• 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

The UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

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 nationalLegislation (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 theirprojects 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 indigenousrepresentatives 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