Sixty-second General Assembly

Third Committee

19^th Meeting (AM)

GLOBAL WARMING, INCREASING EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DISPOSSESSING

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF ANCESTRAL LANDS

 

Small Number of Isolated Communities at Risk of Physically Disappearing

Despite recent progress, as seen in new norms and institutions as well as policies at all levels addressing the rights of the world’s indigenous peoples, there was still an “implementation gap” between those norms and practice, and a number of negative trends vis-à-vis that marginalized population, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it held its discussion on the rights of indigenous peoples.

“Extractive activities, large commercial plantations and non-sustainable consumption patterns have led to widespread pollution and environmental degradation,” Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, told the Committee today as he presented the findings of his recent studies.  The end result, he said, was that indigenous peoples, whose lives were closely linked to their lands, were dramatically affected by such trends, which had in turn led to their forced displacements.

In addition, Mr. Stavenhagen continued, various Arctic peoples were now suffering the direct consequences of global warming.  And further compounding all of the negatives already cited was the criminalization of the social organizations of indigenous peoples which defended their rights.  That by itself had generated new human rights violations, he observed.

The Special Rapporteur underscored that the decrease of territory belonging to indigenous peoples had been intensified by the dynamics of the globalized economy and its attendant increase in water and energy exploitation.  A small number of isolated communities were actually at risk of physical disappearance because of those trends, he warned.

Many delegates mentioned the landmark status of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in enumerating the rights of that marginalized population, and reiterated their hopes that countries would work faithfully towards its implementation.  Through the Declaration, many said that the international community had begun repayment of a historic debt to indigenous peoples.

The representative of Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), said that there should be more elaboration of how a human rights-based approach to development could serve the needs of indigenous peoples, including achieving the Millennium Development Goals.  Focus also had to be maintained on the rights of indigenous women, who suffered from discrimination both as women and as indigenous people, he noted.  Ecuador’s representative, on the other hand, welcomed the broad debate in the General Assembly on the devastating effects of global warming on indigenous peoples.

The representative of the Philippines said his delegation had helped push for the early adoption of the Declaration, and had played a key role in guiding positions to a middle ground while ensuring the approval of this landmark document that addressed the needs and rights of “our indigenous brethren”.  If nations worked together to preserve and protect marginalized and indigenous peoples, the international community would be able to preserve and protect cultural diversity -- a special hallmark of the human race, he said.

The representative of the United States said his country had voted against the Declaration because many of its core provisions had been unclear.  He added that, in renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in September, the Human Rights Council had made clear that he was only supposed to promote the Declaration “where appropriate”.  That meant that the Special Rapporteur had no mandate to promote the Declaration in States that had voted against its adoption at the General Assembly.

Statements were also made today by the representatives of Cuba, Bolivia, China, the Russian Federation, Guatemala, Guyana, Greece, Peru, Fiji, Algeria, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Mexico.

The representatives of the International Organization for Migration and the International Fund for Agricultural Development also spoke this morning.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23 to begin its general discussion on human rights.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to hold its discussion on indigenous issues, which includes the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. 

There will also be a presentation by and dialogue with Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples.

On 22 December 2004, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/59/174 for a Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, which commenced on 1 January 2005.

The Decade has five main objectives. The first is to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the design, implementation and evaluation of international, regional and national processes on laws, policies, resources, programmes and projects.

The second objective is to promote the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in decisions which directly or indirectly affect their lifestyles, traditional lands and territories as well as their cultural integrity.

The second decade also seeks to redefine development policies that depart from a vision of equity and are at the same time culturally appropriate.  This includes respect for the cultural and linguistic diversity of indigenous peoples.

The fourth objective looks to adopt targeted policies, programmes, projects and budgets for the development of indigenous peoples, including concrete benchmarks, with particular emphasis on indigenous women, children and youth.

The final objective focuses on developing strong monitoring mechanisms to enhance accountability at the international, regional and national level, on the implementation of legal, policy and operational frameworks for the protection of indigenous peoples and the improvement of their lives.

In addition a Trust Fund for the Second Decade was established to promote, support and implement the objectives of the Decade. The Fund will give priority to projects concerning the main areas of the Second Decade:  culture, education, health, human rights, the environment and social and economic development.

Statements

JOHAN SCHOLVINCK, Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development at the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, made a statement on behalf of Sha Zhukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs and United Nations Coordinator of the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. 

Mr. Scholvinck said the future prospects of the world’s more than 370 million indigenous peoples had improved by the adoption by the General Assembly on 13 September of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  That Declaration was fundamentally about respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights to fully participate in the State, and to remain distinct in pursuing their own vision of economic, social and cultural well-being.

He briefed the Committee on the Sixth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which took place in May with the special theme “lands, territories and natural resources”.  It urged States to review legislation on lands and territories; to ensure that customary land tenure systems and the resource management systems of indigenous peoples were recognized and respected; and that such laws and policies were consistent with international human rights law.  The Forum also reaffirmed the central role of indigenous peoples in decision-making about their lands and resources.  With a regional focus on Asia, the Forum made a number of recommendations on capacity-building, health, human rights, education, development and other areas.  The issue of urban indigenous peoples and migration was considered as well.

The Trust Fund on Indigenous Issues for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (2005-2015) had, in 2006-2007, received nearly 100 project proposals from around the world; this year, that Fund would support 20 projects totalling $190,000.  The special theme of the Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues would be “Climate change, biocultural diversity and livelihoods:  the stewardship role of indigenous peoples and new challenges.”  Indigenous peoples were particularly vulnerable to the environmental impacts of climate change and they had much to contribute in designing and implementing responses to climate change.  There was now an opportunity to turn the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into reality, so that such people could participate fully and without discrimination in the broader societies in which they lived, not only for their benefit but for all mankind.

RODOLFO STAVENHAGEN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, said he had focused on research, country visits, and the urgent appeals and letters of allegations on human rights violations of indigenous peoples.  In addition to an official visit to Kenya, he had carried out non-official visits to countries in Asia, and his report to the Assembly included a number of general considerations on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia.

His last report to the Human Rights Council focused on some of the new trends and challenges, he noted.  Recent years had seen new norms and institutions, as well as new policies developed at all levels.  But there was still an “implementation gap” between norms and practice, and despite progress in recent years, a number of negative trends vis-à-vis the situation of the rights of indigenous people had been identified.  Decrease of territory had been intensified by the dynamics of the globalized economy and its attendant increase in water and energy exploitation.  A small number of isolated communities were actually at risk of physical disappearance because of these trends.

“Extractive activities, large commercial plantations and non-sustainable consumption patterns have led to widespread pollution and environmental degradation,” he said.  Indigenous peoples, whose lives were closely linked to their lands, were dramatically affected by this, which led to forced displacements.  Various Arctic people were now suffering the direct consequences of global warming.  The social organizations of indigenous peoples, which defended their rights, were often criminalized, and that generated new human rights violations, he said.

The limited level of implementation of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations in the interest of indigenous peoples and communities was cause for concern.  Among the positive developments, however, were the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, as well as initiatives in the Americas and Africa.  Unquestionably, the most relevant event in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples was the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly.  Reflecting a growing consensus on the content of the rights of indigenous peoples, that Declaration paid attention to the special circumstances those people faced as a result of discrimination and the ongoing dispossession of their ancestral lands.  Along with other human rights instruments, the Declaration would help Member States to respond effectively to the longstanding and persistent claims made by indigenous peoples for the recognition of and respect for their human rights.

Development and social policies aimed at poverty reduction should be redirected, with a strong political will, to focus on the rights of indigenous peoples, was the main conclusion of numerous studies on the matter.  It was his intention to emphasize the important role the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was called upon to play in that regard, he said.

Lastly, he welcomed the Human Rights Council’s renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as that person would now be called upon to promote the Declaration and ensure its implementation in the interest of the indigenous peoples of the world.

Discussion

Mr. STAVENHAGEN then responded to questions from the representatives of Cuba, Canada, Viet Nam, Laos, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Mexico and South Africa.  Now that the Declaration had been adopted, he said, the task that fell upon everyone was its promotion.  That would mean new activities by the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, working together with specialized agencies such as the ILO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), that addressed the rights of indigenous peoples in the course of their work.  It would also be important to have a group or institution in Geneva that would ensure the follow-up to the Declaration.  The mandate of the Special Rapporteur should be closely linked to that body, whose work would not be duplication, but rather would allow for complementary perspectives.  The Special Rapporteur would also have to work very closely with groups representing indigenous peoples, and civil society was a useful source of information.  Such a forum in Geneva, the daily work of the Special Rapporteur plus the Permanent Forum here in New York were exactly what was needed to ensure that the job was done well and ensure compliance with the Declaration.  Mr. STAVENHAGEN had advised the Human Rights Council as such, and would pass on those suggestions to his successor.

He thanked the representatives of Viet Nam and Laos “for their kind comments that touched on a number of points raised” in his report, and also thanked them for their clarifications.  To allow a more in-depth and objective view, he asked those two countries to consider extending an official invitation to the Special Rapporteur so that those issues could be tackled in greater detail.  He said that during his mandate, he had carried out 10 official visits and several non-official visits to Member States.  Now that the Declaration was in place, it was hoped that such visits would be reinforced.

Statements

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) traced the progression of events that led up to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, calling it a landmark victory for indigenous peoples who had been peacefully demanding their ancestral rights while opposing isolation, discrimination and eviction from their lands for more than five centuries.  She commended the work done during the First International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, and called for the preparation of national guidelines to further the actions included in the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People.

She further appealed to the Human Rights Council to pay attention to the realization of all human rights of indigenous peoples under the Declaration.  She said that, in the second Decade, the United Nations should not be limited to defining the rights of indigenous peoples or trying to integrate them within development patterns that were virtually rejected by most of those people because they were alien to their particular and urgent needs.

HUGO SILES ALVARADO ( Bolivia) said the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a milestone for the indigenous inhabitants of the world, and created a new framework to ensure justice and social dignity for all.  An action plan and a follow-up to the Declaration should harness synergies between State and international organizations, United Nations agencies as well as indigenous peoples, among others.  Addressing the implementation of the Declaration, he said more had to be done to strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples, based on the contents of the Declaration.  Awareness must also be raised in governments with regard to the scope of the Declaration.

The Bolivian Government had taken legal measures to redistribute land currently held by a few landowners among indigenous people.  This measure was being opposed by a small minority, so in order to implement the measure, Bolivia required international solidarity.  Disasters caused by unbridled capitalism had led to global warming, which indigenous people were the most vulnerable to because of the closeness of their lives to nature.  In order to strengthen education among rural and scattered communities, Bolivia was building boarding schools to ensure the bilingual education of all.  Major obstacles were standing in the way, “but we must help one another create a better world with justice for all indigenous peoples,” he concluded.

FENG ZHOU ( China) recalled that his country had voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that it had also been active in the work of the Permanent Forum.  He drew attention to a translation error in the Chinese version of the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly regarding the Declaration (document A/RES/61/295) and reminded the Secretariat to correct it.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV ( Russian Federation) said the adoption of the Declaration had been an important event, but unfortunately it had not been a consensus document, and had not been supported by some States that had large numbers of indigenous peoples.  Thus it had not become the authoritative document that many had hoped it would be.  The Russian Federation abstained from voting on the Declaration, but it was ready to strengthen international cooperation vis-à-vis indigenous people.  It supported the goals and objectives of the Second International Decade.  This year, two major events had taken place in the Russian Federation related to the rights of indigenous peoples; one related to resources extraction, and the other to environmental protection.

Protecting the rights and interests of indigenous peoples was a priority in the domestic policy of the Russian Federation, he said.  A legal basis for the protection of “small indigenous peoples” had been established.  State support to improve the economic situation of indigenous peoples, including education, had also been set up, in the form of strategic targeted programmes.  Areas in which “small indigenous peoples” lived had become important in the development of the Russian Federation’s economic potential; the Government had been working to regulate the relationships between those peoples and companies working in those areas, taking sustainable development into account.  Issues facing indigenous peoples were far from being resolved and the Russian Federation would continue to work towards addressing those issues.

JORGE SKINNER-KLÉE ( Guatemala) said that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was of prime importance to his country, and its adoption by an overwhelming majority was testament to the international community’s steps in the right direction.  Condensing the rights of indigenous peoples within one single instrument was significant, as well as a recognition of the right to be different.

It was the duty of States to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by all their peoples, he said.  He invited the agencies to make this an authentic guide, and also indigenous peoples to work with governments, so the contents of the Declaration could strengthen their political and social development.  It was time for the international community to put the instrument into practice to alleviate the suffering of “our indigenous brethren”, and overcome their exclusion.  Providing basic living conditions was part of the duty to ensure solidarity, and the declaration was one small step towards building a better world.  There was no need for new rhetoric, just putting these principles into action and implementing what had been agreed upon.

DONNETTE CRITCHLOW ( Guyana) said neglect, discrimination and dispossession of traditional lands were just some of the challenges faced by indigenous peoples, which had resulted in their social exclusion and even death.  Her country’s Constitution guaranteed equality for all citizens, including the significant indigenous Amerindian population.  Policymakers were mindful of their unique culture and right to development, according to their own needs and interests.  And progress had been made to improve their situation, particularly in the areas of education, health care and land rights.  Schools had been built in Amerindian communities and distance education programmes had been created to improve teacher qualifications.  As a result, Amerindians were attaining higher levels of education.  Health care access had also improved through the creation of locally staffed health centres in Amerindian communities.

Guyana was committed to implementing regional and international obligations, she continued, highlighting that the revision of the Amerindian Act was a tangible sign of that obligation.  She explained that a leader of Guyana’s Wai Wai community had spoken at the Second Latin American Parks Congress earlier this month and discussed that community’s plan to ban loggers and pursue an economic strategy based on ecotourism.  She encouraged greater dialogue with such communities, particularly on climate change issues.

More needed to be done for Amerindians in Guyana, she said.  The Millennium Development Goals demanded the international community’s “complementary efforts” to fulfil development assistance pledges.  Noting that the first International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People had raised awareness of challenges to that group, she hoped the Second Decade would strengthen action in the five key areas outlined in the Programme of Action.  Urging that all perspectives be considered in the creation of inclusive societies, she called for meaningful partnerships to be established between governments and indigenous peoples.

ERIK LUNDBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, highlighted the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, saying that the rights of indigenous peoples affected not only their lives but the population as a whole.  The first International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples had accomplished its two major goals:  finalizing a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and establishing a Permanent Forum for indigenous issues within the United Nations.

He further said that work on the following issues must continue during the Second Decade:  the Permanent Forum must play a central role on follow-up issues; there should be more elaboration of how a human rights-based approach to development could serve the needs of indigenous peoples, including achieving the Millennium Development Goals; and, focus must be maintained on the rights of indigenous women, who suffered from discrimination both as women and as indigenous individuals.  He supported the Permanent Forum and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

WILLIAM A. HEIDT ( United States) said that his country was committed to promoting indigenous rights at home and abroad.  Unfortunately, it had voted against the adoption of the Declaration because many of its core provisions had been unclear, or could not be implemented.  A full description of the views of his country had been posted on the United States Mission website.

He said that, in renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in September, the Human Rights Council had made clear that he was only supposed to promote the Declaration “where appropriate”.  That meant that the Special Rapporteur had no mandate to promote the Declaration in States that had voted against its adoption at the General Assembly.

RODRIGO RIOFRÍO ( Ecuador) said that one of the greatest achievements of the international community was the strengthening of the rights of indigenous peoples through the United Nations.  After 20 years of negotiations, Ecuador celebrated the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The Declaration did not create new rights, but rather reaffirmed those that were already part of international law.  The Declaration was based on international principles and values such as tolerance, peace, and respect for all cultures, and was a fundamental instrument for the development of indigenous peoples, including the Millennium Development Goals.

Indigenous peoples still faced situations of inequality in most countries, he observed, noting that they were also the most affected by hunger and a lack of access to health and housing.   Ecuador had played a leading role in ensuring indigenous peoples’ access to bilingual education, and for a number of years they had participated actively in parliamentary representation, and held posts in local government, in keeping with a State policy of inclusion of indigenous communities.  Reaffirming his country’s support for the United Nations Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues, he noted that it had succeeded in raising awareness of the challenges faced by indigenous peoples.   Ecuador had followed the debates on the territories of indigenous peoples as well as the consequences of climate change closely, and welcomed the broad debate in the General Assembly on the devastating effects of global warming on indigenous peoples.  His country had chosen not to exploit oil-rich areas where indigenous peoples were living in isolation.  He urged the international community to implement the Declaration for the benefit of millions of indigenous peoples and for all of mankind.

ERICA-IRENE DAES ( Greece) said the Declaration had been the result of a long, difficult and sometimes painful process over more than 22 years.  But the active participation of governments and indigenous peoples had made that process unique in the United Nations.  Many compromises had been made, but the spirit behind the Declaration prevailed, and the instrument was already having a positive effect on the morale of indigenous peoples.

The Declaration addressed the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, she said.  The Declaration contained language that set out the special relationship that indigenous peoples had with their lands and the full rights they had to those lands as well as to the resources on them.  Effective implementation would prove the commitment of States in relation to indigenous peoples.

GONZALO GUILLÉN BEKER ( Peru) said Peru was committed to the development of strategies to enhance ethnic plurality in the country and the participation of ethnic minorities.  The Congress of Peru had held a series of forums to underpin the legal structure of participation, including forums on indigenous medicine.  While progress had been made, much remained to be done, he said, underscoring that the cultural wealth of indigenous peoples was not matched by economic wealth.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a historic milestone and took a fundamental step further in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.  The General Assembly had managed to meet the challenge of closing the loophole on the rights of indigenous peoples, which was something that “fills us with satisfaction and pride”, he said, as States were now able to repay a historic debt to indigenous peoples.  Although there was still a long way to go, Peru believed that the Programme of Action should be the linchpin of those efforts.  The Special Rapporteur’s report had identified the problems affecting indigenous peoples, including the injustices towards them, and Peru supported his work in fulfilling his mandate.  He also urged Member States to support the Special Rapporteur and his work.  He concluded by reiterating Peru’s commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples and to developing policies and programmes that met their needs.

SAINIVALATI S. NAVOTI ( Fiji) said one of the primary and long-expressed reasons for a failure to reach consensus on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was the reference and appearance in the text of the term “self-determination”.  Some had expressed concerns that such a concept could be construed to encourage actions impairing the territorial integrity of a State, or support a new form of tribalism, therefore attracting reactionary tendencies in contemporary society.  However, the concept of self-determination was founded on the premise that people were the holders of that right and it could be interpreted in three different ways:  The right of colonial peoples to become a State; the right of minorities to become a State; and the right of ethnic minorities to benefit from certain collective rights.

He said another reason for the failure to reach consensus was the concern over the meaning of the concept of “free, prior and informed consent”.  Many Member States perceived it as according indigenous peoples an inconsistent standard that was not applicable to other populations.  However, to reject the Declaration purely by comparing the situation of indigenous peoples as it existed today, to the situation of other ethnic minorities or groups in the general population, was an excuse based on “present chapter”, which ceded no admission to the fact that in the evolution of nationhood, the historical experiences of indigenous peoples differed from others and varied from country to country.

He said the overwhelming manner in which the Declaration was adopted was an international pronouncement.  Under it, where internal public law did not provide for the protection of individual and civil rights, people and even institutions could seek protection from international instruments and laws.  The Declaration’s recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples would enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between States.  However, the exercise of the rights set forth in the Declaration should be subject only to limitations determined by law and international human rights obligations.  Any limitations should remain non-discriminatory and meet the just requirements of a democracy.

SALIMA ABDELHAK ( Algeria) said that her country, which had always defended just causes, had voted in support of the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  That Declaration would give justice to long-marginalized indigenous peoples by allowing them to integrate fully while affirming their identities.  That said, the instrument must not give rise to erroneous interpretations that would threaten territorial integrity and political unity in independent and sovereign States; nor should it compromise the fulfilment of the aspirations of peoples living under colonial domination or foreign occupation.  The Declaration warranted rigorous reading, notably with regard to self-determination.

In the case of Africa, despite the imperfections that emanated from the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), the pretext of promoting tribal or cultural differences, as well as specificities, could not put the principle of the unchangeable borders that existed at the time of the independence of African nations in doubt.  The rich ethnic and cultural differences of the continent were being taken into account by the process of African integration, and all policies of fragmentation would only serve to weaken newly independent States and undermine the project of the African Union.  The principle of self-determination could only be interpreted by Algeria in terms of the peoples inscribed on the United Nations list of non-autonomous Territories, and in conformity with the national laws of States.

U KYAW TIN ( Myanmar) said that despite the non-binding nature of the recently adopted Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the document would serve as a useful instrument in promoting and protecting the rights of the world’s 370 million indigenous peoples.  When the Declaration was adopted, Myanmar stated that the right of self-determination applied to people living under colonial domination and seeking national independence, and stressed that the exercise of the right of determination of national races living within a sovereign State was strictly governed by the laws of a country.

With over 100 national races in Myanmar, it was colonialists’ “divide and conquer” policy in the country that had created discord, and resulted in ethnic groups in remote border regions lagging behind in development due to insurgency problems.  Since 1989, his Government had been able to successfully bring stability to those regions, striking peace deals with all but one ethnic armed group, which still remained outside the legal fold.  The Government believed in promoting the living standards of all national races; in helping ethnic farmers eliminate their “pernicious” practice of opium poppy cultivation; and in achieving balanced growth, to narrow disparity between urban and rural regions.  Myanmar had laid down a new constitution, as well as a national development plan aimed at reducing poverty and achieving the Millennium Goals.

JYOTI PYAKUREL ( Nepal) said that the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was remarkable progress towards the protection and promotion of the human rights of indigenous peoples.   Nepal had recently ratified ILO Convention 169 in recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples, she added.  Her country was home to various ethnic groups, including diverse indigenous peoples, and now in the new democratic era, the Interim Constitution recognized the multi-ethnic character of Nepali society.  45 per cent of seats in the Government bureaucracy had been reserved for women, as well as indigenous and ethnic groups, Madhesis people from remote areas and “differently-abled persons”, she said.

Nepal reiterated its full commitment to protecting and promoting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including those of ethnic and indigenous groups.  The country hoped that the international community would lend its valuable technical support and cooperation to Nepal’s “noble efforts” in that direction, she concluded.

RAPHAEL HERMOSO ( Philippines) said that, under the Philippine’s Constitution, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act was considered one of the world’s strongest legislations in advancing and protecting the welfare of indigenous peoples.  His delegation had helped push for the early adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and had played a key role in guiding positions to a middle ground while ensuring the approval of this landmark document that addressed the needs and rights of “our indigenous brethren”, he said.

Land lay at the core of the lives of the indigenous communities, and securing land tenure for them was central to his Government’s work.  Through free medical services, the right of indigenous peoples to health was being protected, and in the area of education, a culture-sensitive core curriculum for students from indigenous communities had been developed.  The Philippines had embarked on several important initiatives to respond to emergency situations facing indigenous communities.  If nations worked together to preserve and protect marginalized and indigenous peoples, the international community would be able to preserve and protect cultural diversity -- a special hallmark of the human race.

ZACHARY D. MUBURI-MUITA ( Kenya) said that his country had been a signatory to numerous international human rights instruments that prohibited discrimination.  Domestically, the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals in Kenya had been written into the Constitution, which also guaranteed the right to protection from deprivation of property.  Kenya had several land tenure systems; several initiatives had been undertaken over the years to harmonize legislation dealing with the ownership, use and transfer of land.  Colonialism had created disparities, and dispossessed so many people of land.

At independence, it had not been possible to resettle all people and successive governments had made efforts to correct such historical injustices, he said.  Most recently, the Government had embarked on the formulation of a National Land Policy through a wide consultative process.  It was envisaged that that new policy would encourage a multi-sectorial approach to land use.  It aimed to correct problems that had affected all Kenyans over the years, with no distinction as to whom the beneficiary would be.

ALMOUSTAPHA DICKO ( Mali) said that, in solidarity with the African position, his country had voted on 13 September in favour of the adoption of the Declaration.  In doing so, Mali had reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of equality, justice, liberty and solidarity for all the world’s peoples.  That said, his country’s interpretation of the Declaration hinged on the first and second paragraphs of article 46.  The Declaration constituted a political and moral ideal to be attained with strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.

His Constitution stated that Mali was an independent, sovereign, indivisible, democratic, secular and social country, he said.  Like any other independent and sovereign State, Mali would continue to take all necessary prerogatives for the preservation of its unity and its territorial integrity.

ABDOU ADAMOU ( Niger) recalled that his country had voted in favour of the adoption of the Declaration.  Great importance had been attached by Niger to the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples.  Leading regional and international human rights instruments had been ratified and adhered to and Niger therefore reaffirmed its full support for the Declaration.

Drawing attention to article 46 of the Declaration, he said that, in contrast to erroneous interpretations, the Declaration upheld the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign independent States.  The Special Rapporteur and all other protagonists were invited to spare no efforts to further clarify article 46.

ENRIQUE OCHOA ( Mexico) said his country was proud of its multi-ethnic national identity, and that combating the exclusion of indigenous peoples was important.  In recent years, much legislative progress had been made to ensure protection of indigenous peoples.  Mexico welcomed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as it was a significant document, particularly through the work of the Human Rights Council, its organs and its Special Rapporteurs as well as procedures.  He also acknowledged Rodolfo Stavenhagen’s exceptional work as Special Rapporteur, and said that without a doubt, his visits and active participation on the issue of indigenous peoples had helped.

Within the former Commission on Human Rights, Mexico had spearheaded the initiative for the Special Rapporteur’s post.  His country therefore supported the renewing of the mandate and the promotion of the Declaration as part of the mandate.  In keeping with the importance that his delegation attached to the issue, Mexico supported the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations.  This morning in Mexico City, the 29^th Forum of Indigenous Peoples had been inaugurated, he concluded.

XENIA VON LILIEN-WALDAU of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said that indigenous peoples constituted one third of the world’s extremely poor rural people.  Her organization welcomed the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly.  In 2006, the World Bank and IFAD had signed an agreement to transfer the World Bank’s Grants Facility for Indigenous Peoples to IFAD.

Turning to the issue of climate change, she said it was already forcing many indigenous communities to adapt their way of life due to the changing environment.  But with indigenous peoples’ vast wealth of knowledge about their environment, they could and should play a leading role in the global response to climate change.

LUCA DALL’OGLIO, of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), restated the organization’s commitment to addressing the relevance, modalities and impact of migration on indigenous communities and their well-being.  He said it would be wrong to consider the hardships associated with migration solely through the perspective of the environmental, social and economic factors that determined their migration.  The migration process itself also reinforced a pattern of marginalization and social exclusions, such as vulnerability to trafficking and smuggling, which often continued at final destinations, within or across borders.  Some indigenous peoples did migrate for enhanced opportunities, but no matter what the case, those peoples should not be passive victims of migration, but should continue to be resilient authors of their survival.

Regarding recent intergovernmental processes on migration and development, he said initiatives such as the 2006 High-Level Dialogue and 2007 Global Forum on the topic had shown how far the international community had come in recognizing the migration and development nexus.  In particular, the recommendations offered by the Sixth Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues highlighted the importance of migration to indigenous peoples.  As a member of the Inter-Agency Support Group of the Permanent Forum, IOM had recently been asked to promote a migration contact group, which would consist of various United Nations agencies that deal with the migration of indigenous peoples.  The contact group would identify relevant ongoing work and strategize on how to raise the specific issues of indigenous peoples within the migration and development debate.

Regarding the General Assembly’s focus on climate change, he said it was necessary to associate a human face with the impact of the issue.  The remoteness of the territories of indigenous peoples, which many relied heavily on for their livelihoods, made them the most relevant, vulnerable group to the impacts of climate change.  Climate change, including the destruction of ecology and livelihood, had forced indigenous communities to migrate from their long-held ancestral lands for their ultimate survival.  Through their effective participation, however, indigenous peoples could be stakeholders -- instead of victims -- offering proper adaptation and migration strategies.  IOM supported the ideals presented in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record