Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Ninth Session

3^rd & 4^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Speakers Highlight Devastating Impact of Logging, Mining, Other ‘Mega’ Development

Projects on Indigenous Lands, as United Nations Permanent Forum Debate Continues

Call for Broad Adherence to 2007 Indigenous Rights Declaration;

Dialogue with Indigenous Groups Followed by Session with Governments

The devastating impacts of logging, mining and land conversion had displaced indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands, commercialized their cultures and politically repressed their leaders, speakers in the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues stressed today, as they pressed the 16-member advisory body -– and their Governments -- for help in achieving equitable and “restorative” development in their countries.

In day two of the Forum’s ninth session, speakers representing indigenous associations from Asia, the Pacific, North America and Australia alike called for broad adherence to the landmark 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, whose articles 3 and 32 outlined respect for self-determination and land-use rights, respectively.  Some emphasized the ongoing conflict between indigenous peoples’ development perspective and that of the West, which was dominated by free-market capitalism, and pointed out that such models violated the collective rights of traditional cultures.  Others called for the establishment of a special rapporteur on water.

“Our water is being poisoned.  Our woods are being cut down,” said a speaker from the Andean Platform of Indigenous Organizations.  Another speaker, representing people living in isolation in the Amazon and Gran Chaco region of Paraguay, said mega-projects that attracted “external agents” and damaged forests were threatening people’s lives.  He asked the Forum to carry out research to ensure that people were not being forced into contact.

A delegate of the Sand Hill Band of Indians said his people were descendents of the original inhabitants of the present-day United States state of New Jersey.  While they had signed treaties with early Europeans –- “sovereign to sovereign” -– by 1802, the newly formed state had completely disregarded their most basic human rights, even for the indigenous to exist.  He asked for assistance from the international community in restoring their international rights.

The day also featured a dialogue with Governments, whose representatives voiced concern at the persistence of entrenched social ills such as discrimination, xenophobia and exclusion that were difficult to change in the short term.  Taking a broader view, however, Canada’s Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs said his Government would take steps to endorse the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a timely manner consistent with its Constitution.  In the same vein, the United States representative said her Administration would formally review its position on the Declaration.

“There is no American history without Native American history [and] there can be no just and decent future for our nation that does not directly tackle the legacy of bitter discrimination and sorrow that the first American still lives with,” said the United States delegate.

Indeed, indigenous communities in her country continued to feel the heavy hand of history, she explained, particularly though disproportionate and dire poverty, unemployment and bitter discrimination.  To rectify the situation, the Administration had moved quickly to launch programmes to improve the lives of Native Americans.  The President had also appointed, early on, a Native American Policy Adviser and had begun to reach out to tribal leaders.

Discussing his country’s national efforts, Peru’s delegate said his Government had started series of dialogues with indigenous peoples and formed a group for coordinating the development of the Amazon peoples.  The aim was to reach agreements covering that area and analyse events in Bagua province last June, in which many people had been killed.

Showing that indigenous rights were not only a matter of national concern, Germany’s delegate said that, in line with a new paradigm -– “development with identity” -– his Government was implementing a new type of development project, which revived cultural traditions as a means to facilitate common visions of indigenous communities in the highlands of Borneo, Indonesia.

Participating in the Permanent Forum’s dialogue with indigenous groups were representatives from the Pacific Caucus, Global Women’s Caucus, North American Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Global Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Indigenous Parliament for America, Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Indigenous Youth Caucus, Asia-Pacific Indigenous Youth Network (APIYN), International Indigenous Women’s Forum, Seventh Generation Fund, Enlace Continental de Mujeres Indiginas and Consejo Nacional de la Mujer Indigena Argentina.

Also taking the floor during that discussion were representatives from the Association Rohutu No’ Ano’A, Innu Nation, “Project Access Global Capacity Training”, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of Australia, Comision juridical para el autodesarrollo de los pueblos originarios andinos (CAPAJ), International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, Inuit Circumpolar Council, !Kwa Ttu - San Culture and Education Centre, Mayas of Guatemala and the Nepal Indigenous Nationalities Preservation Association. 

The dialogue between the Permanent Forum and Governments featured presentations from the Minister of the Institute of Fishing and Agriculture of Nicaragua, the Minister of the Interior and Justice of Colombia and the Vice-Minister of Decolonization of Bolivia.

Also speaking were representatives of Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Australia, Finland, Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Nepal, Russian Federation, Sweden and Norway.

The Deputy Head of Delegation of the European Union, also spoke, as did the Permanent Observer of the Holy See.

A Forum member from Australia and a representative of the Torres Strait Regional Authority also spoke.

The Forum on Indigenous Issues will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 21 April, to take up matters related to human rights, including implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Background

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues met today to continue its discussion on the special theme for its ninth session -- “Indigenous peoples: development culture and identity; articles 3 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.  The day was to feature a dialogue with indigenous people in the morning, and a dialogue with Governments in the afternoon.  The ninth session is being held from 19 to 30 April.  (For more information, please see Press Release HR/5011).

Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples

KIMO ARMITAGE, Pacific Caucus, said modern development in the Pacific normally had not contributed to indigenous well-being.  Non-sustainable practices had been invasive; chemical contamination, strip mining and ground-water pollution had placed landscapes in jeopardy.  In Hawaii, the two largest economic generators were tourism and the military, both of which had proven “disastrous” for indigenous communities.  At the same time, in Hawaii, technologies had sustained people for generations, such as irrigated fields and wild fish ponds, which contributed to indigenous food sovereignty.  “Technologies do not need to be attempted in grand movements,” he said.  Education and empowerment activities were important.  As such, he called on universities of the Pacific to be “indigenous serving” universities.  He supported the recommendations of the International Expert Group meeting, called on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to attend future sessions of the Permanent Forum and urged Pacific Governments to return all indigenous lands to their peoples.

SANDRA CREAMER, Global Women’s Caucus, said indigenous women were the human embodiment of Mother Earth.  She welcomed prosperity based on a holistic approach.  Development projects must be the result of having obtained the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people.  It also must take into account the promotion of indigenous ways.  States and indigenous people alike must promote the principle of free, prior and informed consent for the development and use of indigenous lands.  She urged States to support the role of indigenous women in addressing the economic, cultural and spiritual impacts of development not authorized by indigenous people.  For their part, United Nations bodies should promote the full and effective participation of indigenous women, especially in the areas of capacity-building and leadership.  The Permanent Forum should urge the Human Rights Council to appoint a special rapporteur on water.  Finally, States must recognize the validity of indigenous systems, as recognized by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

DEBRA HARRY, North American Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, said her delegation had held a preparatory meeting ahead of the Forum’s session.  That meeting had drawn spiritual leaders, youth and traditional chiefs of Sioux, Cree and other Native American groups to Alberta, Canada.  The participants had agreed on a set of recommendations that the Forum should convey to Governments.  Among other requests, she said the participants asked that Governments urgently consider ending practices that were detrimental to indigenous cultures.  The Forum should urge Governments to pursue ecologically sustainable consumption and production patterns to the benefit of future generations.  The Forum must be a stronger advocate for the purpose and peoples for which it was created.  It must ensure that Governments kept water and the importance of traditional water sources to indigenous cultures at the centre of all development initiatives.  The Caucus also urged that the Forum take note of the increasing human rights violations against the Athabasca Chipewyan peoples and institute an early warning and urgent action procedure to address that and other related pressing human rights violations.

Chief KARL HILL, Global Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, read out his delegation’s agreed statement, which emphasized the ongoing conflict between indigenous peoples’ development perspective and that of the West.  The Global Caucus believed that no process of development was worth its name if it resulted in colonization and ecological destruction, as well as the destruction of the cultural, economic, social and spiritual ways of life and identities of indigenous peoples.  Western models violated the individual and collective rights of traditional cultures.  From the perspective of indigenous peoples, “development” projects must be premised on environmental and cultural sustainability that safeguarded the needs of future generations.  “There is a need today for restorative development […] which repairs and heals the Earth while revitalizing and perpetuating indigenous languages, cultures and distinctive identities as nations and peoples, not as ‘ethnic identities’,” he said, affirming the traditional territorial integrity of indigenous nations and peoples.  He said the Caucus would urge the Forum to press States to end persecution of indigenous peoples and their leaders who exercised their rights.  Further, he called on the Forum to investigate the disproportionate impact of Western development projects, particularly the toxic effects of mining, on indigenous women, children and elders, as well as the impacts of child labour, economic exploitation and human trafficking.

CLEMENTE SAMINES CHALI, Indigenous Parliament for America and representative of the Peoples Congress of Guatemala, said the Mayan peoples had long suffered high rates of illiteracy and mortality.  They also suffered from the lack of targeted policies that would improve their situation.  While they aspired to attain better lives and livelihoods, political insensitivity and expediency had hampered the passage of even one bill that favoured sustainable development of the Mayan people.  However, indigenous groups had worked with public advocates to elaborate and put forward a raft of draft laws -- on consultation with indigenous peoples, on a national programme for redress, and on the general rights of indigenous peoples of Guatemala, among others -- with the hopes that they would be passed by the end of the year.  Those were but a few of the draft bills before the Government, and he wanted to tell the Forum about them in the hopes that it would help press for action.  He had also hoped the raise awareness about the difficulties that poor Guatemalan indigenous people faced in dealing with the Government.

JAQUELINE CARINO, Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, said “development with culture and identity” was a practice that had long been upheld by indigenous groups in her region.  For them, development with identity meant that, throughout the development process, indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territories and self-determination were recognized, including the right to free, prior and informed consent for any projects that affected them.  Sadly, however, in most Asian countries, indigenous peoples paid a price for development.  “Our experience with development is shaped by the impacts of logging, plantations, dams, mining projects, land conversion [and other activities] that have displaced us from our ancestral lands, commercialized our cultures, degraded our biodiversity and politically repressed our indigenous leaders and organizations,” she declared.  With that in mind, she said that indigenous peoples and groups asserted that development with identity must uphold the positive indigenous values of sustainability, collectivity, spirituality, subsistence, respect for customary law, harmony with nature and mutual support.  Among other things, she urged the Forum to document cases of good practices in the area of development with identity, as well as violations committed against indigenous peoples in the name of development.  It should also establish a strong mechanism to which indigenous people could take complaints and seek justice for violations of those rights.

JOCELYN HUNG CHIEN, Youth Caucus, called for stronger, more effective measures to protect the rights of Mother Earth.  The language in place to support the protection, and indigenous rights as protectors, from the destruction of imposed development was only effective if it was upheld.  The forces of co-called “western development” caused the relocation and displacement of indigenous peoples along with the dispossession of their territory.  The destruction of lands, loss of languages and violations of rights was leading to the ethnocide of some indigenous peoples.  Further, the meaning of self-determination must be further clarified.  To give substance and effect to article 3, it was necessary that State Governments provide a forum for indigenous decision-making in the law-making processes.  She recommended the adoption of the Declaration and implementation without reservation; the implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent and self-determination in all United Nations agency projects and specifically those involving climate mitigation and adaptation; the cessation of forced evictions of indigenous peoples; and the creation of measures by Governments to preserve culture in times of natural disasters and forced relocation.

TOMAS HUANACU TITO, Andean Platform of Indigenous Organizations, said his regional organization comprised national organizations of indigenous peoples from the Andes.  Natural assets in the Andes were being decimated by multinational companies.  “Our water is being poisoned; our woods are being cut down,” he said.  “Our words need to become actions.”  Indigenous peoples could not continue to be persecuted by Governments.  Those in Colombia were being harassed and murdered, and the Forum must say something to the Colombian Government.  It must also tell the Peruvian Government that it could not prohibit protests by indigenous peoples.  In Ecuador, indigenous peoples’ basic requirements were not being met and they could no longer be discriminated against.  In general, Governments could no longer say “fine-sounding words” when rights were being violated.  They could not continue to prohibit the traditional use of the cocoa leaf.  Why not prohibit the use of Coca-Cola and Pepsi?  Further, after centuries of abuse, three minutes was not enough for indigenous peoples to make their statements.

IVAN TORAFING, the Asia-Pacific Indigenous Youth Network (APIYN), said the theme of indigenous development with culture and identity was particularly important for young indigenous people, because the current arbitrary and destructive development process had a serious physical, spiritual and health impacts on youth.  There were two types of development.  First, there was a Western, or market-based concept, that welcomed mega-dams and large mining industries and was guided by the profit motives of rich countries.  The second kind, indigenous development, was sustainable, respectful of culture and traditions, and recognized the collective ownership of land.  He offered recommendations on the review of existing laws and the creation of new policies for indigenous peoples in keeping with articles 3 and 32 of the Declaration; the integration of indigenous peoples’ rights in the policies of international organizations and funding agencies; Government recognition of collective rights over land and resources; and the universal recognition of the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples before any development projects.  He also urged the creation and implementation of programmes to promote cultural education among indigenous youth, which would lead to their participation in development processes affecting their cultural identities.

Taking the floor next, MICK DODSON, Forum member from Australia, said the right to education in the mother tongue was fundamental to the growth of culture, identity and linguistic diversity.  Development must be facilitated with culture and identity.  Bilingual learning in indigenous languages was relevant in Australia’s debate on education policy.  Support for indigenous languages continued to be contested locally, nationally and internationally -– despite “overwhelming” international evidence on the efficacy of mother-tongue instruction in improving educational outcomes for indigenous children.  Such concepts, rather than the pedagogical imperatives, were driving education policies.

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in 2003, there had been 20 articles and recommendations relating to the rights of minorities to freely use their own languages, he said.  The Inter-Agency Expert Group paper on the special theme demonstrated that.  Of particular concern were recent changes in bilingual education in Australia’s Northern Territory.  Dominant development paradigms meant that education was increasingly being seen through an economic lens.  Governments often defaulted to focusing on the economic returns of education, rather than social returns, which were harder to measure.  Such decisions risked extinguishing indigenous languages.  In Australia, there were 108 such languages in various degrees of danger. Academics had commented on the naiveté of developing a national literacy policy on the basis of test scores.

MONICA ALEMAN, International Indigenous Women’s Forum, said women were key actors of change.  States, United Nations agencies and relevant entities must establish culturally appropriate mechanisms, respecting the principle of free, prior and informed consent, to ensure indigenous women’s full participation in development processes.  She asked that development processes -- led and carried out by women’s organizations -- be supported, in line with the Declaration.  She also highlighted her organization’s commitment to implementing the Programme of Action of the Second Decade and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

TIA OROS PETERS, Seventh Generation Fund, said water was crucial for sustaining biocultural diversity and indigenous peoples’ well-being.  It was the most vulnerable of all resources, particularly to climate change.  She reiterated the critical significance of protecting all water sources and indigenous peoples’ full and unencumbered access to it.  Any water initiatives should fully recognize all articles of the Declaration, including treaty rights to water.  The Permanent Forum must call for the appointment of a special rapporteur for the protection of water, who should collect information directly from indigenous peoples impacted by water privatization.  It also should advocate for the establishment of an international year for water.  She affirmed the call for a United Nations convention on water and asked the Forum to take action this year to establish water as the theme for its tenth session.

EVA GAMBOA, Enlace Continental de Mujeres Indiginas, Consejo Nacional de la Mujer Indigena Argentina, said climate change often led to the loss of traditional knowledge and food sovereignty.  Women and girls suffered more of an impact from climate extremes and natural disasters, including global warming.  As a result, food security crises arose and organizational structures were weakened.  However, women transmitted culture and identity, and she asked the United Nations to establish policies for indigenous women that were assessed by indigenous regional organizations.  She also underscored the importance of policies to guarantee the food security of indigenous women, notably through the use of traditional production methods.  The Forum must foster the participation of women and indigenous peoples in creating climate change adaptation and mitigation measures, based on their free, prior and informed consent.

RONALD YONAGUSKA HOLLOWAY, the Sand Hill Band of Indians, said his Band was the direct lineal descendents of the original inhabitants of what was now known as the State of New Jersey.  The Band was a sovereign people that had entered into and signed treaties with early Europeans, sovereign to sovereign, and had kept certain rights “unto ourselves”, including land, water, hunting, fishing and coastal areas.  By 1802, however, the newly formed State of New Jersey had shown complete disregard for those treaties, federal law and most importantly “our basic human rights even to exist”.  Over the next few decades, ancestral lands had been seized and the people removed or slaughtered, while the United States Government had refused to act to protect them.  It had been a near genocidal destruction of the people.  Yet, through all the adversity, the Band had never abandoned its homelands.  It now claimed rights to lands and resources along the coastline of New Jersey, inland to the Delaware River, which contained the largest fresh water aquifers along the north-east seaboard.  After failing to reconcile the claims with the state, the Band had gone to federal court.  Unfortunately, the case had been purposely stalled and ignored.  It was the Bands intent to take every avenue available, including the World Court, if necessary.  He asked for support and assistance from the international community in restoring their international rights.

MAREVA MARTINE, Association Rohutu No’ Ano’A, said there was a genealogical link that united all elements of nature and humankind.  Those links could not be broken, and indeed, the same earth that gave birth to man would serve as his final resting place.  The indigenous people of French Polynesia were inseparable from a group of islands that made up territories, called an archipelago by a colonizing Power.  The people of that region were no different from their lands.  They were the territories and the territories were the people.

The indigenous people of French Polynesia were deeply attached to their identity as a Pacific people and desired to live together with the Chinese and French communities that lived in the region.  Yet many of those indigenous people felt that they were victims of discrimination, especially in terms of loss of their lands and lack of education and basic social services.  She, therefore, affirmed that the world’s indigenous peoples had the right to self-determination, and as such, those peoples must be recognized as the sole guardians of all natural resources now known or discovered in the future within their respective territories.  They must also be recognized as the sole guardians of their cultural and intellectual property and be recognized as primary beneficiaries of these natural resources and rights to cultural and intellectual property.

VICKY LELIEVRE, Innu Nation, said the indigenous peoples’ Declaration affirmed the right of those peoples to pursue their own educational paths.  Yet, indigenous peoples in Canada were “so, so far” from being able to pursue that goal.  Indigenous students unable to perform under the Quebecois model were held accountable for their failures, rather than provided with help.  The Government of Canada should provide financial support and teaching materials targeted to Inuit school systems, rather than forcing indigenous students to conform to the Quebecois system.  She added that Inuit school systems generally received less funding than other schools.  The Government of Canada must redress such shortcomings and ensure that all indigenous peoples, especially youth, were able to exercise their fundamental rights to education.

BOLIVAR LOPEZ CANSUET, speaking on behalf the “Project Access Global Capacity Training” and in collaboration with the Tribal Link Foundation, stated that indigenous peoples from Central and South America, the Caribbean, North America, the Pacific, Asia and Eastern Europe would continue to exist as peoples with diverse identities and cultures through development founded on ancestral sustainability practices.  He recommended the implementation of articles 3 and 32 of the Declaration in all development related to indigenous peoples, which should include their full participation, the eradication of servitude and forced labour, and the application of the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples prior to any development that could impact upon their way of living.

LES MALEZAR, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of Australia, said not nearly enough was being done to support the efforts of indigenous peoples and communities to attain their rights under the Declaration.  Indigenous people should be considered important and effective partners in such efforts, especially in places such as Australia, where the Government had no grasp what the country’s Aboriginal people needed to attain sustainable development.

While his delegation was pleased by the Australian Government’s decision to support the Declaration, that move did not detract from the inherent inequities and discrimination in two exploitative policy provisions.  The first, called “closing the gap”, was supposed to help overcome difficulties the Aboriginal people of Australia faced in the areas of education, health care, life expectancy and employment.  But, in its application, that policy gave no recognition of the Aboriginal persons’ identities as “peoples”.   The second policy, “the Northern Territory response”, was equally lacking, as, among other things, it allowed the Government to control the spending of individual Aboriginal families.  The policy also allowed the Government to replace indigenous service structures with more expensive, Government-run services.

TOMAS ALARCON, Comision juridical para el autodesarrollo de los pueblos originarios andinos (CAPAJ), discussed the need to implement articles 3 and 32 of the Declaration in relation to an indigenous practice of reproducing water in the Andes near the Peru-Chile border.  Describing the ceremony, he said it was a manifestation of culture that had persisted with ecologically sustainable results.  Those in charge would trace the water to its source.  Water formed in the mountains was maintained by glacier thaw, and thereby continually reproduced.  “Water is life,” he said, and the basis of development.  States should allow indigenous peoples to define priorities on ancestral lands vis-à-vis natural resources.  The Forum should tell States to make wise use of water based on a “cosmo-vision”.  Technology should not lead to the deterioration of such natural resources.  There should also be a special rapporteur for water.

WILTON LITTLECHILD, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said “Treaty 6” identified who the Cree nation peoples were.  That sacred agreement had been made through a cultural and spiritual ceremony and underpinned his peoples’ understanding of development.  In that context, he recommended that treaties and treaty principles be included in discussions of the special theme.  The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples covered treaty rights and, at a minimum, articles 3 and 32 must be read together with 37.  With five years to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, action was needed to ensure indigenous participation in development.  He urged supporting the full and effective participation of indigenous women through implementation of the Declaration and related instruments.  “They are the treaty keepers,” he said.  He also urged the Forum to include an amendment to report E/C.19/2010/14 to add “treaty and treaty principles” in considering the session’s special theme.

AQQALUK LYNGE, Inuit Circumpolar Council, said the Inuit from “Russia to Alaska” were facing dramatic changes.  Mining companies were opening new mines and oil companies were working offshore.  The scale and speed with which such projects were being conceived had to be considered through appropriate impact assessment studies.  Moreover, self-government arrangements must pay heed to indigenous rights, in line with article 32.  Citing an example, he said Greenland last year had entered into a new era with the inauguration of a new self-government arrangement, assuming responsibility for its resources.  The challenge lay in making decisions that were well funded and inclusive -- not to the “dance” of the extractive companies.  The Forum must recommend that the Economic and Social Council allocate funding for an indigenous summit on that issue.

JAIME CORISEPA NERI, Comite Indigena Internacional para la proteccion de los pueblos en aislamiento y contacto inicial de la region Amazonica y la Gran Chaco, said his organization protected those living in isolation in the Amazon and Gran Chaco region of Paraguay.  He was concerned at the serious situation of indigenous peoples in Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Colombia, Bolivia and Brazil, who were at risk of socio-cultural extinction as the result of contact.  As such, he asked the Forum to implement the recommendations adopted in the reports of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth sessions regarding peoples in isolation.  Moreover, it should carry out research to ensure that they were not being forced into contact.  He asked the Governments of Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela to cancel “mega projects” that attracted external agents.  “This is a threat to our lives,” he said.  The Forum must also demand that Governments recognize and protect indigenous territories.  For its part, the United Nations should request the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, as well as the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, to pay urgent attention to Government violations of such rights.

DELARIA FESTUS, !Kwa Ttu - San Culture and Education Centre, said that, for generations, her people had lived in costal and semi-arid places in South Africa.  But, their identity and culture had been eroded by historical events and political circumstances.  In addition, over time, many had been driven from their ancestral lands.  When the Apartheid era had ended, they had organized and attempted to speak with one voice, so they could regain their lands and ensure that their cultural identity and leadership was recognized.  That effort had, over the past 20 years, led to the restoration of some 35,000 hectares of land.

She went on to say that Southern African land-reform policies had also led to the reclamation of more land for indigenous peoples, including some areas that had been designated nature preserves.  The conservancies provided the San people who returned to those areas livelihoods from the land, including sharing in the profits from eco-tourism.  Democratization in the Southern African region had created an opportunity for groups to restore their cultures.  At the same time, the San and the Khoi were often recognized as one group, because they spoke similar languages.  She said the San were hunter-gatherers, whereas the Khoi were herders.  Traditionally, the small bands of San lived in an egalitarian society, which emphasised a reciprocal sharing system.  The Khoi, on the other hand, lived in bigger groups and according to hierarchical structures.

JORGE MORALES TOJ, Mayas of Guatemala, urged the Forum to press States to involve indigenous people in the design of development policies, so that strategies and projects could better reflect the real needs of indigenous people and their communities.  He also called for a “real and comprehensive” consultative process with indigenous peoples, especially regarding mining and extractive industries.  Indeed, multinational corporations should adhere to the tenets of the resolutions and declarations of the United Nations and its agencies concerning the protection of indigenous peoples, their lands and cultural heritage.  Indigenous people lived in harmony with the earth, but the racist and ecologically destructive policies of Guatemala, including the methods through which mining licenses were approved and issued, were persecuting and threatening indigenous people.  He pledged that the indigenous people of Guatemala would continue to fight, even if it meant giving up their own lives.

NGWANG SONAM SHERPA, Nepal Indigenous Nationalities Preservation Association, said indigenous people in his region had long faced many challenges, including low socio-economic development and lack of education.  Moreover, many feared that several indigenous languages would disappear completely in the next two or three decades.  While inequalities lingered, the Government had recently included a reference to “indigenous people” in a recent multi-year development plan.  While that was significant, the plan itself did not go far enough and it was clear that very few indigenous people had been involved in its elaboration.  He urged the Forum to raise with the Nepal Government the need to integrate into its development strategies the tenets of the United Nations Declaration, to ensure that all indigenous people could exercise their fundamental rights.

Dialogue with Governments

PAULO CELSO OLIVEIRA, National Foundation for Indigenous Issues of Brazil, said that the principle of “development with identity”, the special theme of the Forum’s current session, was particularly important for Brazil.  The Government recognized traditional and indigenous customs, cultures and beliefs, as well as land rights.  Protecting indigenous territories was vital to ensuring development with identity.  For Brazil, that meant protecting more than 13 per cent of its landmass, inhabited by more than 200 diverse groups and communities.  Recently, President Lula da Silva had announced protection of some 5 million hectares of the Amazon forest that was home to more than 7,000 indigenous people.  Brazil also believed in social development of indigenous groups, through improvements in education and ensuring that indigenous people had a voice in decision-making and other areas.  Throughout the country, there were some 10,000 indigenous teachers and professors, as well as 2,500 indigenous schools.  Affirmative measures had also been taken to boost enrolment of indigenous students at the university level, including through the provision of stipends.  Finally, he said that a specific policy for sustainable development with identity was being developed, in full consultation with indigenous peoples.

SUSAN RICE (United States) said her Government was aware that there was no true history that did not take into account the story of indigenous populations -- their proud traditions, their rich cultures and their contributions to shared heritage and identity of all.  But, in the United States, as in many parts of the world, indigenous communities continued to feel the heavy hand of history.  “Our fist nations face serious challenges,” she continued, citing disproportionate and dire poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, health-care gaps, violent crime and bitter discrimination as among those ills.  The Administration had moved quickly to launch programmes to improve the lives of Native Americans.  The President had appointed, early on, a Native American Policy Adviser and had begun to reach out to tribal leaders.  The United States also supported programmes that helped indigenous communities around the world, and was especially committed to promoting corporate responsibility, particularly with extractive industries whose operations could so dramatically affect the living conditions of indigenous people.

Finally, she was pleased to announce that the United States had decided to review its position regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recognizing that, for many people, that document was a framework for addressing indigenous issues.  At the urging of tribal leaders, the Government would be conducting a formal review of its position, and looked forward to consulting extensively with colleagues in the federally recognized Indian tribes, among others.  “There is no American history without Native American history [and] there can be no just and decent future for our nation that does not directly tackle the legacy of bitter discrimination and sorrow that the first Americans still lives with.”

FRANCISCO PAINEPÁN, Director of the National Corporation for Indigenous Development of Chile, stated that, in the aftermath of the earthquake that had recently occurred in Chile, the new Government’s main goal was reconstruction, which set the framework for indigenous policy.  The policy would reaffirm the invaluable wealth of the nine indigenous peoples and emphasize the multicultural character of the country, empower indigenous communities through training and development, give greater attention to the large urban indigenous population, and ensure the responsible institutionalization of Government policies for indigenous peoples.  The Government had incorporated many provisions of International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 into legislation for years and, because efforts had been made to recognize indigenous people and protect their rights, society was more aware of its multicultural and multi-ethnic character.  Looking towards the future, the Government would make efforts to foster indigenous cultures and identities, transform the National Corporation for Indigenous Development into a public service of excellence, and increasingly invest in development initiatives, particularly in agriculture, but decided upon by indigenous peoples themselves.  He also mentioned plans to reduce or eliminate indigenous poverty and restore coexistence in southern Chile through dialogue aimed towards regaining mutual trust.  He also reiterated an open invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit Chile.

FRANCISCO CARRIÓN-MENA (Ecuador), noting that his country was home to 18 indigenous peoples and 12 indigenous languages, said society was marked by a racial bias that had contaminated all institutions, including those of the State, and a wide “mestizo ethnocracy”.  The Constitution incorporated the principles of ILO Convention 169; however, high levels of exclusion and domination were difficult to change in the short term.  People still had not learned the basic principle of respect for others.  The national plan for good living aimed to build a pluri-national State.  To implement that plan, intercultural public policies and statistics broken down by ethnic origin and gender were being created.  Also, a national plan against racism and social exclusion had been adopted.  On an international level, Ecuador had played a role in the midterm review of the Second International Decade and had submitted to the Forum its country report, which had been drawn up with information from the ministries of environment, labour affairs, social movements and national heritage, among others.  However, there was a lack of indicators to examine the impact of Government programmes.  Aware of challenges in creating equality, Ecuador promoted studies on indigenous peoples and had developed post-graduate programmes on intercultural development.  Finally, he stressed that Ecuador had developed indigenous territorial districts to host authorities of territorial government.

STEDMAN FAGOTH MULLER, Minister of the Institute of Fishing and Agriculture of Nicaragua, said societies that had come after indigenous peoples must start returning indigenous property.  “That’s what we’re doing”, he said, noting that almost 40 per cent of national territory was now in the hands of indigenous peoples, who represented 10 per cent of the population.  Second, he urged developing laws at the constitutional level that guaranteed the self-determination of indigenous peoples.  “These lands, which were usurped, are full of natural resources”, he said.  There was also a law allowing for the self-determination of indigenous peoples.  Indeed, the development of indigenous institutions, based on indigenous realities, constituted comprehensive development.  In other areas, he drew attention to a university that guaranteed that rules could be applied through various mechanisms.  As for how to improve the world, he urged restoring balance, notably by accepting the Kyoto Protocol.

FRED CARON, Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs of Canada, stated that his Government had announced it would take steps towards endorsing the United Nations Indigenous Rights Declaration in a timely manner, fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.  Also, this year, it had attended the Expert Group Meeting in January, and during the current session of the Forum, would share information on several aspects of its approach to indigenous development with culture and identity through statements and side events.  Development programmes that had a negative effect on indigenous peoples’ lives had too often been the case in Canada; however, the Government was committed to working with aboriginal communities to address those issues, as well as work to ensure that aboriginal children received the education they needed for success.  In efforts to eliminate discrimination, legislation to address gender discrimination related to Indian registration had been introduced and other issues of registration and membership would be explored with consideration to cultural perspectives.

In addition, he said, activities would be undertaken to support indigenous communities in addressing the health impact of economic development and strengthen cultural aspects of health delivery.  The Government had showed its commitment to promoting participation by aboriginal men and women in the economy with a two-year, $1.4 billion investment into aboriginal-specific programming.  He noted that key areas of commitment regarding the First Nations included child education, missing or murdered aboriginal women, capital assets and infrastructure, and access to safe drinking water.  He stressed that the initiatives were only one element of the equation, as they were undertaken with the indigenous peoples in Canada to whom they were directed.

FABIO VALENCIA COSSIO, Minister of Interior and Justice of Colombia, said his country was home to nearly 1.4 million indigenous people.  Some 34 million hectares had been legally recognized as collective land; about 30 per cent of the national territory and equivalent to land area of Finland or Viet Nam.  President Alvaro Uribe’s Government had worked hard to guarantee the rights of indigenous communities and had placed greater emphasis on direct political dialogue between the President’s Office, the Minister of Interior and Justice, and his Deputy, with a permanent presence in the reservations and indigenous councils, while respecting the autonomy and particularities of each community.  He added that the Justice and Interior Ministry was responsible for the design of public policy on indigenous issues, as well as in human rights affairs, the latter being shared with the Vice-President’s Office.

He went on to say that the Justice and Interior Ministry had also coordinated unique development policies.  For example, jointly with the Education Ministry it had supported an ethno-education policy aimed at raising education standards in indigenous communities.  With the Colombian Family Welfare Institute, nutritional supplements were being offered to indigenous children in programmes that helped promote regular attendance and prevent dropouts.  “We have made every effort to comply with agreements made with indigenous people, even those adopted by previous Governments,” he continued, adding that the current Government had recognized the fundamental role being played by indigenous women.  As such, several spaces had been set aside in the Ministry for those women to meet, even if they did not belong to a national organization.  Further, the Ministry had agreed with them on a programme for the protection of indigenous women, the next phase of which would be completed in 2011.

JEFF HARMER, Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs of Australia, said his delegation had been pleased and moved by the announcement by New Zealand yesterday that it had reversed its position and now planned to support the United Nations Declaration.  Australia was also pleased that the United States and Canada had today announced the intention of their respective Governments to review their positions on the Declaration.  Yet, much remained to be done to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide, and Australia looked forward to working with all countries to that end.

He went on to welcome the Forum’s special theme and said that Australia considered building and maintaining strong communities, improving wealth creation and economic opportunities among the keys to ensuring “development with identity”.  He said Australia supported local and traditional land ownership, as well as efforts to ensure that indigenous land owners maintained control over their land and benefited from any resources such land might hold or benefits it might generate.  The attachment to land and culture was reflected in Australia’s dynamic indigenous visual arts centres.  In some communities, those centres were the sole source of income.  For its part, the Government provided support for individual artists as well as to arts programmes and education initiatives.

He next gave the floor to JOHN TOSHI KRIS of the Torres Strait Regional Authority, who said the people of that region had, through the years, maintained strong ties and cultural connections to the sea.  They had used materials from the waters to produce vital tools, trade items and sacred artefacts that were part of their traditional ceremonies.  They relied on those resources to build the regional economy.  He said the people of the region had, in 2001, applied for the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim over a large portion of those waters.  The Federal Court had concluded all hearings on the Claim last year.  “A positive finding in favour of the applicants would provide an opportunity for the Australian Government to acknowledge our traditional rights to sea-based ownership of those waters and the resources contained within them,” he said.

Addressing the Forum for the first time, PETER SCHWAIGER, Deputy Head of Delegation of the European Union, said the Union was founded on respect for unity, equality and human rights, including for minorities.  It had put in place a legal framework to fight racism and launched financial programmes to support its activities.  Human rights were central to the Union’s external relations, whether in political dialogue with third countries, or in its development policies and assistance.  Principles were applied in line with the Declaration.  However, the voices of indigenous peoples were not always heard when development plans were formulated, and he encouraged States to facilitate implementation of the Declaration by translating it into indigenous languages.  He also attached importance to the Human Right Council’s Expert Mechanism on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

The Union’s principles for engaging with indigenous peoples were applied in the context of the Declaration, and relevant issues were mainstreamed into development cooperation strategies, he said.  By way of example, he said a European Commission study would analyse the role of indigenous peoples’ organizations in Nepal and make recommendations on how to incorporate such groups into the Union’s policy dialogue and programming cycle.  In closing, he said the effective participation of indigenous peoples in projects relating to their development needs must be based on their free, prior and informed consent.

JARMO VIINANEN (Finland) said the development cooperation his country engaged in was guided by a rights-based approach, not only to reflect political ideals, but because it was the most practical way to make development work.  The rights of indigenous peoples was a cross-cutting theme in Finland’s development policy, and the country’s objective was to facilitate development that allowed for communities and cultures to grow and survive on their own terms, and it emphasized the need for those communities to be protected.  In particular, the country placed high importance on both the recognition of rights and preservation of culture of peoples living in the Artic region, a region which had already begun to feel the effects of climate change.  Within Finland, the Saami people, recognized as indigenous peoples in 1995, received the right to develop and maintain their own language and culture.  The word culture had a broad meaning and covered also the traditional livelihoods, such as reindeer herding, fishing and hunting.

Moreover, he said, the Constitution safeguarded the Saami people’s linguistic and cultural self-government within the Saami homeland area.  The Act on the Saami Parliament allowed the Saami people to participate in societal decision-making processes by requiring local, regional and national authorities to negotiate with the Saami Parliament on any measures which could affect them as a people or their homeland.  He noted that challenges still remained, such as the provision of education and child care in the Saami language, but that Finland was committed to achieving full and effective participation of the Saami people in national and international decision-making processes.

DOLORES MARTÍN, Director of the Indigenous Peoples Programme, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, said her Government was committed to cultural recognition processes and supporting advances in global norms.  The Spanish strategy for cooperation with indigenous peoples established that support for self-determination, and the need to proceed in the context of full, prior and informed consent was fundamental to ensuring that development contributed to cultural diversity.  Establishing development policies that guaranteed respect for cultural diversity and recognition of indigenous rights required raising awareness of indigenous cultures and, above all, that indigenous peoples had the possibility of speaking for themselves.  With that in mind, Spain last year had supported the Latin American Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples Film and Communication, with the aim of formulating an indigenous communications strategy in Latin America.  Among other things, she also highlighted Spain’s participation in the Latin American meeting of Governments, indigenous peoples, employees and workers on indigenous childhood and child labour, from 8 to 10 March.  Finally, the ninth General Assembly of the Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean would be held in Madrid, from 9 to 10 September.

YANEISY ACOSTA HERNÁNDEZ (Cuba) said that, after years of hard work, the adoption of the United Nations Declaration had been a victory in the long battle for the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples.  Yet, that should been seen as the beginning of the process to ensure that 370 million of the world’s people could establish and exercise their right to self-determination and freely pursue their own economic and social development.  The struggle towards that goal must continue, because so many indigenous people around the world suffered discrimination and marginalization.  She said that the Government of Cuba would continue to work with the Permanent Forum and indigenous people and communities to see that the aims of the Declaration were achieved.

MARTIN NEY ( Germany) said his country’s Government was deeply committed to the successful implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Since those people were often particularly disadvantaged and suffered human rights violations, the Government attached great importance to ensuring respect for compliance with the human rights of indigenous peoples, and devoted particular attention to the special needs of indigenous women.  He was pleased to announce that Germany would again this year contribute some $50,000 to the Indigenous Trust Fund, reaffirming its commitment to promoting the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in important international events, such as the current session of the Permanent Forum.

He went on to say that, in line with the new paradigm -- “development with identity” -- Germany was currently implementing a new type of development project, which revived cultural traditions as a means to facilitate common visions and actions of indigenous communities in the highlands of Borneo, Indonesia.  His Government also strongly supported the participation of indigenous political organizations from Latin America in the international negotiations on biodiversity, protected areas and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  This year, Germany would facilitate the participation of indigenous representatives in the coming negotiations on the Convention on Biodiversity.

JULIO RAFAEL ESCALONA OJEDA (Venezuela) agreed that the current development model was based on overexploitation and had led to poverty, human rights violations and planetary devastation.  Indeed, people had moved from a people-centred to an anthropocentric-centred vision of the world.  In the past, nature had been seen as a life source; today, it was a commodity.  For its part, Venezuela implemented an “endogenous” development model, in which indigenous rights, including those to protect culture and identity, played a crucial role.  The Constitution had been translated into various indigenous languages and enshrined indigenous peoples’ right to political participation and representation in elections at national and parochial levels.  Moreover, a law on indigenous communities and peoples guaranteed collective ancestral rights, while another recognized indigenous artisans as creators of objects of cultural expression.  A presidential commission addressed the most oppressing problems through consultation.  All plans guaranteed the restoration of indigenous rights in such areas as health, nutrition, housing and political participation, among others.  Finally, he cited a health policy, developed through an intercultural approach, which enhanced medical care for indigenous peoples, notably through “shamanic healing centres”.

GONZALO GUTIÉRREZ (Peru) said “indigenous peoples are part of our culture and identity as a country”.  As such, the Government was committed to constantly improving communication channels, in line with article 32 of the Declaration.  Other measures were in place to guarantee access to health, education and employment.  Unfortunately, last June, violent events in Bagua province had killed many people.  In the aftermath, the Government had invited the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, who, among other things, had ruled out genocide, forced disappearances or killings.  For its part, the Government had started series of dialogues with indigenous peoples and formed a group for the coordination of the development of the Amazon peoples to reach agreements vis-à-vis that area and analyse the Bagua events.  In Congress, the Peoples’ Defender had submitted a bill on indigenous peoples’ right to consultation, in line with ILO Convention 169.  Indeed, Peru was more aware than ever of the importance of coordinating actions related to lands with indigenous peoples.  It was crucial to have mutual respect within the context of constitutional order and the rule of law.

FELIX CARDENAS, Vice-Minister of Decolonization for Bolivia, said the current model of development, designed by capitalist industrial countries, was destroying Mother Earth.  There was a need to seriously launch a new development process, one that focused on identity and culture.  At a meeting in Bolivia that began today and would run through Thursday -- Mother Earth Day -- he said the participants planned to draft two alternative letters that would be left for the children of the world to open in 2092.

He said that one letter, entitled “Sorry We Never Fought”, would recount the paths and choices that had been made that led to a devastated world with poisoned air, dying trees and deformed children.  That was the world that would have succumbed to capitalism and would have been destroyed by global warming.  The participants would also consider drafting another letter to be opened in 2092. That letter would describe a world that had overcome capitalism, a world in which the people of all nations had protected Mother Earth and had acted in the name of peace, rather than war.  That Earth, verdant and prosperous, would be an example of what could be done when humankind worked in harmony with Mother Earth, rather than only rapaciously devouring her bounty, carelessly polluting the air and fouling the waters.  He hoped that in 2092, the children would find a world that was better than the one we had today.

GABRIELA GARDUZA (Mexico) said the rights of her country’s indigenous people were enshrined in the Constitution, including the right to self-expression and identification, the right to land ownership and consultation.  While all that was commendable, Mexico was struggling to ensure those rights were promoted and protected at local levels.  Indeed, the Government was striving particularly hard to make sure that the comprehensive national consultation process bore fruits for local indigenous people and communities.

On other matters, she was pleased that the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) was holding a parallel meeting, and she believed that the IPU outcome would urge the enhanced participation of parliamentarians in efforts to promote sustainable human development of people of all traditions and cultures.  Turning to the special theme of the Permanent Forum’s work, she said “development with identity and culture” meant, among other things, that indigenous people should be involved in crafting policies that affected them.  Paternalism should be banished and policies and initiatives to assist indigenous people should be based on equity and ensuring that they could take control of their own destinies.

SHANKER DAS BAIRAGI (Nepal) said his was a country of great diversity, made up of some 100 ethnic groups speaking more than 92 languages.  Among those groups, 59 had been recognized as indigenous nationalities.  The Government had taken several significant measures to promote the right of indigenous people, including with the ratification in 2007 of ILO Convention 169.  The Government was in the process of formulating a comprehensive action plan to implement that Convention.  Nepal was also committed to implementing the provisions of the United Nations Declaration, and had instituted several legal measures aimed at ensuring the representation of indigenous people in all State offices.

He went on to say that Nepal had built its 2007-2010 Interim Development Plan around the theme of “inclusive development”, which focused on targeted programmes for indigenous people.  One of its main objectives was to promote their economic and cultural development by increasing their access to administrative, social and economic resources.  To that end, the Government had recently introduced a social security scheme for indigenous peoples identified as “endangered groups”.  He said that special budgetary provisions had been made for programmes aimed at uplifting and empowering marginalized groups, indigenous people, Dalits and other communities.  The Government had also adopted policies and programmes to promote social justice and affirmative action for women, Dalits and other marginalized or disadvantaged groups.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said that, over the last two years, his Government had carried out standard-making measures to provide for indigenous peoples’ rights.  By way of example, he noted that, in 2009, a concept of sustainable development for small indigenous groups in the north Siberian area had been adopted, which set the standard for national policies and was developed on the basis of an analysis of natural resource use, among other issues.  The concept provided for direct State support for small indigenous groups and help in creating the internal conditions necessary for sustainable development.  Moreover, a methodology was developed, along with research and industrial entities, to measure damage incurred in areas where indigenous peoples traditionally lived.  On the problem of providing priority access to fisheries and hunting grounds, among other areas, his Government was working to introduce amendments to laws covering those areas.  It had also approved a list of traditional habitats and economic activities of small indigenous groups, which would allow them to make use of tax benefits.  On a financial level, he said 600 million roubles in subsidies had been provided in 2009 to co-finance activities for indigenous peoples’ social and economic development.

CHARLOTTA SCHLYTER (Sweden) noted that, while the presentation of a bill which addressed issues pertaining to the situation of the Saami people in Sweden had been postponed, a new Act on National Minorities and National Minority Languages had gone into effect this year.  That act was of great importance to the Saami people, who were recognized as a national minority in Sweden, and obligated authorities to protect minorities and promote their cultures and languages.  The Saami Parliament was responsible for defining objectives and leading work on the language, running two newly established language centres, and following up with minority policy to ensure its full realization within the Saami population.  Sweden stated its commitment to the ratification of a Nordic Saami Convention, in cooperation with Finland and Norway.  The draft text had been in existence for several years and the process needed to be finalized.  Lastly, the Government reaffirmed its support of the United Nations Declaration as a “steering document” for the ongoing work on the comprehensive bill mentioned earlier.

MORTEN WETLAND (Norway) said articles 3 and 32 relating to indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and their right to be consulted in land matters which directly affected them were central provisions in the Declaration.  Given that, his Government had entered into an agreement with the Saami Parliament that specified procedures for consultations between the entities.  As a consequence, 20 to 40 formal consultations took place each year and that had led to increased awareness and knowledge of Saami issues in Government ministries and agencies, the Norwegian Parliament and among cabinet ministers.  He described consultations with the Saami Parliament on issues concerning Saami mineral rights, land rights and fishing rights.  Over the last few days, the Special Rapporteur had, for the first time, made an official visit to the Saami people living across the border of four countries -- Finland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden.  Norway also stressed the importance of dialogue and cooperation between State authorities and indigenous representatives on issues both domestic and international.  He emphasized the importance of the Special Rapporteur, the Forum and the Expert Mechanism in strengthening and improving the rights of indigenous peoples.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, stated that, in the wake of the devastating financial crisis, the Holy See had extended its programmes and projects for the advancement of indigenous peoples and considered a holistic view on development to be fundamental.  Any development programme in an indigenous zone that did not respect the peoples’ cultural traits could do more harm than good.  Such a programme, he said, needed to promote a human-rights-based approach that took into account collective rights, as well as social, cultural and spiritual elements.  It should also incorporate the indigenous view that the earth and environment were sacred and not to be abused.  With the need for promoting an understanding and respect for indigenous culture in mind, he noted that the preservation of indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage, promotion of indigenous languages and intercultural education were critical and served as the basis for the Holy See’s promotion of indigenous language centres.  The Holy See had announced its commitment to cultural development, with a particular focus on the human and spiritual enrichment of populations.  In closing, he said he hoped the entire United Nations membership would eventually adopt the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record