On October 18 the Welsh government announced a “refreshed“ policy on bovine TB.

This is because the current policy was designed to last for 5 years. That draws to a close at the end of this year, and they are running a 12-week consultation on the next steps.

They are already implementing ‘hard testing’ of cattle, which is seeing a rise in the numbers of infected cattle being slaughtered.

But the proposed policy mentions the possible culling of specific badgers that have been found to have bovine TB. Cue the farmers yelling for a ‘proper cull’ and headlines in the Welsh media saying ‘No, it will not be an English type cull’. But that, as ever, is what many farmers want.

On the other side of the fence, some wild-lifers were in uproar over the very mention of badgers being culled. But all was not as it seemed. Let’s go back to the beginning.

Wales’s success – without killing badgers

In 2008 the Welsh Assembly announced plans for a badger cull. In the same year they carried out a TB Health Check on all Welsh herds. This was followed with a programme of annual testing and cattle movement control.

Over the years this has resulted in a near 50% drop in cattle slaughter rates, while the badger culling was put on hold, and finally ruled out in 2012, since when NFU Cymru has kept lobbying for a badger cull. To date, no badgers have been killed.

Yet while the slaughter rate was slowly dropping, each hint of a rise saw NFU Cymru claiming that bovine TB was out of control. That the bTB testing was identifying more infected cattle was never considered.

In December 2015 Welsh farmers again called for badger culling, because the trial badger vaccination programme had been halted due to the lack of vaccine (something that affected all badger vaccination projects).

At the same time the cattle slaughter rate had again risen, giving farmers and their unions the opportunity to talk about the ‘reservoir of bTB’ in the wildlife, and the need to eradicate the TB by eradicating the wildlife, AKA badgers. And in February this year, Carmarthen County Council voted to lobby the Assembly to introduce a badger cull.

However, Defra figures show that although the slaughter rate has indeed risen between July 2015 and July 2016, over the same 12 months new herd incidents have dropped by 19%, and herds not officially free of TB (non-OFTB herds) by 10%.

In the light of these figures one has to conclude that the rise in the slaughter rate does not show a disease out of control; it shows that more stringent bTB testing is finding more infected animals within herds already hit by the disease.

Badger Trust is winning evidence-based argument

Looking at the storm of protest from wildlife lovers, and the media hype about Wales possibly culling badgers, Peter Martin, Chair of the Badger Trust, writes:

“The Badger Trust has maintained close ties with the Welsh government’s TB team over the years and have been greatly impressed and completely supportive of their rational, scientific approach to eradicating TB in cattle through carefully applied and stringent testing regimes as opposed to culling badgers.

“The Trust will continue to provide whatever advice and support we are asked for and commend the Welsh TB team for their determination, commitment and conspicuous success in driving down this dreadful disease whilst maintaining a healthy wildlife population.”

He continues: “Let’s be clear: the Trust is in a long war with the countryside, farming and political establishment who have control of Parliament and the media, and the backing of the NFU, Countryside Alliance and British Veterinary Association.

“Despite all that we have managed, small as the Trust is, to persuade the Welsh Government not to give in to this powerful lobby and to stick with their current, successful regime of strict cattle controls and improved testing.”

It is clear from the Consultation document that the Welsh government has studied and gained valuable information on how the disease develops and is maintained in the Welsh herds. Though badgers are mentioned, they appear to have little importance compared to cattle trading and animal husbandry.

Indeed, it looks as though what Wales is planning, in its ‘refreshed’ bTB policy, is pretty reasonable, as they are including even tighter cattle controls. However, they will be ‘looking at the policy’ in Northern Ireland where badgers are trapped and tested, and those with TB humanely killed.

Wales Government demands ‘objective confirmation’

Lesley Griffiths, Wales’s Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs, has said she will explore whether a similar approach could be used in high incidence areas where there is chronic herd breakdown, and an “objective confirmation” that badgers are infected.

But there is no assurance for pro-cull farmers that any culling will take place.

‘An objective confirmation.’ That is something that has been missing in the decades-long debate about badgers and bovine TB. We need to know just how many badgers culled in England have the disease; whether they are infected with the same strain of TB that the nearby cattle have; and whether, if left alone, badgers will naturally develop immunity.

There are a myriad of questions about badgers and their possible link to cattle with bTB – questions only ever answered by the assumption, unsupported by evidence, that badgers are to blame.

Most of all, will we ever get an ‘objective confirmation’ that badgers give TB to cattle? I doubt it. No science in the last 45 years has provided definitive proof that badgers play any significant role in giving cattle TB. And there’s no reason to think that will ever change.

Action: respond to Wales consultation on bovine TB.

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist and other media on the badger cull and other environmental topics, and on political issues for UK and international websites.  

There are some things that we consider food basics. Simple things, that most of us pick up and use every day in our kitchens: bread, milk, cheese, pasta, eggs etc. Of these, unless you are of the vegan persuasion, the majority are animal products yet, it often strikes me that we fail to take this into account. It has become so easy and commonplace to have a pint of milk in the fridge that it’s tempting to forget what it is; to spare just a moment to think about how it was produced, how we should treat it and from where we should purchase it. The same goes for eggs.

Milk and eggs are excellent examples of things we have come to take for granted in the kitchen – both available cheaply, from numerous places. But hang on a mo: when you really think about it, that’s a bit odd, really. Milk is, as we all know, the lactic secretion of a large domestic bovine mammal. For us to acquire this milk a female cow has had to be born, grow to maturity, become pregnant, bear a calf, get milked twice a day and then made pregnant again once she stops giving milk. Once she has served out her usefulness she will likely be sold as low quality meat into a large selection of uses.

What of her offspring? Well, of course, the female young will likely be kept to replenish the herd as older cows become uneconomic to maintain. The males will either be sold off to cattle-fattening beef dealers who will then sell the grown-on dairy calves under contract to a large-scale user, such as McDonalds. Nothing wrong with that, it’s never going to be prime beef, as cows that are bred for dairy are quite different from cows grown for beef; though a lot can be done to bridge the gap and increase end value of the bull calves, but only with a significant reduction in milk-giving properties.

Sadly, many bull calves are still put down at birth, or shortly after as there is no market for them: they have become worthless; a by-product. Some dairy farmers are now rearing more of their bull calves for use as so called Rose veal, and I salute them in their endeavours to make more of their calf meat. Rose veal is delicious, ethical, and far removed from the abhorrent crate veal of old. Boy calves are reared in open-sided barns, or on permanent pasture, are fed some grass or hey/silage as well as milk until they are around 6 – 8 months old. The meat is very special indeed yet veal has such a bad rep it’s taking forever to get this Rose veal meat into people’s kitchens which is a real shame.

That was a long paragraph. But, a synopsis of it runs through my head every time I open the fridge and reach for the blue-topped bottle. Milk is way too cheap in the shops. We are told that milk is a staple and needs to be affordable for all. Well, it’s not affordable for the farmer, the cows or the environment at the moment. And, it seems to me that few people in the shops really care that much about what their milk costs. Most see it as not only essential, but cheap; when in truth it’s by no means impossible to live without. What’s more, I imagine most people don’t even know what it costs, they’re so used to just looking for the bottle with the right colour lid and popping it in the basket.

It’s the same story with eggs. You only want the girl hens; though of course, many birds hatched for layers are cockerels. These are dispatched upon hatching and then sold as animal feed, which is better than burning them I suppose, but it seems a very sad waste of life. I expect that laying breed cockerels are not efficient enough at putting on weight to be commercially raised for meat, but it would make an interesting experiment to raise a few and see whether they can be put to better use in the kitchen. Laying hens at the end of their commercially useful lives are either slaughtered for pet feed or food processing or thankfully these days, given away to people who want free laying hens for their garden, allotment or small holding. The various hubs for facilitating this do great work, but by no means all hens can, or will be, re-homed.

My point? Well, it’s two fold as ever. But basically it’s the same old song I find myself singing whenever the boiling down has to be done. Buy better quality milk and eggs. In the case of milk, I think there is a case for introducing some kind of “fair trade” type system that guarantees farmers a fair (or at least not less than it costs to produce!) price for their milk. Buy less, buy better quality, higher welfare and don’t waste any. There is a further aspect to consider though…

I am sorry if this offends anyone, but if you drink milk you should really eat veal. The ‘holes’ created in our food production cycles by the lack of value placed on the long-term sustainability of the complete system are simply a madness. For every dairy bull calf slaughtered at birth, someone somewhere will be breeding beef calves to fatten for meat, and for all those cock chicks that end their lives before they have begun, the farmer up the road is hatching chicks to grow to slaughter weight in 8 weeks. Surely, surely, we could eat half veal, half beef and still be happy? Surely this would help the dairy farmer bridge the gap between cost of production and market price? And finally, certainly, we can all appreciate what we have at our fingertips a little more, and treat it with greater respect.

Above all we all need to stop confusing value with cost.

Despite living in the 21st century, a staggering 1.4 billion people across the globe go hungry every day.

So perhaps it is no wonder that some clamor for more food to be produced, for food production to be intensified. After all, who could argue with feeding the world?

Each year, the UN holds a plenary on World Food Security – and it’s taking place inRome, Italy, right now, uniting stakeholders and experts to discuss how we can develop food policies that  work for everyone, and ensure that no one goes hungry.

A side event at the plenary this year is being hosted by Compassion in World Farming and Brooke to discuss the role of livestock in sustainable agriculture. And the message we are bringing to the table is simple: livestock play a crucial role in providing food security.

This role, however, is wildly different from the one that many would have them play – crammed into filthy sheds, dosed with antibiotics, fed on pesticide-laden GM foods – even when healthy, bred to produce ever-increasing yields. In short enduring lives barely worth living.

Inefficient and cruel food production

Two thirds of farm animals worldwide are reared in these intensive systems, often living in cramped and stressful conditions. Their lives are typically spent in barren pens, crates or cages which prevent them from expressing natural behaviours such as nesting or foraging. These systems rely heavily on vast quantities of grain to use as feed.

The production of grain for animal feed creates desolate, pesticide-soaked landscapes and the large quantities of manure produced from animals crammed into intensive units can lead to polluted water courses. Biodiversity loss across the globe has reached critical levels.

Despite already producing sufficient food globally to feed the current population and more, most is wasted by feeding crops to animals. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy – a 70% loss. In short, people are being forced to compete with farm animals for food. But we don’t need to produce more food – we just need to produce it differently.

Factory farming is not just bad for farm animals, it also negatively impacts human health. It has been shown that eating too much meat, especially processed meat, can cause cancer.

The overuse of antibiotics in farming is fuelling the global antibiotic-resistance crisis. Factory farmed animals are regularly given antibiotics in their feed or water because of the higher risk of disease when large numbers of animals are kept in inhumane, overcrowded conditions. Soon, we could be unable to treat fatal diseases with life-saving drugs.

Fixing our broken food system

Many rural communities in developing countries depend on their small-scale, mixed farms to produce food. Grain and soya-based intensification of livestock production does no favours to impoverished rural communities. On the contrary, this intensification only serves to benefit large companies which profit from outcompeting small-scale farmers, and destroys local communities’ livelihoods.

When shaping policies that determine the future of food, we should support sustainable agriculture and help to advance traditional farming systems that are already in place – not scrap them to build factory farms instead.

Small-scale farmers work the land in long-established ways – many using working horses, donkeys and mules to help produce food. These working animals are just as important as farm animals to rural livelihoods and we must safeguard their welfare too.

While on the surface, factory farming may present the impression of being able to feed the world, it’s clearly not the cut and press solution that many profess it to be. We urgently need to fix our broken food system. If we don’t change the way we produce food and treat farm animals now, the ability of future generations to feed themselves will be at risk.

It’s time to replace factory farming with extensive methods and get animals back on the land where they belong. Animals reared in agro-ecological, land-based farming systems, such as mixed rotational farming, provide food in ways that are better for the environment, and animal welfare whist safeguarding future food supplies.

Mixed farming: the way forward

On pasture, animals are truly resource-efficient, as they convert inedible material into food that we can eat and use land that is generally not suitable for other forms of food production. In integrated crop and livestock systems where animals are fed on crop residues, and their manure fertilises the land, rather than being a pollutant.

Mixed farming can be restorative, instead of destroying the environment and the resources on which our future ability to produce food depends. Crop residues are recycled by being fed to animals instead of being burned or allowed to decompose and convert into greenhouse gases. The use of manure reduces the need for fertilisers and causes less water pollution.

In some areas which are completely unsuitable for other forms of food production, extensive grazing of animals can help retain carbon in the soil as well as helping to maintain landscape character and biodiversity – while also producing food.

Removing the stress caused by overcrowding, excessive group sizes and the inability to perform natural behaviours is key to fighting the global antibiotic crisis. Sustainable farming systems develop good animal health without the need for preventative uses of antibiotics – building good veterinary health by strengthening animals’ immunity.

Treating animals with respect and caring for their welfare can therefore provide us with the ultimate key to achieving truly sustainable agriculture. As the UN meets to debate global food security, getting animals out of cruel, intensive systems, and back on the land where they belong, must be a primary goal.

This is the first vital step on the path towards a more sustainable future for our food.

Philip Lymbery is Chief Executive of leading international farm animal welfare organisation, Compassion in World Farming and a prominent commentator on the effects of industrial farming.

Books: Philip is author of Farmageddon: The true cost of cheap meat, published by Bloomsbury in 2014 and written with Sunday Times political editor, Isabel Oakeshott. The Evening Standard called it an “unusually punchy and fast-paced” enviro-shocker, while The Independent said it was an “unforgettable indictment of the new hyper-industrialised agriculture originating in the USA.”

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is the author of ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples‘.

The report, which highlights the impact of conservation and protected areas on indigenous peoples, was presented to the UN General Assembly this week. Excerpts from the presentation are included in block quotes, below.

Joe Eisen of Rainforest Foundation UK met Vicky at the recent World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i, and began by asking about her principal research findings, and the prospects for indigenous peoples impacted by ‘top down’ conservation.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: Basically what I found is that there is still not enough effort being done to respect the rights of indigenous peoples when conservation areas are created, and when they are being in operation.

What I found is that there are still a lot of complaints, regarding how indigenous peoples are still being evicted from their communities, and are dispossessed of their lands and territories. When these things happen there is no redress.

They don’t have any access to justice, and redress mechanisms are not there. Even if there are redress mechanisms, it’s not easy for indigenous peoples to access them if they don’t have the resources to be able even to go to the domestic courts.

So, in the end, they end up in really very dire situations, where they are living in the fringes of the protected areas, they are not even compensated too. Because of the displacement, there is no promise that they will ever go back to the territories they were evicted from.

“The establishment of national parks and conservation areas has resulted in serious and systemic violations of indigenous peoples’ rights through expropriation of their traditional lands and territories, forced displacement and killings of their community members, non-recognition of their authorities, denial of access to livelihood activities and spiritual sites and subsequent loss of their culture.

“Indigenous peoples who have been evicted from their traditional lands suffer marginalisation and poverty, and are commonly excluded from redress mechanisms and reparation for the harm they have endured. I deeply regret that I continue to receive complaints about violations against the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

We have to raise this in a higher place, so that the ones responsible will change the ways that they are creating protected areas or conservation areas.

I think that’s the main message, the main conclusion and observation that I have found while doing this report.

Who is responsible?

I think of course the ones that are really mainly responsible for implementing and deliniating protected areas are states, because that is what they do. But the ones that are also facilitating the establishment of this kind of protected area are conservation organisations, and donors.

I think all of them collectively will have to bear some of the blame, because each of them have roles to play in the establishment of these protected areas. Of course the degree might be different in different cases, but still it’s the state that has the obligation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

“The traditional lands of indigenous peoples are being declared protected for purposes of conservation at a rapidly increasing rate. Current estimates indicate that 50 per cent of protected areas worldwide have been established on lands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous peoples and in some regions this territorial overlap is higher, such as in Central America, where it reaches around 90%.

“In this regard, it is important to underline that studies have demonstrated that the territories of indigenous peoples who have been given land rights have been significantly better conserved and protected against deforestation than the adjacent lands.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The donors and the conservation organisations know very well that there are existing standards that should be implemented by the states. But somehow I don’t think they are actively engaged in encouraging and supporting the states to be able to comply with the human rights obligations.

What is your message to the funders of such initiatives, and how accountable are they for any wrong-doing at the ground level?

Well I think that the ones that are funding these kind of organisations and initiatives have to take responsibility in terms of doing the necessary due diligence in designing and shaping these protected areas, in terms of whether these initiatives are going to involve indigenous peoples.

Has their consent been obtained? Were they informed about it? I think that’s a basic thing to do. I think that donors should think seriously about these things. They cannot abdicate the responsibility to do proper due diligence.

The agencies granting money or investing money in a particular endeavour wouldn’t like that money to be used for something that will violate human rights, or that will further even destroy the kind of biodiversity that they are wanting to protect.

“The loss of the guardianship of indigenous peoples has often placed their lands under the control of Government authorities who have lacked the capacity and the political will to protect the land effectively.

“It is particularly disconcerting that in many countries where indigenous peoples have not been awarded land rights over their traditional territories there are increasing incursions of extractive industries, agribusiness expansion and mega-infrastructure development, even inside protected areas.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

In my report, I asked the donors to ensure that whenever they are giving money that these rights are also being taken care of. They cannot give money away and then when something goes wrong just disown it, or say they have no responsibility for that.

I think everybody has a responsibility for the wrong that’s happened because of all these initiatives. And I think it’s right for all these different players to acknowledge these kinds of things that are happening.

Of course they will say that these are things that happened in the past, not really much now, but I don’t think so. And the report that you came up with from the Rainforest Foundation UK shows that it’s still continuing up to the present.

I wouldn’t be receiving the complaints, the allegations, if everything is happening in the right way.

What is your message to the general public? Do you think that they can trust the vision of conservation that is being promoted?

I think that the general public has to be made aware about the reality of the findings in the world today of the areas that are still protected in a better sense, in terms of biodiversity being still vibrant and being protected, in terms of biodiversity being used in a sustainable way. Those areas are overlapping with indigenous peoples’ territories.

That kind of message has to be made more public, be made more known. In truth the better protected areas are areas where indigenous peoples live. It’s because they still continue to practice their traditional systems of protection. Their livelihoods are very much aware of sustainable use of this biodiversity. So the world should know that.

“Traditional indigenous territories encompass around 22 per cent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. There is increasing recognition that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples contain the most intact ecosystems and provide the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The world should see the maps where protected areas being managed by government are destroyed, while protected areas for the management by indigenous peoples are better, the forest is more, the forests are kept in better shape. Even the flora and the fauna in those forests are still there.

The public has to know that. Because if that is known, then the direct correlation between respect for human rights and particularly land rights, territorial rights, resource rights, the respect for those rights is correlated directly with the protection of the ecosystem.

And I think that is the message that’s not being made widely known. I believe that if people really see the evidence, they will know that that is what’s really happening.

Then there will be a stronger push for the governments to respect human rights, and to decrease the kind of discrimination that they have against indigenous peoples, or the mis-perceptions that they have about indigenous peoples, and support them in their bid to have their land rights respected as well as give them the chance and support to be able to continue doing what they are doing, which is keeping these ecosystems in a better shape.

What role do you see for participatory approaches like community mapping?

Those activities have really helped a lot in terms of making visible the contribution of indigenous peoples in ecosystem management. Because it’s the maps that will show the overlap of indigenous territories with better sustained protected areas. It’s the resource inventories that are being made that makes all this visible as well.

But more importantly, the participatory mapping processes, the participatory resource inventories, the community based monitoring systems, are the kinds of approaches that should be provided to indigenous peoples so that they will be able to produce the evidence that it’s their knowledge system that they are using that allows for this kind of picture to emerge.

It’s also important, of course, if they have all this data in their hands, then they can also influence the land use plans, even at the government level. We have examples where indigenous peoples map their territories, they did the resource inventories, and on the basis of that they made the plans of how to use the lands in more sustainable ways.

“In Honduras, I witnessed that the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral lands and natural resources is a fundamental problem as is impunity for the increasing violence against indigenous peoples.

“During my visit, I met with Berta Cáceres, an indigenous Lenca activist who was killed four months later (on 3 March 2016) because of her protests against the Agua Zarca dam project, even though she had been awarded precautionary protection measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

“I will continue to monitor the investigations into Ms. Caceres’ murder and urge the State to hold the perpetrators accountable and break the vicious cycle of impunity.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

They have the plans in terms of integrated approaches like landscape approaches, and then they go to the municipal government and tell them, “These are the plans that we would like you to implement because these are the plans that, these are what we have been doing in the past and this is what has protected our forest, our water sources.

“And if you are not going to support this plan, and do the kinds of plans that you do, which came from top down, from the national government down to you, then there’s no hope for us to sustain our territories.”

I think there should be much more support for those kinds of things, because that’s the way to ensure participation. That’s the way to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. Those are the ways that will emerge, that will come up with all this data, and information, that proves what they have been saying since time immemorial.

Any technology, any approach, that will surface these kinds of contributions, can be used by indigenous peoples collectively to get states to respect their rights better, and conservation organisations to change the ways that they are doing things.

What is the role of Rainforest Foundation UK and similar kinds of solidarity organisations in your view?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I think RFUK and other similar organisations, I think that your role is really to help document these kinds of realities that are happening on the ground, bringing it widely for the public to know more about.

And helping in the advocacy work to both international organisations, to the UN, or to the governments so that they will change the ways that they are acting in relation to parks and conservation initiatives. I think that kind of role is very important.

It’s something that a lot of indigenous peoples are still learning: how to communicate this more widely; how to write it in a way that’s understood by the dominant populations. So I think that’s one role that RFUK can play.

“Rights-based conservation measures continue to be hampered by the legacy of past violations and by the lack of legal recognition by States of indigenous peoples’ rights. Conservation organisations and indigenous organizations could be powerful allies in their mutually shared goals to safeguard biodiversity and protect nature from external threats such as unsustainable resource exploitation.

“Protected areas continue to expand, yet threats against them from extractive industry, agribusiness, energy and infrastructure projects are also increasing, and thus the urgency to address effective, collaborative and long-term conservation is of paramount importance.

“The escalating incidence of killings of indigenous environmentalists further underlines the urgency that conservationists and indigenous peoples join forces to protect land and biodiversity from external threats.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The other role is of course for you to work jointly with indigenous peoples in their bid to strengthen their campaigns to get their rights protected and fulfilled, in their bid to be really protected, you know, from being killed. A lot of indigenous activists protecting their lands have been killed in the process.

I think that RFUK and others, if you hear of these kinds of things or if you are monitoring that there might be a possibility that this will happen, you can help alert the world about it, so that it might be prevented.

In terms of advocacy, you are the ones who can help advocate, at least in terms of areas where indigenous peoples themselves cannot even go. I mean you are working with the Pygmies, and you know how difficult it is for them to even go to the capital.

If you can bring them along with you, so that when you do your advocacy work they are also with you, that will be very helpful and that will strengthen the possibilities for them to talk directly with those who are creating these problems for them.

What is your vision for indigenous peoples currently negatively affected by conservation? What does sustainable conservation mean to you?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I hope they will be brought back to their territories, and I don’t think that we should give up on them being in that kind of situation.

I think that’s so inhuman. There are some human conditions where they are found, in places where they are forced to live because they have been displaced from their territories. It’s really unacceptable.

My vision is that one day they will be able to be brought back to their own traditional territories that their rights to these lands will finally be recognised, that their identities as indigenous peoples will also be recognised.

“While there is increasing evidence that indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories hold highly preserved ecosystems and biodiversity rates, the important role played by indigenous peoples as environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition. According to the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in 2014, only less than 5 per cent of protected areas worldwide are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Then they will be working in equal partnerships with states and conservation organisations, in securing those lands as well as protecting them. That’s my dream, for those that have displaced. I hope that there’s a possibility for those kinds of things to happen.

I hope that the conservation organisations who somehow had a role to play in this will also develop programmes that will eventually bring them back to their own traditional territories and let them assume the livelihoods that they have been doing.

Your report is great! What’s your hope in terms of how it can provoke change in how the UN system works on conservation issues?

Well, the UN system is composed of all different players. The main owners of the UN, of course, are the states. So when we talk of the UN system we are talking about the states, and we talk about what states should be doing in terms of their compliance with international human rights standards and environmental standards as well. So that’s one thing.

But UN agencies or programmes who have something to do with conservation have to do better as well. For instance, I mentioned something in the report about UNESCO, the World Heritage Commission, where in some instances, it resulted in the same thing, indigenous peoples also are being displaced. So I’m calling on the UNESCO for instance, to also abide by the UN principles, ensuring better participation, respecting the rights, etc.

“Under international human rights law, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, land rights and to participate in decisions affecting them, such as the establishment and management of protected areas. States should recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the management and conservation of the associated natural resources.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

I hope the UN bodies, the agencies, the programmes, they will be able to show in practice that they are the leaders of respecting human rights, in promoting sustainable development, or sustainable conservation. Those are the kinds of actions that they need to take.

Then, of course, the other players within the UN. I mean the ones working at the national level whether this is UNDP, or the UN country teams. In terms of helping or building the capacities of governments to be able to abide by their obligations, they should not shy away from pushing governments – I mean in terms of preventing governments from evicting indigenous peoples from their territories because these are designated as protected areas.

If you are there at the country level and there is such a report that comes out, then it is your responsibility to at least reach out to those who can do something about it. And I think that’s just right, because you are the UN, the UN has its own principles, its own values, that it’s supposed to be implementing.

“Since 2003, IUCN has committed to promote that all protected areas be managed with participation of indigenous representatives in compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples and that mechanisms be established for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent.

“The majority of the large conservation organisations have adopted specific policies on indigenous peoples’ rights, and several have developed specific guidelines on how to implement free, prior and informed consent in their projects. However, these policies have been slow in transferring from paper to practice.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately in some cases it’s like they don’t know, they don’t really do what is needed. Especially at the national level. I think there are many standards existing already, I mentioned that in my report. The problem is the implementation of these standards, and implementation is something that is always faced with a lot of challenges and obstacles.

I think that everybody that’s engaged in this process should join hands and push themselves, make themselves more sensitive to human rights and human rights based approaches, so that lives of those people whose rights have been violated will improve, they will finally be able to have more dignity, and they will be able to pursue the kind of development or conservation that they themselves want to pursue.

Joe Eisen is Research and Policy Coordinator for the Rainforest Foundation UK.

The report: Vicky Tauli-Corpuz presented her ‘Statement of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the UN General Assembly‘ on 17th October 2016.

This article was originally published on Conservation Watch.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is the author of ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples‘.

The report, which highlights the impact of conservation and protected areas on indigenous peoples, was presented to the UN General Assembly this week. Excerpts from the presentation are included in block quotes, below.

Joe Eisen of Rainforest Foundation UK met Vicky at the recent World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i, and began by asking about her principal research findings, and the prospects for indigenous peoples impacted by ‘top down’ conservation.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: Basically what I found is that there is still not enough effort being done to respect the rights of indigenous peoples when conservation areas are created, and when they are being in operation.

What I found is that there are still a lot of complaints, regarding how indigenous peoples are still being evicted from their communities, and are dispossessed of their lands and territories. When these things happen there is no redress.

They don’t have any access to justice, and redress mechanisms are not there. Even if there are redress mechanisms, it’s not easy for indigenous peoples to access them if they don’t have the resources to be able even to go to the domestic courts.

So, in the end, they end up in really very dire situations, where they are living in the fringes of the protected areas, they are not even compensated too. Because of the displacement, there is no promise that they will ever go back to the territories they were evicted from.

“The establishment of national parks and conservation areas has resulted in serious and systemic violations of indigenous peoples’ rights through expropriation of their traditional lands and territories, forced displacement and killings of their community members, non-recognition of their authorities, denial of access to livelihood activities and spiritual sites and subsequent loss of their culture.

“Indigenous peoples who have been evicted from their traditional lands suffer marginalisation and poverty, and are commonly excluded from redress mechanisms and reparation for the harm they have endured. I deeply regret that I continue to receive complaints about violations against the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

We have to raise this in a higher place, so that the ones responsible will change the ways that they are creating protected areas or conservation areas.

I think that’s the main message, the main conclusion and observation that I have found while doing this report.

Who is responsible?

I think of course the ones that are really mainly responsible for implementing and deliniating protected areas are states, because that is what they do. But the ones that are also facilitating the establishment of this kind of protected area are conservation organisations, and donors.

I think all of them collectively will have to bear some of the blame, because each of them have roles to play in the establishment of these protected areas. Of course the degree might be different in different cases, but still it’s the state that has the obligation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

“The traditional lands of indigenous peoples are being declared protected for purposes of conservation at a rapidly increasing rate. Current estimates indicate that 50 per cent of protected areas worldwide have been established on lands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous peoples and in some regions this territorial overlap is higher, such as in Central America, where it reaches around 90%.

“In this regard, it is important to underline that studies have demonstrated that the territories of indigenous peoples who have been given land rights have been significantly better conserved and protected against deforestation than the adjacent lands.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The donors and the conservation organisations know very well that there are existing standards that should be implemented by the states. But somehow I don’t think they are actively engaged in encouraging and supporting the states to be able to comply with the human rights obligations.

What is your message to the funders of such initiatives, and how accountable are they for any wrong-doing at the ground level?

Well I think that the ones that are funding these kind of organisations and initiatives have to take responsibility in terms of doing the necessary due diligence in designing and shaping these protected areas, in terms of whether these initiatives are going to involve indigenous peoples.

Has their consent been obtained? Were they informed about it? I think that’s a basic thing to do. I think that donors should think seriously about these things. They cannot abdicate the responsibility to do proper due diligence.

The agencies granting money or investing money in a particular endeavour wouldn’t like that money to be used for something that will violate human rights, or that will further even destroy the kind of biodiversity that they are wanting to protect.

“The loss of the guardianship of indigenous peoples has often placed their lands under the control of Government authorities who have lacked the capacity and the political will to protect the land effectively.

“It is particularly disconcerting that in many countries where indigenous peoples have not been awarded land rights over their traditional territories there are increasing incursions of extractive industries, agribusiness expansion and mega-infrastructure development, even inside protected areas.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

In my report, I asked the donors to ensure that whenever they are giving money that these rights are also being taken care of. They cannot give money away and then when something goes wrong just disown it, or say they have no responsibility for that.

I think everybody has a responsibility for the wrong that’s happened because of all these initiatives. And I think it’s right for all these different players to acknowledge these kinds of things that are happening.

Of course they will say that these are things that happened in the past, not really much now, but I don’t think so. And the report that you came up with from the Rainforest Foundation UK shows that it’s still continuing up to the present.

I wouldn’t be receiving the complaints, the allegations, if everything is happening in the right way.

What is your message to the general public? Do you think that they can trust the vision of conservation that is being promoted?

I think that the general public has to be made aware about the reality of the findings in the world today of the areas that are still protected in a better sense, in terms of biodiversity being still vibrant and being protected, in terms of biodiversity being used in a sustainable way. Those areas are overlapping with indigenous peoples’ territories.

That kind of message has to be made more public, be made more known. In truth the better protected areas are areas where indigenous peoples live. It’s because they still continue to practice their traditional systems of protection. Their livelihoods are very much aware of sustainable use of this biodiversity. So the world should know that.

“Traditional indigenous territories encompass around 22 per cent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. There is increasing recognition that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples contain the most intact ecosystems and provide the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The world should see the maps where protected areas being managed by government are destroyed, while protected areas for the management by indigenous peoples are better, the forest is more, the forests are kept in better shape. Even the flora and the fauna in those forests are still there.

The public has to know that. Because if that is known, then the direct correlation between respect for human rights and particularly land rights, territorial rights, resource rights, the respect for those rights is correlated directly with the protection of the ecosystem.

And I think that is the message that’s not being made widely known. I believe that if people really see the evidence, they will know that that is what’s really happening.

Then there will be a stronger push for the governments to respect human rights, and to decrease the kind of discrimination that they have against indigenous peoples, or the mis-perceptions that they have about indigenous peoples, and support them in their bid to have their land rights respected as well as give them the chance and support to be able to continue doing what they are doing, which is keeping these ecosystems in a better shape.

What role do you see for participatory approaches like community mapping?

Those activities have really helped a lot in terms of making visible the contribution of indigenous peoples in ecosystem management. Because it’s the maps that will show the overlap of indigenous territories with better sustained protected areas. It’s the resource inventories that are being made that makes all this visible as well.

But more importantly, the participatory mapping processes, the participatory resource inventories, the community based monitoring systems, are the kinds of approaches that should be provided to indigenous peoples so that they will be able to produce the evidence that it’s their knowledge system that they are using that allows for this kind of picture to emerge.

It’s also important, of course, if they have all this data in their hands, then they can also influence the land use plans, even at the government level. We have examples where indigenous peoples map their territories, they did the resource inventories, and on the basis of that they made the plans of how to use the lands in more sustainable ways.

“In Honduras, I witnessed that the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral lands and natural resources is a fundamental problem as is impunity for the increasing violence against indigenous peoples.

“During my visit, I met with Berta Cáceres, an indigenous Lenca activist who was killed four months later (on 3 March 2016) because of her protests against the Agua Zarca dam project, even though she had been awarded precautionary protection measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

“I will continue to monitor the investigations into Ms. Caceres’ murder and urge the State to hold the perpetrators accountable and break the vicious cycle of impunity.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

They have the plans in terms of integrated approaches like landscape approaches, and then they go to the municipal government and tell them, “These are the plans that we would like you to implement because these are the plans that, these are what we have been doing in the past and this is what has protected our forest, our water sources.

“And if you are not going to support this plan, and do the kinds of plans that you do, which came from top down, from the national government down to you, then there’s no hope for us to sustain our territories.”

I think there should be much more support for those kinds of things, because that’s the way to ensure participation. That’s the way to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. Those are the ways that will emerge, that will come up with all this data, and information, that proves what they have been saying since time immemorial.

Any technology, any approach, that will surface these kinds of contributions, can be used by indigenous peoples collectively to get states to respect their rights better, and conservation organisations to change the ways that they are doing things.

What is the role of Rainforest Foundation UK and similar kinds of solidarity organisations in your view?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I think RFUK and other similar organisations, I think that your role is really to help document these kinds of realities that are happening on the ground, bringing it widely for the public to know more about.

And helping in the advocacy work to both international organisations, to the UN, or to the governments so that they will change the ways that they are acting in relation to parks and conservation initiatives. I think that kind of role is very important.

It’s something that a lot of indigenous peoples are still learning: how to communicate this more widely; how to write it in a way that’s understood by the dominant populations. So I think that’s one role that RFUK can play.

“Rights-based conservation measures continue to be hampered by the legacy of past violations and by the lack of legal recognition by States of indigenous peoples’ rights. Conservation organisations and indigenous organizations could be powerful allies in their mutually shared goals to safeguard biodiversity and protect nature from external threats such as unsustainable resource exploitation.

“Protected areas continue to expand, yet threats against them from extractive industry, agribusiness, energy and infrastructure projects are also increasing, and thus the urgency to address effective, collaborative and long-term conservation is of paramount importance.

“The escalating incidence of killings of indigenous environmentalists further underlines the urgency that conservationists and indigenous peoples join forces to protect land and biodiversity from external threats.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The other role is of course for you to work jointly with indigenous peoples in their bid to strengthen their campaigns to get their rights protected and fulfilled, in their bid to be really protected, you know, from being killed. A lot of indigenous activists protecting their lands have been killed in the process.

I think that RFUK and others, if you hear of these kinds of things or if you are monitoring that there might be a possibility that this will happen, you can help alert the world about it, so that it might be prevented.

In terms of advocacy, you are the ones who can help advocate, at least in terms of areas where indigenous peoples themselves cannot even go. I mean you are working with the Pygmies, and you know how difficult it is for them to even go to the capital.

If you can bring them along with you, so that when you do your advocacy work they are also with you, that will be very helpful and that will strengthen the possibilities for them to talk directly with those who are creating these problems for them.

What is your vision for indigenous peoples currently negatively affected by conservation? What does sustainable conservation mean to you?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I hope they will be brought back to their territories, and I don’t think that we should give up on them being in that kind of situation.

I think that’s so inhuman. There are some human conditions where they are found, in places where they are forced to live because they have been displaced from their territories. It’s really unacceptable.

My vision is that one day they will be able to be brought back to their own traditional territories that their rights to these lands will finally be recognised, that their identities as indigenous peoples will also be recognised.

“While there is increasing evidence that indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories hold highly preserved ecosystems and biodiversity rates, the important role played by indigenous peoples as environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition. According to the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in 2014, only less than 5 per cent of protected areas worldwide are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Then they will be working in equal partnerships with states and conservation organisations, in securing those lands as well as protecting them. That’s my dream, for those that have displaced. I hope that there’s a possibility for those kinds of things to happen.

I hope that the conservation organisations who somehow had a role to play in this will also develop programmes that will eventually bring them back to their own traditional territories and let them assume the livelihoods that they have been doing.

Your report is great! What’s your hope in terms of how it can provoke change in how the UN system works on conservation issues?

Well, the UN system is composed of all different players. The main owners of the UN, of course, are the states. So when we talk of the UN system we are talking about the states, and we talk about what states should be doing in terms of their compliance with international human rights standards and environmental standards as well. So that’s one thing.

But UN agencies or programmes who have something to do with conservation have to do better as well. For instance, I mentioned something in the report about UNESCO, the World Heritage Commission, where in some instances, it resulted in the same thing, indigenous peoples also are being displaced. So I’m calling on the UNESCO for instance, to also abide by the UN principles, ensuring better participation, respecting the rights, etc.

“Under international human rights law, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, land rights and to participate in decisions affecting them, such as the establishment and management of protected areas. States should recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the management and conservation of the associated natural resources.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

I hope the UN bodies, the agencies, the programmes, they will be able to show in practice that they are the leaders of respecting human rights, in promoting sustainable development, or sustainable conservation. Those are the kinds of actions that they need to take.

Then, of course, the other players within the UN. I mean the ones working at the national level whether this is UNDP, or the UN country teams. In terms of helping or building the capacities of governments to be able to abide by their obligations, they should not shy away from pushing governments – I mean in terms of preventing governments from evicting indigenous peoples from their territories because these are designated as protected areas.

If you are there at the country level and there is such a report that comes out, then it is your responsibility to at least reach out to those who can do something about it. And I think that’s just right, because you are the UN, the UN has its own principles, its own values, that it’s supposed to be implementing.

“Since 2003, IUCN has committed to promote that all protected areas be managed with participation of indigenous representatives in compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples and that mechanisms be established for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent.

“The majority of the large conservation organisations have adopted specific policies on indigenous peoples’ rights, and several have developed specific guidelines on how to implement free, prior and informed consent in their projects. However, these policies have been slow in transferring from paper to practice.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately in some cases it’s like they don’t know, they don’t really do what is needed. Especially at the national level. I think there are many standards existing already, I mentioned that in my report. The problem is the implementation of these standards, and implementation is something that is always faced with a lot of challenges and obstacles.

I think that everybody that’s engaged in this process should join hands and push themselves, make themselves more sensitive to human rights and human rights based approaches, so that lives of those people whose rights have been violated will improve, they will finally be able to have more dignity, and they will be able to pursue the kind of development or conservation that they themselves want to pursue.

Joe Eisen is Research and Policy Coordinator for the Rainforest Foundation UK.

The report: Vicky Tauli-Corpuz presented her ‘Statement of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the UN General Assembly‘ on 17th October 2016.

This article was originally published on Conservation Watch.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is the author of ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples‘.

The report, which highlights the impact of conservation and protected areas on indigenous peoples, was presented to the UN General Assembly this week. Excerpts from the presentation are included in block quotes, below.

Joe Eisen of Rainforest Foundation UK met Vicky at the recent World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i, and began by asking about her principal research findings, and the prospects for indigenous peoples impacted by ‘top down’ conservation.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: Basically what I found is that there is still not enough effort being done to respect the rights of indigenous peoples when conservation areas are created, and when they are being in operation.

What I found is that there are still a lot of complaints, regarding how indigenous peoples are still being evicted from their communities, and are dispossessed of their lands and territories. When these things happen there is no redress.

They don’t have any access to justice, and redress mechanisms are not there. Even if there are redress mechanisms, it’s not easy for indigenous peoples to access them if they don’t have the resources to be able even to go to the domestic courts.

So, in the end, they end up in really very dire situations, where they are living in the fringes of the protected areas, they are not even compensated too. Because of the displacement, there is no promise that they will ever go back to the territories they were evicted from.

“The establishment of national parks and conservation areas has resulted in serious and systemic violations of indigenous peoples’ rights through expropriation of their traditional lands and territories, forced displacement and killings of their community members, non-recognition of their authorities, denial of access to livelihood activities and spiritual sites and subsequent loss of their culture.

“Indigenous peoples who have been evicted from their traditional lands suffer marginalisation and poverty, and are commonly excluded from redress mechanisms and reparation for the harm they have endured. I deeply regret that I continue to receive complaints about violations against the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

We have to raise this in a higher place, so that the ones responsible will change the ways that they are creating protected areas or conservation areas.

I think that’s the main message, the main conclusion and observation that I have found while doing this report.

Who is responsible?

I think of course the ones that are really mainly responsible for implementing and deliniating protected areas are states, because that is what they do. But the ones that are also facilitating the establishment of this kind of protected area are conservation organisations, and donors.

I think all of them collectively will have to bear some of the blame, because each of them have roles to play in the establishment of these protected areas. Of course the degree might be different in different cases, but still it’s the state that has the obligation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

“The traditional lands of indigenous peoples are being declared protected for purposes of conservation at a rapidly increasing rate. Current estimates indicate that 50 per cent of protected areas worldwide have been established on lands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous peoples and in some regions this territorial overlap is higher, such as in Central America, where it reaches around 90%.

“In this regard, it is important to underline that studies have demonstrated that the territories of indigenous peoples who have been given land rights have been significantly better conserved and protected against deforestation than the adjacent lands.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The donors and the conservation organisations know very well that there are existing standards that should be implemented by the states. But somehow I don’t think they are actively engaged in encouraging and supporting the states to be able to comply with the human rights obligations.

What is your message to the funders of such initiatives, and how accountable are they for any wrong-doing at the ground level?

Well I think that the ones that are funding these kind of organisations and initiatives have to take responsibility in terms of doing the necessary due diligence in designing and shaping these protected areas, in terms of whether these initiatives are going to involve indigenous peoples.

Has their consent been obtained? Were they informed about it? I think that’s a basic thing to do. I think that donors should think seriously about these things. They cannot abdicate the responsibility to do proper due diligence.

The agencies granting money or investing money in a particular endeavour wouldn’t like that money to be used for something that will violate human rights, or that will further even destroy the kind of biodiversity that they are wanting to protect.

“The loss of the guardianship of indigenous peoples has often placed their lands under the control of Government authorities who have lacked the capacity and the political will to protect the land effectively.

“It is particularly disconcerting that in many countries where indigenous peoples have not been awarded land rights over their traditional territories there are increasing incursions of extractive industries, agribusiness expansion and mega-infrastructure development, even inside protected areas.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

In my report, I asked the donors to ensure that whenever they are giving money that these rights are also being taken care of. They cannot give money away and then when something goes wrong just disown it, or say they have no responsibility for that.

I think everybody has a responsibility for the wrong that’s happened because of all these initiatives. And I think it’s right for all these different players to acknowledge these kinds of things that are happening.

Of course they will say that these are things that happened in the past, not really much now, but I don’t think so. And the report that you came up with from the Rainforest Foundation UK shows that it’s still continuing up to the present.

I wouldn’t be receiving the complaints, the allegations, if everything is happening in the right way.

What is your message to the general public? Do you think that they can trust the vision of conservation that is being promoted?

I think that the general public has to be made aware about the reality of the findings in the world today of the areas that are still protected in a better sense, in terms of biodiversity being still vibrant and being protected, in terms of biodiversity being used in a sustainable way. Those areas are overlapping with indigenous peoples’ territories.

That kind of message has to be made more public, be made more known. In truth the better protected areas are areas where indigenous peoples live. It’s because they still continue to practice their traditional systems of protection. Their livelihoods are very much aware of sustainable use of this biodiversity. So the world should know that.

“Traditional indigenous territories encompass around 22 per cent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. There is increasing recognition that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples contain the most intact ecosystems and provide the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The world should see the maps where protected areas being managed by government are destroyed, while protected areas for the management by indigenous peoples are better, the forest is more, the forests are kept in better shape. Even the flora and the fauna in those forests are still there.

The public has to know that. Because if that is known, then the direct correlation between respect for human rights and particularly land rights, territorial rights, resource rights, the respect for those rights is correlated directly with the protection of the ecosystem.

And I think that is the message that’s not being made widely known. I believe that if people really see the evidence, they will know that that is what’s really happening.

Then there will be a stronger push for the governments to respect human rights, and to decrease the kind of discrimination that they have against indigenous peoples, or the mis-perceptions that they have about indigenous peoples, and support them in their bid to have their land rights respected as well as give them the chance and support to be able to continue doing what they are doing, which is keeping these ecosystems in a better shape.

What role do you see for participatory approaches like community mapping?

Those activities have really helped a lot in terms of making visible the contribution of indigenous peoples in ecosystem management. Because it’s the maps that will show the overlap of indigenous territories with better sustained protected areas. It’s the resource inventories that are being made that makes all this visible as well.

But more importantly, the participatory mapping processes, the participatory resource inventories, the community based monitoring systems, are the kinds of approaches that should be provided to indigenous peoples so that they will be able to produce the evidence that it’s their knowledge system that they are using that allows for this kind of picture to emerge.

It’s also important, of course, if they have all this data in their hands, then they can also influence the land use plans, even at the government level. We have examples where indigenous peoples map their territories, they did the resource inventories, and on the basis of that they made the plans of how to use the lands in more sustainable ways.

“In Honduras, I witnessed that the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral lands and natural resources is a fundamental problem as is impunity for the increasing violence against indigenous peoples.

“During my visit, I met with Berta Cáceres, an indigenous Lenca activist who was killed four months later (on 3 March 2016) because of her protests against the Agua Zarca dam project, even though she had been awarded precautionary protection measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

“I will continue to monitor the investigations into Ms. Caceres’ murder and urge the State to hold the perpetrators accountable and break the vicious cycle of impunity.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

They have the plans in terms of integrated approaches like landscape approaches, and then they go to the municipal government and tell them, “These are the plans that we would like you to implement because these are the plans that, these are what we have been doing in the past and this is what has protected our forest, our water sources.

“And if you are not going to support this plan, and do the kinds of plans that you do, which came from top down, from the national government down to you, then there’s no hope for us to sustain our territories.”

I think there should be much more support for those kinds of things, because that’s the way to ensure participation. That’s the way to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. Those are the ways that will emerge, that will come up with all this data, and information, that proves what they have been saying since time immemorial.

Any technology, any approach, that will surface these kinds of contributions, can be used by indigenous peoples collectively to get states to respect their rights better, and conservation organisations to change the ways that they are doing things.

What is the role of Rainforest Foundation UK and similar kinds of solidarity organisations in your view?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I think RFUK and other similar organisations, I think that your role is really to help document these kinds of realities that are happening on the ground, bringing it widely for the public to know more about.

And helping in the advocacy work to both international organisations, to the UN, or to the governments so that they will change the ways that they are acting in relation to parks and conservation initiatives. I think that kind of role is very important.

It’s something that a lot of indigenous peoples are still learning: how to communicate this more widely; how to write it in a way that’s understood by the dominant populations. So I think that’s one role that RFUK can play.

“Rights-based conservation measures continue to be hampered by the legacy of past violations and by the lack of legal recognition by States of indigenous peoples’ rights. Conservation organisations and indigenous organizations could be powerful allies in their mutually shared goals to safeguard biodiversity and protect nature from external threats such as unsustainable resource exploitation.

“Protected areas continue to expand, yet threats against them from extractive industry, agribusiness, energy and infrastructure projects are also increasing, and thus the urgency to address effective, collaborative and long-term conservation is of paramount importance.

“The escalating incidence of killings of indigenous environmentalists further underlines the urgency that conservationists and indigenous peoples join forces to protect land and biodiversity from external threats.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The other role is of course for you to work jointly with indigenous peoples in their bid to strengthen their campaigns to get their rights protected and fulfilled, in their bid to be really protected, you know, from being killed. A lot of indigenous activists protecting their lands have been killed in the process.

I think that RFUK and others, if you hear of these kinds of things or if you are monitoring that there might be a possibility that this will happen, you can help alert the world about it, so that it might be prevented.

In terms of advocacy, you are the ones who can help advocate, at least in terms of areas where indigenous peoples themselves cannot even go. I mean you are working with the Pygmies, and you know how difficult it is for them to even go to the capital.

If you can bring them along with you, so that when you do your advocacy work they are also with you, that will be very helpful and that will strengthen the possibilities for them to talk directly with those who are creating these problems for them.

What is your vision for indigenous peoples currently negatively affected by conservation? What does sustainable conservation mean to you?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I hope they will be brought back to their territories, and I don’t think that we should give up on them being in that kind of situation.

I think that’s so inhuman. There are some human conditions where they are found, in places where they are forced to live because they have been displaced from their territories. It’s really unacceptable.

My vision is that one day they will be able to be brought back to their own traditional territories that their rights to these lands will finally be recognised, that their identities as indigenous peoples will also be recognised.

“While there is increasing evidence that indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories hold highly preserved ecosystems and biodiversity rates, the important role played by indigenous peoples as environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition. According to the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in 2014, only less than 5 per cent of protected areas worldwide are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Then they will be working in equal partnerships with states and conservation organisations, in securing those lands as well as protecting them. That’s my dream, for those that have displaced. I hope that there’s a possibility for those kinds of things to happen.

I hope that the conservation organisations who somehow had a role to play in this will also develop programmes that will eventually bring them back to their own traditional territories and let them assume the livelihoods that they have been doing.

Your report is great! What’s your hope in terms of how it can provoke change in how the UN system works on conservation issues?

Well, the UN system is composed of all different players. The main owners of the UN, of course, are the states. So when we talk of the UN system we are talking about the states, and we talk about what states should be doing in terms of their compliance with international human rights standards and environmental standards as well. So that’s one thing.

But UN agencies or programmes who have something to do with conservation have to do better as well. For instance, I mentioned something in the report about UNESCO, the World Heritage Commission, where in some instances, it resulted in the same thing, indigenous peoples also are being displaced. So I’m calling on the UNESCO for instance, to also abide by the UN principles, ensuring better participation, respecting the rights, etc.

“Under international human rights law, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, land rights and to participate in decisions affecting them, such as the establishment and management of protected areas. States should recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the management and conservation of the associated natural resources.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

I hope the UN bodies, the agencies, the programmes, they will be able to show in practice that they are the leaders of respecting human rights, in promoting sustainable development, or sustainable conservation. Those are the kinds of actions that they need to take.

Then, of course, the other players within the UN. I mean the ones working at the national level whether this is UNDP, or the UN country teams. In terms of helping or building the capacities of governments to be able to abide by their obligations, they should not shy away from pushing governments – I mean in terms of preventing governments from evicting indigenous peoples from their territories because these are designated as protected areas.

If you are there at the country level and there is such a report that comes out, then it is your responsibility to at least reach out to those who can do something about it. And I think that’s just right, because you are the UN, the UN has its own principles, its own values, that it’s supposed to be implementing.

“Since 2003, IUCN has committed to promote that all protected areas be managed with participation of indigenous representatives in compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples and that mechanisms be established for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent.

“The majority of the large conservation organisations have adopted specific policies on indigenous peoples’ rights, and several have developed specific guidelines on how to implement free, prior and informed consent in their projects. However, these policies have been slow in transferring from paper to practice.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately in some cases it’s like they don’t know, they don’t really do what is needed. Especially at the national level. I think there are many standards existing already, I mentioned that in my report. The problem is the implementation of these standards, and implementation is something that is always faced with a lot of challenges and obstacles.

I think that everybody that’s engaged in this process should join hands and push themselves, make themselves more sensitive to human rights and human rights based approaches, so that lives of those people whose rights have been violated will improve, they will finally be able to have more dignity, and they will be able to pursue the kind of development or conservation that they themselves want to pursue.

Joe Eisen is Research and Policy Coordinator for the Rainforest Foundation UK.

The report: Vicky Tauli-Corpuz presented her ‘Statement of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the UN General Assembly‘ on 17th October 2016.

This article was originally published on Conservation Watch.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is the author of ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples‘.

The report, which highlights the impact of conservation and protected areas on indigenous peoples, was presented to the UN General Assembly this week. Excerpts from the presentation are included in block quotes, below.

Joe Eisen of Rainforest Foundation UK met Vicky at the recent World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i, and began by asking about her principal research findings, and the prospects for indigenous peoples impacted by ‘top down’ conservation.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: Basically what I found is that there is still not enough effort being done to respect the rights of indigenous peoples when conservation areas are created, and when they are being in operation.

What I found is that there are still a lot of complaints, regarding how indigenous peoples are still being evicted from their communities, and are dispossessed of their lands and territories. When these things happen there is no redress.

They don’t have any access to justice, and redress mechanisms are not there. Even if there are redress mechanisms, it’s not easy for indigenous peoples to access them if they don’t have the resources to be able even to go to the domestic courts.

So, in the end, they end up in really very dire situations, where they are living in the fringes of the protected areas, they are not even compensated too. Because of the displacement, there is no promise that they will ever go back to the territories they were evicted from.

“The establishment of national parks and conservation areas has resulted in serious and systemic violations of indigenous peoples’ rights through expropriation of their traditional lands and territories, forced displacement and killings of their community members, non-recognition of their authorities, denial of access to livelihood activities and spiritual sites and subsequent loss of their culture.

“Indigenous peoples who have been evicted from their traditional lands suffer marginalisation and poverty, and are commonly excluded from redress mechanisms and reparation for the harm they have endured. I deeply regret that I continue to receive complaints about violations against the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

We have to raise this in a higher place, so that the ones responsible will change the ways that they are creating protected areas or conservation areas.

I think that’s the main message, the main conclusion and observation that I have found while doing this report.

Who is responsible?

I think of course the ones that are really mainly responsible for implementing and deliniating protected areas are states, because that is what they do. But the ones that are also facilitating the establishment of this kind of protected area are conservation organisations, and donors.

I think all of them collectively will have to bear some of the blame, because each of them have roles to play in the establishment of these protected areas. Of course the degree might be different in different cases, but still it’s the state that has the obligation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

“The traditional lands of indigenous peoples are being declared protected for purposes of conservation at a rapidly increasing rate. Current estimates indicate that 50 per cent of protected areas worldwide have been established on lands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous peoples and in some regions this territorial overlap is higher, such as in Central America, where it reaches around 90%.

“In this regard, it is important to underline that studies have demonstrated that the territories of indigenous peoples who have been given land rights have been significantly better conserved and protected against deforestation than the adjacent lands.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The donors and the conservation organisations know very well that there are existing standards that should be implemented by the states. But somehow I don’t think they are actively engaged in encouraging and supporting the states to be able to comply with the human rights obligations.

What is your message to the funders of such initiatives, and how accountable are they for any wrong-doing at the ground level?

Well I think that the ones that are funding these kind of organisations and initiatives have to take responsibility in terms of doing the necessary due diligence in designing and shaping these protected areas, in terms of whether these initiatives are going to involve indigenous peoples.

Has their consent been obtained? Were they informed about it? I think that’s a basic thing to do. I think that donors should think seriously about these things. They cannot abdicate the responsibility to do proper due diligence.

The agencies granting money or investing money in a particular endeavour wouldn’t like that money to be used for something that will violate human rights, or that will further even destroy the kind of biodiversity that they are wanting to protect.

“The loss of the guardianship of indigenous peoples has often placed their lands under the control of Government authorities who have lacked the capacity and the political will to protect the land effectively.

“It is particularly disconcerting that in many countries where indigenous peoples have not been awarded land rights over their traditional territories there are increasing incursions of extractive industries, agribusiness expansion and mega-infrastructure development, even inside protected areas.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

In my report, I asked the donors to ensure that whenever they are giving money that these rights are also being taken care of. They cannot give money away and then when something goes wrong just disown it, or say they have no responsibility for that.

I think everybody has a responsibility for the wrong that’s happened because of all these initiatives. And I think it’s right for all these different players to acknowledge these kinds of things that are happening.

Of course they will say that these are things that happened in the past, not really much now, but I don’t think so. And the report that you came up with from the Rainforest Foundation UK shows that it’s still continuing up to the present.

I wouldn’t be receiving the complaints, the allegations, if everything is happening in the right way.

What is your message to the general public? Do you think that they can trust the vision of conservation that is being promoted?

I think that the general public has to be made aware about the reality of the findings in the world today of the areas that are still protected in a better sense, in terms of biodiversity being still vibrant and being protected, in terms of biodiversity being used in a sustainable way. Those areas are overlapping with indigenous peoples’ territories.

That kind of message has to be made more public, be made more known. In truth the better protected areas are areas where indigenous peoples live. It’s because they still continue to practice their traditional systems of protection. Their livelihoods are very much aware of sustainable use of this biodiversity. So the world should know that.

“Traditional indigenous territories encompass around 22 per cent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. There is increasing recognition that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples contain the most intact ecosystems and provide the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The world should see the maps where protected areas being managed by government are destroyed, while protected areas for the management by indigenous peoples are better, the forest is more, the forests are kept in better shape. Even the flora and the fauna in those forests are still there.

The public has to know that. Because if that is known, then the direct correlation between respect for human rights and particularly land rights, territorial rights, resource rights, the respect for those rights is correlated directly with the protection of the ecosystem.

And I think that is the message that’s not being made widely known. I believe that if people really see the evidence, they will know that that is what’s really happening.

Then there will be a stronger push for the governments to respect human rights, and to decrease the kind of discrimination that they have against indigenous peoples, or the mis-perceptions that they have about indigenous peoples, and support them in their bid to have their land rights respected as well as give them the chance and support to be able to continue doing what they are doing, which is keeping these ecosystems in a better shape.

What role do you see for participatory approaches like community mapping?

Those activities have really helped a lot in terms of making visible the contribution of indigenous peoples in ecosystem management. Because it’s the maps that will show the overlap of indigenous territories with better sustained protected areas. It’s the resource inventories that are being made that makes all this visible as well.

But more importantly, the participatory mapping processes, the participatory resource inventories, the community based monitoring systems, are the kinds of approaches that should be provided to indigenous peoples so that they will be able to produce the evidence that it’s their knowledge system that they are using that allows for this kind of picture to emerge.

It’s also important, of course, if they have all this data in their hands, then they can also influence the land use plans, even at the government level. We have examples where indigenous peoples map their territories, they did the resource inventories, and on the basis of that they made the plans of how to use the lands in more sustainable ways.

“In Honduras, I witnessed that the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral lands and natural resources is a fundamental problem as is impunity for the increasing violence against indigenous peoples.

“During my visit, I met with Berta Cáceres, an indigenous Lenca activist who was killed four months later (on 3 March 2016) because of her protests against the Agua Zarca dam project, even though she had been awarded precautionary protection measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

“I will continue to monitor the investigations into Ms. Caceres’ murder and urge the State to hold the perpetrators accountable and break the vicious cycle of impunity.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

They have the plans in terms of integrated approaches like landscape approaches, and then they go to the municipal government and tell them, “These are the plans that we would like you to implement because these are the plans that, these are what we have been doing in the past and this is what has protected our forest, our water sources.

“And if you are not going to support this plan, and do the kinds of plans that you do, which came from top down, from the national government down to you, then there’s no hope for us to sustain our territories.”

I think there should be much more support for those kinds of things, because that’s the way to ensure participation. That’s the way to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. Those are the ways that will emerge, that will come up with all this data, and information, that proves what they have been saying since time immemorial.

Any technology, any approach, that will surface these kinds of contributions, can be used by indigenous peoples collectively to get states to respect their rights better, and conservation organisations to change the ways that they are doing things.

What is the role of Rainforest Foundation UK and similar kinds of solidarity organisations in your view?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I think RFUK and other similar organisations, I think that your role is really to help document these kinds of realities that are happening on the ground, bringing it widely for the public to know more about.

And helping in the advocacy work to both international organisations, to the UN, or to the governments so that they will change the ways that they are acting in relation to parks and conservation initiatives. I think that kind of role is very important.

It’s something that a lot of indigenous peoples are still learning: how to communicate this more widely; how to write it in a way that’s understood by the dominant populations. So I think that’s one role that RFUK can play.

“Rights-based conservation measures continue to be hampered by the legacy of past violations and by the lack of legal recognition by States of indigenous peoples’ rights. Conservation organisations and indigenous organizations could be powerful allies in their mutually shared goals to safeguard biodiversity and protect nature from external threats such as unsustainable resource exploitation.

“Protected areas continue to expand, yet threats against them from extractive industry, agribusiness, energy and infrastructure projects are also increasing, and thus the urgency to address effective, collaborative and long-term conservation is of paramount importance.

“The escalating incidence of killings of indigenous environmentalists further underlines the urgency that conservationists and indigenous peoples join forces to protect land and biodiversity from external threats.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The other role is of course for you to work jointly with indigenous peoples in their bid to strengthen their campaigns to get their rights protected and fulfilled, in their bid to be really protected, you know, from being killed. A lot of indigenous activists protecting their lands have been killed in the process.

I think that RFUK and others, if you hear of these kinds of things or if you are monitoring that there might be a possibility that this will happen, you can help alert the world about it, so that it might be prevented.

In terms of advocacy, you are the ones who can help advocate, at least in terms of areas where indigenous peoples themselves cannot even go. I mean you are working with the Pygmies, and you know how difficult it is for them to even go to the capital.

If you can bring them along with you, so that when you do your advocacy work they are also with you, that will be very helpful and that will strengthen the possibilities for them to talk directly with those who are creating these problems for them.

What is your vision for indigenous peoples currently negatively affected by conservation? What does sustainable conservation mean to you?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I hope they will be brought back to their territories, and I don’t think that we should give up on them being in that kind of situation.

I think that’s so inhuman. There are some human conditions where they are found, in places where they are forced to live because they have been displaced from their territories. It’s really unacceptable.

My vision is that one day they will be able to be brought back to their own traditional territories that their rights to these lands will finally be recognised, that their identities as indigenous peoples will also be recognised.

“While there is increasing evidence that indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories hold highly preserved ecosystems and biodiversity rates, the important role played by indigenous peoples as environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition. According to the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in 2014, only less than 5 per cent of protected areas worldwide are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Then they will be working in equal partnerships with states and conservation organisations, in securing those lands as well as protecting them. That’s my dream, for those that have displaced. I hope that there’s a possibility for those kinds of things to happen.

I hope that the conservation organisations who somehow had a role to play in this will also develop programmes that will eventually bring them back to their own traditional territories and let them assume the livelihoods that they have been doing.

Your report is great! What’s your hope in terms of how it can provoke change in how the UN system works on conservation issues?

Well, the UN system is composed of all different players. The main owners of the UN, of course, are the states. So when we talk of the UN system we are talking about the states, and we talk about what states should be doing in terms of their compliance with international human rights standards and environmental standards as well. So that’s one thing.

But UN agencies or programmes who have something to do with conservation have to do better as well. For instance, I mentioned something in the report about UNESCO, the World Heritage Commission, where in some instances, it resulted in the same thing, indigenous peoples also are being displaced. So I’m calling on the UNESCO for instance, to also abide by the UN principles, ensuring better participation, respecting the rights, etc.

“Under international human rights law, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, land rights and to participate in decisions affecting them, such as the establishment and management of protected areas. States should recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the management and conservation of the associated natural resources.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

I hope the UN bodies, the agencies, the programmes, they will be able to show in practice that they are the leaders of respecting human rights, in promoting sustainable development, or sustainable conservation. Those are the kinds of actions that they need to take.

Then, of course, the other players within the UN. I mean the ones working at the national level whether this is UNDP, or the UN country teams. In terms of helping or building the capacities of governments to be able to abide by their obligations, they should not shy away from pushing governments – I mean in terms of preventing governments from evicting indigenous peoples from their territories because these are designated as protected areas.

If you are there at the country level and there is such a report that comes out, then it is your responsibility to at least reach out to those who can do something about it. And I think that’s just right, because you are the UN, the UN has its own principles, its own values, that it’s supposed to be implementing.

“Since 2003, IUCN has committed to promote that all protected areas be managed with participation of indigenous representatives in compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples and that mechanisms be established for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent.

“The majority of the large conservation organisations have adopted specific policies on indigenous peoples’ rights, and several have developed specific guidelines on how to implement free, prior and informed consent in their projects. However, these policies have been slow in transferring from paper to practice.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately in some cases it’s like they don’t know, they don’t really do what is needed. Especially at the national level. I think there are many standards existing already, I mentioned that in my report. The problem is the implementation of these standards, and implementation is something that is always faced with a lot of challenges and obstacles.

I think that everybody that’s engaged in this process should join hands and push themselves, make themselves more sensitive to human rights and human rights based approaches, so that lives of those people whose rights have been violated will improve, they will finally be able to have more dignity, and they will be able to pursue the kind of development or conservation that they themselves want to pursue.

Joe Eisen is Research and Policy Coordinator for the Rainforest Foundation UK.

The report: Vicky Tauli-Corpuz presented her ‘Statement of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the UN General Assembly‘ on 17th October 2016.

This article was originally published on Conservation Watch.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is the author of ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples‘.

The report, which highlights the impact of conservation and protected areas on indigenous peoples, was presented to the UN General Assembly this week. Excerpts from the presentation are included in block quotes, below.

Joe Eisen of Rainforest Foundation UK met Vicky at the recent World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i, and began by asking about her principal research findings, and the prospects for indigenous peoples impacted by ‘top down’ conservation.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: Basically what I found is that there is still not enough effort being done to respect the rights of indigenous peoples when conservation areas are created, and when they are being in operation.

What I found is that there are still a lot of complaints, regarding how indigenous peoples are still being evicted from their communities, and are dispossessed of their lands and territories. When these things happen there is no redress.

They don’t have any access to justice, and redress mechanisms are not there. Even if there are redress mechanisms, it’s not easy for indigenous peoples to access them if they don’t have the resources to be able even to go to the domestic courts.

So, in the end, they end up in really very dire situations, where they are living in the fringes of the protected areas, they are not even compensated too. Because of the displacement, there is no promise that they will ever go back to the territories they were evicted from.

“The establishment of national parks and conservation areas has resulted in serious and systemic violations of indigenous peoples’ rights through expropriation of their traditional lands and territories, forced displacement and killings of their community members, non-recognition of their authorities, denial of access to livelihood activities and spiritual sites and subsequent loss of their culture.

“Indigenous peoples who have been evicted from their traditional lands suffer marginalisation and poverty, and are commonly excluded from redress mechanisms and reparation for the harm they have endured. I deeply regret that I continue to receive complaints about violations against the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

We have to raise this in a higher place, so that the ones responsible will change the ways that they are creating protected areas or conservation areas.

I think that’s the main message, the main conclusion and observation that I have found while doing this report.

Who is responsible?

I think of course the ones that are really mainly responsible for implementing and deliniating protected areas are states, because that is what they do. But the ones that are also facilitating the establishment of this kind of protected area are conservation organisations, and donors.

I think all of them collectively will have to bear some of the blame, because each of them have roles to play in the establishment of these protected areas. Of course the degree might be different in different cases, but still it’s the state that has the obligation to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

“The traditional lands of indigenous peoples are being declared protected for purposes of conservation at a rapidly increasing rate. Current estimates indicate that 50 per cent of protected areas worldwide have been established on lands traditionally occupied and used by indigenous peoples and in some regions this territorial overlap is higher, such as in Central America, where it reaches around 90%.

“In this regard, it is important to underline that studies have demonstrated that the territories of indigenous peoples who have been given land rights have been significantly better conserved and protected against deforestation than the adjacent lands.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The donors and the conservation organisations know very well that there are existing standards that should be implemented by the states. But somehow I don’t think they are actively engaged in encouraging and supporting the states to be able to comply with the human rights obligations.

What is your message to the funders of such initiatives, and how accountable are they for any wrong-doing at the ground level?

Well I think that the ones that are funding these kind of organisations and initiatives have to take responsibility in terms of doing the necessary due diligence in designing and shaping these protected areas, in terms of whether these initiatives are going to involve indigenous peoples.

Has their consent been obtained? Were they informed about it? I think that’s a basic thing to do. I think that donors should think seriously about these things. They cannot abdicate the responsibility to do proper due diligence.

The agencies granting money or investing money in a particular endeavour wouldn’t like that money to be used for something that will violate human rights, or that will further even destroy the kind of biodiversity that they are wanting to protect.

“The loss of the guardianship of indigenous peoples has often placed their lands under the control of Government authorities who have lacked the capacity and the political will to protect the land effectively.

“It is particularly disconcerting that in many countries where indigenous peoples have not been awarded land rights over their traditional territories there are increasing incursions of extractive industries, agribusiness expansion and mega-infrastructure development, even inside protected areas.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

In my report, I asked the donors to ensure that whenever they are giving money that these rights are also being taken care of. They cannot give money away and then when something goes wrong just disown it, or say they have no responsibility for that.

I think everybody has a responsibility for the wrong that’s happened because of all these initiatives. And I think it’s right for all these different players to acknowledge these kinds of things that are happening.

Of course they will say that these are things that happened in the past, not really much now, but I don’t think so. And the report that you came up with from the Rainforest Foundation UK shows that it’s still continuing up to the present.

I wouldn’t be receiving the complaints, the allegations, if everything is happening in the right way.

What is your message to the general public? Do you think that they can trust the vision of conservation that is being promoted?

I think that the general public has to be made aware about the reality of the findings in the world today of the areas that are still protected in a better sense, in terms of biodiversity being still vibrant and being protected, in terms of biodiversity being used in a sustainable way. Those areas are overlapping with indigenous peoples’ territories.

That kind of message has to be made more public, be made more known. In truth the better protected areas are areas where indigenous peoples live. It’s because they still continue to practice their traditional systems of protection. Their livelihoods are very much aware of sustainable use of this biodiversity. So the world should know that.

“Traditional indigenous territories encompass around 22 per cent of the world’s land surface and they coincide with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. There is increasing recognition that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples contain the most intact ecosystems and provide the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The world should see the maps where protected areas being managed by government are destroyed, while protected areas for the management by indigenous peoples are better, the forest is more, the forests are kept in better shape. Even the flora and the fauna in those forests are still there.

The public has to know that. Because if that is known, then the direct correlation between respect for human rights and particularly land rights, territorial rights, resource rights, the respect for those rights is correlated directly with the protection of the ecosystem.

And I think that is the message that’s not being made widely known. I believe that if people really see the evidence, they will know that that is what’s really happening.

Then there will be a stronger push for the governments to respect human rights, and to decrease the kind of discrimination that they have against indigenous peoples, or the mis-perceptions that they have about indigenous peoples, and support them in their bid to have their land rights respected as well as give them the chance and support to be able to continue doing what they are doing, which is keeping these ecosystems in a better shape.

What role do you see for participatory approaches like community mapping?

Those activities have really helped a lot in terms of making visible the contribution of indigenous peoples in ecosystem management. Because it’s the maps that will show the overlap of indigenous territories with better sustained protected areas. It’s the resource inventories that are being made that makes all this visible as well.

But more importantly, the participatory mapping processes, the participatory resource inventories, the community based monitoring systems, are the kinds of approaches that should be provided to indigenous peoples so that they will be able to produce the evidence that it’s their knowledge system that they are using that allows for this kind of picture to emerge.

It’s also important, of course, if they have all this data in their hands, then they can also influence the land use plans, even at the government level. We have examples where indigenous peoples map their territories, they did the resource inventories, and on the basis of that they made the plans of how to use the lands in more sustainable ways.

“In Honduras, I witnessed that the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral lands and natural resources is a fundamental problem as is impunity for the increasing violence against indigenous peoples.

“During my visit, I met with Berta Cáceres, an indigenous Lenca activist who was killed four months later (on 3 March 2016) because of her protests against the Agua Zarca dam project, even though she had been awarded precautionary protection measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

“I will continue to monitor the investigations into Ms. Caceres’ murder and urge the State to hold the perpetrators accountable and break the vicious cycle of impunity.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

They have the plans in terms of integrated approaches like landscape approaches, and then they go to the municipal government and tell them, “These are the plans that we would like you to implement because these are the plans that, these are what we have been doing in the past and this is what has protected our forest, our water sources.

“And if you are not going to support this plan, and do the kinds of plans that you do, which came from top down, from the national government down to you, then there’s no hope for us to sustain our territories.”

I think there should be much more support for those kinds of things, because that’s the way to ensure participation. That’s the way to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. Those are the ways that will emerge, that will come up with all this data, and information, that proves what they have been saying since time immemorial.

Any technology, any approach, that will surface these kinds of contributions, can be used by indigenous peoples collectively to get states to respect their rights better, and conservation organisations to change the ways that they are doing things.

What is the role of Rainforest Foundation UK and similar kinds of solidarity organisations in your view?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I think RFUK and other similar organisations, I think that your role is really to help document these kinds of realities that are happening on the ground, bringing it widely for the public to know more about.

And helping in the advocacy work to both international organisations, to the UN, or to the governments so that they will change the ways that they are acting in relation to parks and conservation initiatives. I think that kind of role is very important.

It’s something that a lot of indigenous peoples are still learning: how to communicate this more widely; how to write it in a way that’s understood by the dominant populations. So I think that’s one role that RFUK can play.

“Rights-based conservation measures continue to be hampered by the legacy of past violations and by the lack of legal recognition by States of indigenous peoples’ rights. Conservation organisations and indigenous organizations could be powerful allies in their mutually shared goals to safeguard biodiversity and protect nature from external threats such as unsustainable resource exploitation.

“Protected areas continue to expand, yet threats against them from extractive industry, agribusiness, energy and infrastructure projects are also increasing, and thus the urgency to address effective, collaborative and long-term conservation is of paramount importance.

“The escalating incidence of killings of indigenous environmentalists further underlines the urgency that conservationists and indigenous peoples join forces to protect land and biodiversity from external threats.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

The other role is of course for you to work jointly with indigenous peoples in their bid to strengthen their campaigns to get their rights protected and fulfilled, in their bid to be really protected, you know, from being killed. A lot of indigenous activists protecting their lands have been killed in the process.

I think that RFUK and others, if you hear of these kinds of things or if you are monitoring that there might be a possibility that this will happen, you can help alert the world about it, so that it might be prevented.

In terms of advocacy, you are the ones who can help advocate, at least in terms of areas where indigenous peoples themselves cannot even go. I mean you are working with the Pygmies, and you know how difficult it is for them to even go to the capital.

If you can bring them along with you, so that when you do your advocacy work they are also with you, that will be very helpful and that will strengthen the possibilities for them to talk directly with those who are creating these problems for them.

What is your vision for indigenous peoples currently negatively affected by conservation? What does sustainable conservation mean to you?

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz: I hope they will be brought back to their territories, and I don’t think that we should give up on them being in that kind of situation.

I think that’s so inhuman. There are some human conditions where they are found, in places where they are forced to live because they have been displaced from their territories. It’s really unacceptable.

My vision is that one day they will be able to be brought back to their own traditional territories that their rights to these lands will finally be recognised, that their identities as indigenous peoples will also be recognised.

“While there is increasing evidence that indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories hold highly preserved ecosystems and biodiversity rates, the important role played by indigenous peoples as environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition. According to the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in 2014, only less than 5 per cent of protected areas worldwide are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Then they will be working in equal partnerships with states and conservation organisations, in securing those lands as well as protecting them. That’s my dream, for those that have displaced. I hope that there’s a possibility for those kinds of things to happen.

I hope that the conservation organisations who somehow had a role to play in this will also develop programmes that will eventually bring them back to their own traditional territories and let them assume the livelihoods that they have been doing.

Your report is great! What’s your hope in terms of how it can provoke change in how the UN system works on conservation issues?

Well, the UN system is composed of all different players. The main owners of the UN, of course, are the states. So when we talk of the UN system we are talking about the states, and we talk about what states should be doing in terms of their compliance with international human rights standards and environmental standards as well. So that’s one thing.

But UN agencies or programmes who have something to do with conservation have to do better as well. For instance, I mentioned something in the report about UNESCO, the World Heritage Commission, where in some instances, it resulted in the same thing, indigenous peoples also are being displaced. So I’m calling on the UNESCO for instance, to also abide by the UN principles, ensuring better participation, respecting the rights, etc.

“Under international human rights law, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, land rights and to participate in decisions affecting them, such as the establishment and management of protected areas. States should recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the management and conservation of the associated natural resources.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

I hope the UN bodies, the agencies, the programmes, they will be able to show in practice that they are the leaders of respecting human rights, in promoting sustainable development, or sustainable conservation. Those are the kinds of actions that they need to take.

Then, of course, the other players within the UN. I mean the ones working at the national level whether this is UNDP, or the UN country teams. In terms of helping or building the capacities of governments to be able to abide by their obligations, they should not shy away from pushing governments – I mean in terms of preventing governments from evicting indigenous peoples from their territories because these are designated as protected areas.

If you are there at the country level and there is such a report that comes out, then it is your responsibility to at least reach out to those who can do something about it. And I think that’s just right, because you are the UN, the UN has its own principles, its own values, that it’s supposed to be implementing.

“Since 2003, IUCN has committed to promote that all protected areas be managed with participation of indigenous representatives in compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples and that mechanisms be established for the restitution of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent.

“The majority of the large conservation organisations have adopted specific policies on indigenous peoples’ rights, and several have developed specific guidelines on how to implement free, prior and informed consent in their projects. However, these policies have been slow in transferring from paper to practice.” From Statement to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately in some cases it’s like they don’t know, they don’t really do what is needed. Especially at the national level. I think there are many standards existing already, I mentioned that in my report. The problem is the implementation of these standards, and implementation is something that is always faced with a lot of challenges and obstacles.

I think that everybody that’s engaged in this process should join hands and push themselves, make themselves more sensitive to human rights and human rights based approaches, so that lives of those people whose rights have been violated will improve, they will finally be able to have more dignity, and they will be able to pursue the kind of development or conservation that they themselves want to pursue.

Joe Eisen is Research and Policy Coordinator for the Rainforest Foundation UK.

The report: Vicky Tauli-Corpuz presented her ‘Statement of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the UN General Assembly‘ on 17th October 2016.

This article was originally published on Conservation Watch.

Proposals to get fracking started in South Africa first surfaced in 2008 when three multinational oil and gas companies asked for permission to prospect in the Karoo. They were refused and to date, fracking has not commenced either in the Karoo or elsewhere in the country but those companies anxious to get started have not gone away and if current applications are successful, an initial fracking exploratory phase could start in a matter of weeks.

While oil and gas companies insist on the prospect of job creation, economic growth and energy sovereignty, concerned communities including farmers, conservationists, and environmental activists warn that arable land and water resources would be rapidly depleted if fracking were to go ahead.

Several transnational as well as local companies have registered their interest in prospecting for unconventional gas resources in South Africa but whilst the application to frack the Karoo came to a halt due to a government-initiated strategic assessment that was released earlier this month, there are still sustained efforts to advance with the applications to prospect in large parts of KwaZulu-Natal province, as well as in the Free State and in the Eastern Cape.

A joint report by the Academy of Science in collaboration with the Department of Technology concluded there has not been enough research to date to take an informed decision and in addition, scientists have expressed concern that regulatory oversight for potential fracking might also be insufficient.

Under existing laws, oil and gas companies have to go through three to four separate environmental impact assessments before they can actually start extracting. However, the initial scoping rights have been granted by South African Petroleum Agency (PASA), which considers fracking ‘a viable option’ to obtain gas in principle. President Jacob Zuma is also willing to give fracking a chance stating: “We will find practical opportunities to enhance the economic opportunities the shale gas sector has to present.”

But even the promised prospect of significant job creation is in doubt following a debate in the recently published Shale Gas report which pointed out the specialist skills set needed for shale gas exploration would be virtually non-existent in the country.

The most advanced exploration application proposing to explore a vast stretch in the Eastern Cape from South of Lesotho to Mount Fletcher is currently under review with PASA. Texas-based Rhino Oil & Gas has submitted an environmental impact assessment that might trigger the first exploration phase in a matter of weeks in and around the Matatiele municipality.

Local residents are concerned not only that the exploratory boreholes might cause harm, but that future fracking operations would wreak havoc to the agriculture and water supply. Matatiele local municipality has identified “Nature, Agriculture and Tourism” as its “investments of choice”. And councillors have argued that fracking would be incompatible with the municipality’s agenda, an anti-fracking view that is shared by traditional leaders who fear that grazing land and agriculture would also suffer if fracking were to go ahead.

In the pubic consultation process Rhino Oil & Gas – one of the four big players – has admitted the company is not even sure about the potential profitability of going ahead (subject to permission) since there has been no prior exploration of the area. Rhino’s report, submitted to PASA, states: “Our application only includes work aimed at determining the presence of a petroleum resource. Approval is not being sought for any work to determine the commercial viability of any such resource.

A maximum of “10 core boreholes” are being proposed as part of this initial exploratory phase whilst additional applications by Rhino in other catchment areas only propose to use equipped airplanes to start the exploration phase. These measures are deemed “non-invasive” however anti-fracking lobbyists debate that it is unfair to discuss the prospecting application on the basis of its limited scope only. As Francois du Toit, CEO of African Conservation Trust, warns the prospecting licence would open up a veritable “Pandora’s box”

At five Rhino’s public meetings across KwaZulu-Natal last week, residents voiced strong opposition towards unconventional gas exploration. Matthew Hemming, an environmental consultant who manages the environmental assessment process, said that those parties attending these meetings to object to fracking are taking the view they would  rather “close the door on exploration before it opens.”

Notwithstanding declining numbers at last week’s meetings (the result of consultation fatigue) the opposition to fracking appears undeterred. A gathering of environmental and community organizations earlier this month in Matatiele, Eastern Cape assembled NGOs, potentially affected communities, and faith-based organizations from around the country. In total, 16 different organizations decided to send delegates to the small town at the foothills of the western formation of the Drakensburg.

Chilling temperatures did not keep delegates from engaging in heated debates over what they consider ‘an assault’ on their livelihoods. And in a manifesto that came out of those deliberations at Matatiele, delegates noted “the critical absence of relevant government departments and elected political leadership at public meetings where the exploration proposals are being pushed,” concluding that this could amount to a silent endorsement of fracking from the Government’s side.

This Author

Jasper Finkeldey is a PhD Researcher at the University of Essex and a Visiting Scholar at University of KwaZulu-Natal

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth are bringing the UK government back to the High Court today (October 18) and tomorrow (October 19) for failing to deal with illegal levels of air pollution in the UK. ClientEarth will be fighting the government on its failure to tackle the national air pollution crisis for the second time in as many years.

ClientEarth CEO James Thornton said: “Defra’s latest figures estimate there are 40,000 early deaths across the UK every year because of air pollution. The government is acting unlawfully by refusing to turn this situation around. It is failing morally and it is failing legally to uphold our right to breathe clean air.

“The government must come up with far bolder measures, ready to face this issue head-on.

“Air quality in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis.”

ClientEarth won its case in 2015 in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the UK government must come up with plans to combat the crisis and bring pollution down to legal levels “as soon as possible”.

But the plans adopted in December last year outlined vague proposals that wouldn’t have secured compliance until at least 2025 and even this relied on hugely overoptimistic assumptions about emissions from diesel vehicles.

The original deadline for compliance was 2010.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has joined the case after being named as an interested party in the case and his legal representatives will appear in court today too.

Measures for the government to consider in an improved air quality plan (AQP) should include:

• A national network of Clean Air Zones (CAZs)
• A retrofitting scheme for buses and HGVs
• A diesel scrappage scheme
• A consumer labelling scheme to show which vehicles meet legal emissions limits
• Reconsidering tax schemes that favour diesel purchases

ClientEarth has launched a wave of clean air cases around Europe in recent weeks, including Brno and Prague in the Czech Republic, and Brussels in Belgium. It has already won cases in Poland and Germany.