Southeast Indigenonus Peoples' Center
- Date submitted: 1 Nov 2011
- Stakeholder type: Major Group
- Submission Document: Download
- Additional Document:
General Contenta) What are the expectations for the outcome of Rio+20, and what are the concrete proposals in this regard, including views on a possible structure of the Outcome document? We expect all governments to be included in the Rio+20 dialogue to promote sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples? governments are long-lived political institutions with strong democratic traditions. We have famously prevented ecocide throughout the Americas and other regions for countless millennia. Today we continue our work to protect our local ecosystems by engaging with the world to prevent destruction of the macrosystems of wind, water, fire, and our Greatgrandmother Earth. We welcome the world to work with the Indigenous Peoples, the First governors of human interaction with our ecosystems.
We see that Europe is today returning to its ancient more democratic indigenous traditions and embracing Civil Society Organizations and democratically elected governments to allow local Peoples to speak through their governments. We welcome this change, remembering as we do the destruction that comes from colonial despots. We invite European-based industrialized countries along with others to learn from Indigenous Peoples how governments can channel their own Peoples? voices in a democratic manner as they listen to the governments of neighboring Peoples. This listening and learning can lead us to develop an Earth Charter that respects all life, even the lives of Indigenous Peoples, the form of human life considered to be lowest in the eyes of industrialized countries of the despotic era.
A dialogue that includes the governments of Indigenous Peoples is a truly international dialogue that can work toward an outcome document that can truly be supported by all the Peoples of the world. Outside of Europe, Indigenous Peoples have very little power to enforce their laws and few opportunities to raise their voice to address this illegality. Because Europe excelled at colonialism, Indigenous Peoples outside Europe are limited in our ability to enforce our environmental regulations that would truly promote sustainable development. Because we have excelled at ecosystem protection, colonists have succeeded in destroying our resources and alienating us from their protection and use instead of working with us to strengthen the sustainable economies they encountered.
Today the world has the opportunity to return to the tradition of sustainable development that is indigenous to all the Peoples of our Greatgrandmother Earth. We all come from Peoples that understood that the One who created us purposed us to respect creation. We have all been distracted from that original purpose by many things, including violence. Today the world has the opportunity to stop using violent force to silence the governments of Indigenous Peoples. Today the industrialized world has the opportunity to stop silencing industrious countries surviving colonialism by using our misappropriated wealth against us.
Today the UN Commission on Sustainable Development has the opportunity to work with a truly international body of governments by including Indigenous Peoples? governments in dialogue to craft an international document that will outline the structures needed to support economies built on strong ecosystems that will sustain generations to come.
Southeast Indigenous Peoples? Center proposes that representatives of Indigenous Peoples? governments be allowed access to some of our resources that have been misappropriated in the past by allowing us space to meet with each other and time to speak at CSD with other governments, as if the UN considered Indigenous Peoples to be human and our governments to have value equal to those of our invaders. We propose that representatives of Indigenous Peoples? governments be given time and space to organize at CSD so that we can adequately prepare for negotiations and our Peoples can be represented in global dialogue. We propose that representatives of Indigenous Peoples? governments be allotted time to speak in Governmental and Inter-governmental Dialogue Sessions because our governments govern humans and our voices are as important as are those of humans represented by newcomer governments.
b) What are the comments, if any, on existing proposals: e.g., a green economy roadmap, framework for action, sustainable development goals, a revitalized global partnership for sustainable development, or others? The current proposals have been negotiated without Indigenous Peoples? governmental representatives and thus are not truly international agreements. These documents represent a step toward global dialogue but are heavily weighted in favor of the forces of violence that destroy Indigenous Peoples and our homes, ecosystems, and governments. These documents prioritize the voice of humans represented by colonial currencies rather than by democratic governments. We direct the CSD to the 2009 Manila Declaration and the related principles, agreements, conventions, treaties, constitutions, charters, and laws that it stands on. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, informed by the Manila Declaration will guide CSD in creating a truly international document to implement a plan for sustainable development that is truly supported, and thus able to be implemented, by all Peoples living with our Greatgrandmother Earth.
c) What are the views on implementation and on how to close the implementation gap, which relevant actors are envisaged as being involved (Governments, specific Major Groups, UN system, IFIs, etc.); When the voices of Major Groups come from civil society, all governments can be honestly informed of social conditions, which are necessarily impacted by environmental health. This information along with proposals from Major Groups contributes much to the development of sustainable economy. In the current situation governments of industrialized countries, too many of whom continue to wage war against Indigenous Peoples, are over-represented in both the Major Group Dialogues and in what the UNCSD calls Governmental or Inter-Governmental Dialogues. The result is unworkable plans for sustainable development that are not supported by the Peoples who are or will be doing the work of implementing them.
Representatives of organizations that truly represent civil society, as opposed to civil government, should continue to be given a platform among the Major Groups. The current situation subordinates Indigenous Peoples? governments not only to newcomer governments but also to thousands of Civil Society Organizations who seem to have much more access to the resources that rightfully belong to
Indigenous Peoples than do Indigenous Peoples and our governments. Meanwhile representatives of disadvantaged industrious countries? CSOs are overshadowed by representatives of industrialized countries? governments in the Major Groups. We encourage also true and honest delineation between other Major Groups and country governments among Business, Farmers, Scientific and Technological Community, Trade Unions, Youth, Women, Local Authorities and Indigenous Peoples. We see the unfortunate situation where countries? governments with a legacy of industrialism have the power to represent these Major Groups thus silencing the world of civil society in disadvantaged industrious countries. CSD is invited to work with Indigenous Peoples? governments and CSOs to remedy this situation by supporting the attendance of actual civil society organization representatives especially from disadvantaged industrious countries and the full and appropriate participation of Indigenous Peoples? governments through a formula funded by the carbon debt of industrialized countries.
d) What specific cooperation mechanisms, partnership arrangements or other implementation tools are envisaged and what is the relevant time frame for the proposed decisions to be reached and actions to be implemented? In order to arrange workable mechanisms, and partnerships and/or other implementation tools, space and time must be provided for ongoing actual opportunities for Indigenous Peoples? governments to participate in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation so we can work with other governments to plan sustainable energy infrastructure and technology transfer that promotes food security and sustainable agriculture. Funding the participation of Indigenous Peoples? governments through the repayment of industrialized countries? carbon debts will allow Indigenous Peoples? governments to work with other governments to set standards and protocols for water purity and access to all as representative governments determine need. When CSD has included Indigenous Peoples? governments in Inter-governmental Dialogue sessions, CSD will be able to make successful recommendations on sustainable urbanization; sustainable consumption and production; natural disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation; biodiversity; physical and spiritual health care structures; climate change mitigation; and human rights protection ensured by the rule of law. Without the full participation of all the world?s representative governments, CSD recommendations cannot succeed because the age of colonial despots has ended. Indigenous Peoples and other industrious disadvantaged countries around the world see that our survival is threatened by climate changed caused by colonial despotism. Today CSD has the opportunity to work with representative governments, including those of Indigenous Peoples, to outline the processes, procedures, and protocols for implementing sustainable economies that the Peoples will support and implement.
Through partial repayment of the industrialized countries? carbon debt, we propose the full and appropriate inclusion of Indigenous Peoples? governments in governmental Dialogue at some of the essential meetings developing an international framework for sustainable development:
UNEP High-Level International Forum on Ecosystem Management and Green Economy 18 Nov 2011 - 18 Nov 2011 , Beijing, China; Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus, Bonn, Germany, 16 Nov 2011 - 18 Nov 2011; High Level Expert Meeting on the Sustainable Use of Oceans , Monaco, 28 Nov 2011 - 30 Nov 2011; 10th Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production (APRSCP), Jakarta, Indonesia, 9 Nov 2011 - 11 Nov 2011; 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9, 2011; 2nd Intersessional Meeting of UNCSD, UN Secretariat, New York, USA, 15 Dec 2011 - 16 Dec 2011; Eye on Earth Summit, Abu Dhabi, 12 Dec 2011 - 15 Dec 2011; Initial discussions on the zero draft of outcome document, New York, 16 Jan 2012 - 18 Jan 2012; Negotiations (informals) on the zero draft, New York, 13 Feb 2012 - 17 Feb 2012; 3rd Intersessional Meeting of UNCSD, UN Secretariat, New York, USA, 26 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012; Negotiations (informals) on the zero draft, New York, 19 Mar 2012 - 23 Mar 2012; Negotiations (informals) on the zero draft, New York, 30 Apr 2012 - 4 May 2012; 3rd Preparatory Committee Meeting UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 28 May 2012 - 30 May 2012; Negotiations (informals) on the zero draft, New York, 30 Apr 2012 - 4 May 2012; Rio+20 June 6-12, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The CSD cannot arrive at an institutional framework that can actually be implemented while systematically excluding governments representing Indigenous Peoples and minimizing the participation of representatives of disadvantaged industrious countries and our corresponding Civil Society Organizations. When the governments that actually represent the Peoples are included we can negotiate a plan that the Peoples are actually going to support and implement.
Specific Elementsa) Objective of the Conference: To secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges. Contributions could include possible sectoral priorities (e.g., (e.g., energy, food security and sustainable agriculture, technology transfer, water, oceans, sustainable urbanization, sustainable consumption and production, natural disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation, biodiversity, etc.) and sectoral initiatives that contribute to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development could be launched and endorsed at Rio+20. Governments have not yet had a chance to define ?green economy? or determine the standards, mechanisms, and protocols for deeming an economic tool beneficial for the health of our Greatgrandmother Earth or the Peoples living with her. Governments protecting each local ecosystem and representative governments protecting regional ecosystems must define the standards for ?green? in accordance with the ways in which Peoples live with their ecosystems and the health and unique needs of the ecosystems. On the global level it is dangerous to simply apply the term ?green? to UNEP recommendations or corporate ideologies. If environmental health were that simple we would not be facing climate change as a result of burning fossil fuels. The balance of ecosystem health requires much observation and small changes. When moving in the natural world, sudden drastic movements often have negative impacts to the ecosystem and to the one moving too much too fast. UNEP should listen to Indigenous Peoples and our governments, judiciously and slowly applying labels of environmental approval exclusively through bottom-up and local-international governmental mechanisms and apparatus.
Poverty directly results from our lack of access to the benefits of our winds, waters, lands, and resources. Some proposals described by transnational corporations as ?green? lead to social, environmental, and economic destruction that dislocate and cast into poverty entire communities for generations. Nuclear power plants and dams, as well as resource extraction, manufacture, and tourist industries have been labeled by those profiting from them as ?green? in multi-million dollar media campaigns while disenfranchising governments representing dislocated local and Indigenous Peoples consequently facing increased poverty.
b) Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication: views regarding how green economy can be a means to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions, and poverty eradication; what is its potential added value; experience to date, including what has worked and how to build upon success, what are the challenges and opportunities and how to address the challenges and seize opportunities, and possible elements of an agreement in outcome document on a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication Indigenous Peoples look forward to inclusion in a dialogue about the definition and standards for a green or blue economy that promotes quality of life for humanity in the context of healthy ecosystems and macrosystems. We propose that carbon debtor countries support the full participation of Indigenous Peoples? governments in future plans of implementation for international sustainable development agreements. We can begin by supporting the participation of Indigenous Peoples? governments in the remaining meetings leading up to Rio+20 final negotiations in June 2012.
c) Institutional framework for sustainable development: Priorities and proposals for strengthening individual pillars of sustainable development, as well as those for strengthening integration of the three pillars, at multiple levels; local, national, regional and international. A framework for sustainable development must expand the use of the Human Development Index and add an Ecosystem Health Index, which will reflect the indigenous value for planning for many generations into the future. If the Ecosystem Health Index is high in an area then we can expect the Human Development Index to be high not only today but in the future. Dialogue with representative governments, including with Indigenous Peoples? governments and disadvantaged industrious countries? governments and our corresponding Civil Society Organizations will allow us to refine the aspects of an Ecosystem Health Index or similar tool.
Each CSD meeting should also be measured with a Democracy Index reflecting the percentage of time allowed for governments representing the world?s Peoples in proportion to our population. For example, there are an estimated 360 million indigenous persons among 7 billion persons worldwide, thus the Democracy Index of the meeting for Indigenous Peoples would represent the degree to which CSD achieved the target goal of allowing Indigenous Peoples? governments and CSOs speak 11% of the time.
d) Any proposals for refinement of the two themes. Recall that Resolution 64/236 describes the focus of the Conference: "The focus of the Conference will include the following themes to be discussed and refined during the preparatory process: a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development". CSD can eradicate poverty and promote truly sustainable development by changing the negotiations structure to include the voice of a greater number of representative governments, despite our poverty and suffering of human rights abuses that limit participation, especially Indigenous Peoples? governments. Decolonization and human rights protections should be prioritized in procedures, protocols, processes, and agreements that come out of Rio+20 negotiations.