquarie University you will have the opportunity to learn more about Indigenous peoples here in Australia and around the world. The Department of Indigenous Studies in the Faculty of Arts has developed this guide to assist you with the appropriate ways to write and speak about Indigenous people in Australia. Maranadyi Maranama Dharug Ngurra (Always was always will be Dharug Ngurra)

Download the guide to know more. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

How can transparency improve the governance and accountability of “land investments,” such as agriculture, forestry, wind and solar energy, and similar projects? Land investments have long been characterized by poor governance and accountability, which is often exacerbated by inadequate information sharing and the exclusion of communities from decisions that will affect them. The Covid-19 crisis amplified these challenges. Governments fast tracked project approvals to the exclusion of communities and intensified criminalization and persecution of rights defenders. Reductions in government monitoring of investments were accompanied by opportunistic regulatory rollbacks. Opaque actions taken during the fog of the pandemic will have long-term implications, including an increased risk of social conflict, imperiling recovery efforts and even increasing the risk of governmental collapse.

Transparency is often seen as a means of improving governance and accountability. But its transformative potential can be hindered by vagueness concerning how “transparency” is defined and who it is intended to serve. Transparency is too often used interchangeably—and erroneously—with “disclosure,” effectively protecting powerful actors from changes in the status quo. Existing transparency and governance initiatives also fall short on meeting communities’ transparency needs, precisely because such initiatives focus on other beneficiaries, such as commodity buyers or international civil society actors. This report seeks to re-orient conceptions of transparency in ways that can lead to more transformative impacts— particularly for local rights holders—in the governance of land. Reorienting understandings of what land investment transparency means can also benefit governments, companies, and other actors by enabling them to more effectively manage operational risk linked to social conflict and community opposition.

THE DEFINITION

“Land investment transparency” (LIT) is public disclosure of relevant land investment-related information, as well as the ability of people to access, understand, and use that information. LIT entails an ecosystem of open systems and processes, in which project-affected community members can participate and influence decisions that will affect them. These elements can support community members in exercising their rights, anticipating and avoiding negative impacts, resolving grievances, seeking redress, and driving their own development. Governments have a legal duty to ensure land investment transparency, which is based in the binding norms of international human rights law. In addition, companies and investors have responsibilities to respect human rights, which means that they, too, must work proactively to advance the components of LIT within their control.

RELEVANT ACTORS This report divides the actors relevant to land investment transparency into two groups:

1. Project-affected communities and the actors who support them. This group is often sidelined from investment-related decision-making. It includes all community members, not only leaders, and allies such as Indigenous and peasant organizations, civil society organizations, and paralegals and other experts supporting communities

2. “Gatekeepers.” These actors control access to relevant information and how policy and decision-making processes around land investments function. Gatekeepers include host governments, companies carrying out land investments, as well as lenders, equity investors, and other actors in the investment chain.

CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY COMMUNITIES AND THEIR ALLIES

Communities, their allies, and other actors experience a range of challenges, which diminish land investment transparency. Disclosures fall short. Information is usually not disclosed early enough, and some information and documents are never disclosed. A lack of proactive disclosure puts the burden on communities to track down information, exposing them to additional risks and costs. Disclosed information can also be inaccurate, used by gatekeepers as part of “information wars.” Communities struggle to access information. Information, when disclosed by gatekeepers, often does not reach communities. Instead it can remain inaccessible in faraway government buildings or online. Gatekeepers, too, are often inaccessible for community members, limiting communities’ ability to obtain key information.

More is needed to enable communities to understand available information. Communities often start with a low understanding of their rights and other technical issues, which can impair their ability to obtain and understand information about proposed projects. When technical information is disclosed, it can remain incomprehensible unless gatekeepers or others take the time to summarize, translate, and convert it into a form that can be understood by community members.

Communities face barriers to using information and to participating in open decision-making processes. One limiting factor to communities’ use of information is that investment related decisions are often made behind closed doors, without community participation. In addition, the ability of communities to use information to influence decision-making is regularly undermined by their lack of leverage. This is linked to governments’ reluctance to recognize community land rights or their rights to free, prior and informed consent, which would enable communities to influence or control whether or not projects take place and on what terms. Communities are regularly faced with governments that rely on company information to the detriment of community perspectives, and with regulators that often neglect their mandates, thus undermining accountability. Although good faith regulators and other “reformers” within government can help to bolster community participation in decision-making, those government actors are also frequently undermined by more powerful actors. Less obviously, communities seeking to use information to influence decisions may find that gatekeepers may sometimes cede to community requests for information and participation merely as a strategy to dampen pressure for deeper systemic changes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The big picture Donors, global policy makers, and civil society organizations should:

• Conceive of transparency as extending beyond disclosure, to include community access, comprehension, and use of information in open decision-making processes and governance systems.

• Ground transparency efforts in the needs of communities and other local actors.

• Support or implement transparency efforts that seek to navigate, change, or circumvent political barriers.

• Strategically support or implement transparency programming when it is needed to complement—or to fill voids created by the blockage of—more transformational frameworks for improving the governance and accountability of land investments, such as human rights, access to justice, and the protection of legitimate tenure rights.

Source: Columbia

This is the membership form for the Right Energy Partnership.

PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: TAKING UP THE CHALLENGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 2030 AGENDA

KEYNOTE SPEECHES BY H.E. SVEN MIKSER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ESTONIA,

H.E. NEVEN MIMICA, EU COMMISSIONER,

& H.E. ELINA KALKKU, UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE OF MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FINLAND

Thursday 21st September 2017 · 11.00am · 12.30pm Room C · UN Headquarters New York

Followed by a reception and a cultural performance by indigenous artists at the ONE UN HOTEL 1.00 to 2.30pm

“The 2030 Agenda – an opportunity or threat for indigenous peoples’ rights?”

PANEL DEBATE 21/09/2017 16- 16,20 SDG MEDIA ZONE, United Nations, NY

While this year marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by the UN General Assembly, indigenous peoples around the globe still face a huge implementation gap of their rights. At the same time, international agreements, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is yet to be fully aligned with the commitments of States to respect and protect the collective rights of indigenous peoples with clear policies, measures, and programmes to implement the SDGs.

High-level side event

"Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:  Taking up the challenge in the context of the 2030 Agenda" on the margins of the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

hosted by the Government of the Republic of Estonia in cooperation with the European Commission, the International Labour Organization, the Indigenous Peoples Major Group for SDGs and Partners

21 September 2017

11.00 to 12.30am, UN Headquarters New York, Room C

“Indigenous Voices at the HLPF” is a one-day space for indigenous media to cover the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development 2017 through indigenous worldviews, perspectives and languages. Indigenous journalists and speakers will broadcast information about the six Sustainable Development Goals under review in 2017, the outcomes of the Voluntary National Reviews and the 2017 HLPF Theme: “Eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity in a changing world".

Highlights from the Programme:

• 6 SDG reflection sessions: indigenous speakers will analyse the 6 SDGs under review in 2017
• 4 panels: indigenous perspectives on the 2030 Agenda, the 2017 theme and progress so far
• Individual interviews: indigenous participants will interview their governments on the experience of the 2017 Voluntary National Reviews
• Indigenous story tellers will tell inspiring stories from their ancestors about Mother Earth