***********************************************

WORLDWIDE BIODIVERSITY/FOREST CAMPAIGN NEWS

The Convention on Biological Diversity: Indigenous Participation?

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Ecological Enterprises

1/3/95

OVERVIEW & SOURCE

The following article, by Alejandro Argumendo of the South and

Meso American Indian Rights Center, expresses concern over the

importance of indigenous participation in the Convention on

Biological Diversity. It was posted in econet's biodiversity

conference (telnet igc.apc.org in US or peg.apc.org in Australia

or gn.apc.org in Europe to set up account to purview these

conferences yourself).

*******************************

/* Written 5:27 PM Jan 3, 1995 by saiic in igc:biodiversity */

/* ---------- "The Convention on Biological Divers" ---------- */

From: saiic (South and Meso American Indian Rights Center)

Subject: The Convention on Biological Diversity: An Imperative for

Indigenous Participation

The Convention on Biological Diversity:

An Imperative for Indigenous Participation

The Biodiversity Convention, one of the world's most important

pieces of environmental legislation, will be finalized at the end

of this year. Whether it will provide tools to defend Indigenous

bio-cultural resources remains unclear.

By Alejandro Argumedo

Alejandro Argumedo is Quechua from Peru, a SAIIC board member and

Director of Cultural Survival Canada.

At the 1992 U.N. "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro, over 150

governments signed the International Convention on Biological

Diversity (Biodiversity Convention), which, came into force last

December after the required ratification by more than thirty

national legislatures. After two-and-a-half years of negotiations,

the Conference of Parties (COP) which was established as the

Convention's governing body will meet for the first time from Nov.

28 to Dec. 9 in the Bahamas to further define the treaty's

implementation. The Convention has yet to establish the scope and

nature of Indigenous peoples' rights to their bio-cultural

resources. Thus, this meeting will either help ascertain native

rights, or function as yet another international mechanism to

legitimate the theft of Indian resources.

The Convention is the first global agreement committing signatory

nations to comprehensive protection of Mother Earth's biological

gifts. Provisions stipulating specific commitment towards

achieving this goal are covered in forty-two legally-binding

articles. This legal instrument addresses issues of tremendous

significance for the world's Indigenous peoples.

Biodiversity and Indigenous Land

Up to the nineteenth century, Indigenous peoples exercised de

facto control over most of the world's ecosystems. Today, only an

estimated 12-19% of the earth's land area is home to the four to

five thousand Indigenous nations of the world. Even diminished to

a mere fragment of what they were, our homelands constitute an

important portion of the globe's relatively intact ecosystems, and

shelter an even larger share of its biological diversity. It is no

coincidence that the habitats richest in natural diversity are

usually home to Indigenous people as well. By some estimates,

Indigenous homelands shelter more endangered plant and animal

species than all the world's "nature reserves" combined.

Through millennia we have depended on the diversity of life around

us; uncovering its secrets, and learning how to increase these

riches, for example, when we create new genetic diversity within a

species. We possess a knowledge that is not only innovative and

cognizant of ecological processes and uses of biodiversity, but

also uniquely holistic for its spiritual and ethical components.

That is why the conservation of all components of biodiversity-

genetic, species and ecosystems-is crucial for our survival as

cultures of the land. For Indigenous peoples biodiversity

means just that: the land. The recognition of inherent rights to

our traditional territories is the foundation both for our

survival as peoples and for the conservation and sustainable use

of biodiversity and its components. In this context the

Biodiversity Convention could provide an important mechanism to

protect Indigenous Peoples' rights over biological resources.

The Convention: a Significant but Flawed Tool

Disturbingly, there has been little participation by Indigenous

people in developing the Convention. As usual, we have been viewed

as the objects (another endangered species) rather than subjects

of the process. Most Indigenous people know little, if anything,

about the Convention. However, the treaty does recognize our

contributions to biodiversity conservation. In addition,

appreciation of our "use of the medicinal, agricultural, and

other useful properties of endemic flora and fauna" is increasing.

Nonetheless, parties to the Convention are now meeting behind

closed doors to determine what rights we will have over our

knowledge, innovations and practices, for which we currently lack

any legal instruments of protection. Biocultural pirates are

currently plundering these resources without prior informed

consent of Indigenous communities and organizations. Free access

for free value is the common practice. For the first time,

provisions of the Biodiversity Convention may offer opportunities

to effectively protect rights to biocultural resources.

With the increasing focus on Indigenous territories as reserves of

genetic diversity for use in the food, agriculture,

pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other industries, Indigenous

peoples presence in the Convention's development is crucial. The

Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network (IPBN), a global

coalition of Indigenous peoples' organizations formed to

protect biocultural resources, has been lobbying for Indigenous

peoples' rights within the Convention. In order to promote greater

Indigenous influence within the treaty, the IPBN, SAIIC and the

Abya Yala Fund, an Indigenous foundation that supports Indigenous-

based sustainable development in the Latin America, are jointly

working to facility increased participation of Indigenous peoples

from South and Meso America. We need to monitor, analyze, and seek

greater transparency and accountability from all parties, in

addition to promoting policies that protect our local rights

and interests.

The Convention's value lies in the commitment of signatory nations

to work for a common cause. It also supports national sovereignty

and each country's right to benefit from its own biological

resources. It further specifies that each country should have

access rights to new technologies, including new biotechnologies,

which could assist in conservation efforts or prove useful in the

exploitation of biological resources.

The Convention does not recognize Indigenous peoples' rights over

their traditional territories and resources. But it does recognize

the importance of our cultures' survival to the conservation and

sustainable use of biodiversity. It also recognizes that first

nations should share in the benefits derived from their knowledge

and innovations. Unfortunately, the Convention's provisions leave

it up to national governments to decide the scope and nature of

Indigenous peoples' rights. Currently, few colonial nation-states

recognize Indigenous land rights or rights to customary

practices on the land (biodiversity). Inserting these adequately

into the treaty is a serious challenge for the signatory members

of the Convention, and will be a tough fight for the Indigenous

peoples working within the process. The Convention's existing

mandates can be grouped into several broad categories, these are

briefly summarized below.

National Action Plans and Environmental Impact Assessments

One of the Convention's central mandates is to ensure adequate

planning and decision-making to protect biodiversity at the

national level. Each country will be required to formulate a

national action plan for biodiversity protection. Indigenous

organizations should participate in designing these plans because

new policies will affect their communities the most.

Implementation of these plans, is of course, another matter, and

Indigenous organizations will have to monitor this process as

well. Secondly for all individual projects "likely to have

significant adverse impacts on [biodiversity]" governments will be

required to develop Environmental Impact Assessments. This Article

may provide Indigenous peoples with a forum-which they have often

been lacking-for voicing opposition to senseless "mega-

development" projects that affect their human and territorial

rights, such as the construction of hydroelectric dams, highways,

tourist resorts, mining, oil exploration and exploitation, and

logging.

Protection

In terms of concrete protective measures, the Convention has three

requirements: control sources of significant injury to

biodiversity, establish systems of protected natural areas,

develop and implement policies for in situ conservation.

Indigenous participation is critical both in designing protected

areas and in managing them. First, because Indigenous communities

often have extensive knowledge regarding the landscapes at stake.

Second to ensure that these actions are complimentary

and compatible with pre-existing Indigenous land rights, rather

than-as we have seen in some previous cases-an attempt to

circumvent them.

The Convention specifically recommends the application of

traditional knowledge and conservation practices. This is a very

valuable recognition of Indigenous practices, Indigenous

organizations will have to be proactive in the implementation,

financing and monitoring of these measures.

Research and Indian Lands

In addition to protecting biodiversity, the Convention is supposed

to promote sustainable use of biological resources through

government/private sector cooperation. In the past, such bilateral

cooperation has nearly always sidestepped Indigenous participation

(e.g. "Texaco & Ecuadorian Government Settlement" on pg. 4, eds.)

The Convention continues to favor bilateral rather than

multilateral agreements. Multilateral agreements are

more favorable for Indigenous organizations; these are more

transparent and involve a range of concerned sectors who can act

as our allies, support our rights, and help to monitor the

agreement. Indigenous peoples' organizations should consider

multilateral agreements for decisions affecting biodiversity in

their territories.

Identification and Monitoring of Priorities and Problems

Parties to the Convention are required to identify priority

ecosystems, species, and genomes for conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity. These priority areas will largely be

congruent with Indigenous territories, and Indigenous communities

could benefit from research activities that help to ascertain

territorial rights (e.g. ecosystem research). Since the

Convention recognizes the merits of Indigenous knowledge in

relation to biodiversity, Indigenous peoples should participate in

this research as equals with Western researchers.

In addition to biodiversity identification, parties are required

to monitor the status of their country's biodiversity resources.

Here, in particular, Indigenous knowledge has a critical role. In

many instances, Indigenous knowledge can provide more reliable

biodiversity indicators than science. Monitoring the status of

ecosystem and species can be done by Indigenous peoples along with

scientists if the integrity, and rights to our knowledge

is respected and protected.

At the same time, parties to the Convention are supposed to

identify and monitor activities that are likely to have

significant adverse impacts on biodiversity. In many countries

Indigenous organizations are the first to identify and denounce

large-scale environmental impacts (see for example Vol. 8:1&2, Oil

exploration in Peru, eds.). Parties should provide Indigenous

groups with resources for in-depth and continuous monitoring of

harmful activities in their regions. In addition, every national

action plan should include the following economic activities in

their list of harmful processes requiring monitoring and

mitigation: mining, oil exploration, agribusiness, commercial

logging and cattle ranching.

Financing

The Convention mandates the industrialized countries to provide

developing countries with new and additional funds to meet its

implementation costs. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was

chosen as the Convention's interim financing mechanism. The

parties will select the permanent mechanism at this meeting in

Nov. and Dec.

Institutional Structure And Intergovernmental process

At the international level, parties to the Convention will meet

regularly in a Conference of the Parties (COP). A Secretariat will

provide administrative services. An interim Secretariat has been

established in Geneva, Switzerland. In addition, a scientific and

technological advisory committee will give technical assistance to

the COP. At the COP, parties will report on compliance's and

consider measures for strengthening the treaty. They will also

address, among other issues: a) administering the financing of

arrangements under the treaty; b) setting up a clearinghouse

of information on technology transfer and other areas; c)

establishing cooperative partnerships on research, information

sharing, and technology transfer.

For further information on the Biodiversity Convention and

Indigenous issues please contact the following:

M.s Angela Cropper, Executive Secretary Convention on Biological

Diversity

15 Chemin des Anemores CP 356 CH-1219 Chatelaire Geneva,

Suitzerland

Tel: (41-22)979-9111 Fax: (41-22)979-2512

The Abya Yala Fund

P.O. Box 28386 Oakland, CA, USA

Tel: (510) 834-4263 Fax: (510) 834 4264

Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network

620, 1 Nicholas St, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 7B7 Tel: (613)

241

4500Fax: (613) 241-2292

===============================================================

This article is from the Fall 1994 (Vol. 8, No. 3) issue of Abya

Yala News, the quarterly journal of the South and Meso American

Indian Rights Center (SAIIC). Subscriptions are $15 a year (4

issues) for individuals, $25 for Indian/social justice non-

profits, and $40 for institutions. Your support helps us send the

journal in Spanish free to Indigenous activists throughout Latin

America. The next issue of Abya Yala News is on Biodiveristy and

Intellectual Property Rights. Subscribe now in order to

not miss this issue!

Redistribution of this article is permitted anywhere on the

Internet provided this message is attached. If you reprint this

article in your newsletter, please credit SAIIC and send us a

copy.

===============================================================

South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC)

Box 28703

Oakland, CA 94604

(510) 834-4263 Fax: (510) 834-4264 Email:

saiic@igc.apc.org

Home Page: http://www.igc.apc.org/saiic/saiic.indio

For more information about SAIIC, send e-mail to <saiic-

info@igc.apc.org>

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal

campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and

forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely

pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia Forest

Conservation Archives at URL=

http://forests.lic.wisc.edu/forests/gaia.html

Networked by:

Ecological Enterprises

Email (best way to contact)-> gbarry@forests.org

Phone->(608) 233-2194 || Fax->(608) 231-2312