IUCN on military and Hawaiian nation

SUBHEAD: International Union for Conservation of Nature is on the wrong side of both issues.

 By Henry Curtis on 9 September 2016 for Ililani Media -

Image above: Booth of the US Army at the IUCN World Conservation Congress held in Honolulu Hawaii. From original article.

The IUCN World Conservation Congress held most of its meetings at the Hawaii Convention Center.

The first floor was devoted to booths and displays by both IUCN members and non-members. The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force had side-by-side booths.

I asked one representative of the military if they were members of the IUCN. She remarked that the military had contemplated it, but they had missed the deadline to be a part of the World Conservation Congress.

Nearby was the booth for the National Whistleblowers Association.

The Sierra Club booth was located next to an Iranian booth.

The Iranian Department of Environment lists 1,140 animal species in Iran, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish living in internal lakes as well as surrounding seas, and that 74 of these species are on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Threatened Species Red List.

There were several large booths with cardboard tables and cardboard chairs and a series of presentations and panel discussions.

Many of the attendees asserted that attending the Congress was very worthwhile; that many of the speakers and panels were quite engaging.

Among all the glitter, the self-promotion, the accounting of recent successful endeavors, and of the hard road ahead, there were signs of tectonic splits and shifts.

The Congress voted to establish a new membership category for like-minded indigenous non-governmental organizations. This occurred in the 69th year of the organization, after it had been battered for promoting protected ecosystems through the removal of their indigenous communities.

The Congress seemed to overlook military and governmental transgressions, and instead focus on working with governments and big business to advance conservation efforts.

Chad Blair wrote in Civil Beat: The Military Tries To Sell Itself As Positive Environmental Force. "The U.S. Army, Navy and Marines made a pitch to conservationists from around the world that they share the same goals. Not everyone is buying it."

One of the splits is between correctly pricing the value of nature through ecosystem services, versus, accepting that people are part of the biotic community and not its overseer.
The former view is common to many but not all at the IUCN. 
The latter was well captured in a 15-minute YouTube presentation by Tom Butler, the editorial projects director of the Foundation for Deep Ecology and the volunteer board president of the Northeast Wilderness Trust.

Another controversy is the close ties IUCN has with major polluters.

In 2010 IUCN and Shell hired Stephen Turner to write a report about their collaborative efforts.

“Shell International BV (‘Shell’) and IUCN (the International Union for Conservation of Nature) signed a five year collaborative partnership agreement in October, 2007. Both organisations have adopted partnerships as a strategy to help achieve their objectives. Shell has partnerships with other environmental organisations, and IUCN has developed similar links with a number of companies. Half way through the current Shell-IUCN partnership agreement, its Steering Committee has commissioned this review of progress.”

The Shell partnership is strongly opposed by some in IUCN’s constituency. This creates a dilemma: the types of activity on which the partners have chosen to focus much of their effort will yield mid- to long-term outcomes, and it takes time to build an appropriate process of partnership between such different organisations. Yet IUCN must demonstrate successful short-term results if the partnership is to remain politically defensible – notably at the next World Conservation Congress in September 2012.”

“Despite the official confirmation of their relevance, such relationships with business are the most controversial area of IUCN’s operations. The nature of IUCN makes a unity of view on almost any subject unlikely, but attitudes to private sector engagements – especially partnerships with extractive industries like oil and gas – span the full spectrum from strong support to angry opposition, with an extensive field of ambivalence in between.”

“Shell partnership itself was the subject of vigorous debate at the 2008 World Conservation Congress. Some elements in the Union dismiss such relationships, and specifically this partnership, as not only irrelevant but actually harmful to IUCN’s character and commitments.

Nnimmo Bassey is a Nigerian architect, environmentalist activist, author and poet, who chaired Friends of the Earth International from 2008 through 2012. He was one of Time magazine's Heroes of the Environment in 2009. In 2010, Nnimmo Bassey was named co-winner of the Right Livelihood Award, and in 2012 he was awarded the Rafto Prize. He serves on the Advisory Board and is Director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, an environmental think tank and advocacy organization.

Three years ago Nnimmo Bassey published “IUCN Attempts to Greenwash Shell with Flawed Report on Oil Disaster in Ogoniland.”

“Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd of Nigeria (SPDC), Shell for short, recently received a report titled `Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites in the Niger Delta` from its partner – the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).”

“The overall picture of the report is one that treats the desperately polluted situation of the Niger Delta in a way that indicates that Shell is up to nothing but more prevarication and time-buying while they get on with profiteering from their high impact exploitation activities.”

“We emphasize the fact that the panel and Shell recognize that the biodiversity of the Niger Delta has been so decimated by the oil companies’ activities that they can now talk about `the Niger Delta’s remaining areas of biodiversity`. This admission of the scandalous destruction of the Niger Delta’s ecosystem speaks volumes of the great harm that Shell and other oil companies have dealt on Nigeria.”

Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation biologist.

“Prof. Steiner has done extensive work on the Niger Delta environment and is a renowned expert on the Exxon Valdez oil spill that occurred in Alaska, among others, stated plainly that the report `fails to meet its professed objectives, presents little new information, contains inaccuracies, represents a flawed process, and seriously undermines the credibility of IUCN`.”

Military's environmental impact concern
 SUBHEAD: Proliferation of military bases and their effects on the environment and local and indigenous life.

By Kelsey Amos on 9 September 2016 for Civil Beat -

Image above: U.S. Marines Amphibious Assault Vehicles rolls onto the sands at Pyramid Rock, Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe, during RIMPAC exercises last summer. From original article.

Where Is The Concern Over Military’s Environmental Impact? Despite the threats military activities pose to the natural world, surprisingly few panel discussions at IUCN broached the subject.

A week ago, a group of 15-20 activists and students gathered on the University of Hawaii Manoa campus to share the remarkably similar and interconnected stories of nations and peoples from around the Pacific that are struggling against the environmental destruction and limitations on sovereignty caused by the U.S. military and U.S. interests.

There were seasoned demilitarization and aloha aina activists from Hawaii in attendance who spoke about the desecration of iwi kupuna to build Marine Corps base at Kaneohe, as well as activists concerned with the proliferation of military bases and their effects on the environment and local and indigenous life in Guahan (Guam), South Korea (notably on Jeju Island) and the Philippines.

Also discussed were the legacies of French and U.S. nuclear testing in Tahiti and Micronesia.

Sometimes it’s a foreign military that does the dirty work for U.S. interests. We spoke about the violence and repression going on in West Papua as the Indonesian government makes sure that the Grasberg mine — one of the largest gold mines in the world — continues to run for the benefit of its owner, Arizona-based Freeport-McMoRan.

What spurred this meeting was the visit of several activists from Okinawa who are struggling against the building of a new U.S. air base at Henoko Bay, the latest in a long history of adverse effects on Okinawa from the presence of military bases. These Okinawan activists were here to take part in the World Conservation Congress but also headlined in a panel talk on Okinawa attended by over 70 at Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies on Thursday night.

One general theme is that truly protecting our environment means paying attention to the effects of militarization and war on the land, indigenous peoples and local autonomy in Pacific Islands.

After all, it is well known that modern war is ecologically devastating and releases hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Closer to home, we know from the examples of Kahoolawe, Pohakuloa, Makua Valley, Puuloa (Pearl Harbor, which once boasted the most fishponds on Oahu) and many other sites that it is indigenous land and peoples and local people who pay the unspoken costs of housing the U.S. military.

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists put it most simply in a post about the military’s turn toward considering its environmental impacts, writing that “military operations by their nature are not environment-friendly.”

Yet, a quick search of all 1,349 items in the IUCN World Conservation Congress’ online program for the keyword “military activities” yields nine results.

Furthermore, the celebrated Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument puts no limitations on the U.S. military. The proclamation that President Barack Obama signed to expand the monument states, “The prohibitions required by this proclamation shall not apply to activities and exercises of the U.S. Armed Forces, including those carried out by the United States Coast Guard.” It goes on to state that nothing in the proclamation will limit the U.S. military’s ability to use property under their control or limit the availability of property for their use.

In other instances around the world, such caveats allow for paradoxical situations around the Pacific and in other oceans where conservation areas actually house or provide a buffer for military bases.

Conservation and Connections
I participated in last week’s talk story and sign-making event as a student wanting to learn more from folks on the front lines of demilitarization and environmental struggles. One thing that became apparent is that in the Pacific, as in the world, we are all connected, and our efforts at protecting the environment need to first acknowledge and then foster our interconnectedness.

As Peter Apo has noted, the Western model of protecting the land, called conservation, depends on drawing an imaginary line around an area in order to “preserve” it. Too often such approaches sever the connections between indigenous peoples and their land while leaving unquestioned the logic that puts military objectives high above environmental concerns and regulations.

Under conservation models, the rest of us are also cut off from ever forming a real, respectful and responsible connection with land; what we get instead are touristic models where we conspicuously consume “outdoorsy” experiences and products that may still be environmentally harmful.

Conservation models, by setting aside only some land or ocean to protect, also make us feel like it’s OK to destroy other islands, lands and ecosystems when it’s convenient or “necessary.” But it’s not OK. #OurIslandsAreSacred and what goes on in one part of this vast ocean surely affects all other parts of it.

There will surely be positive effects on marine life from setting aside such a large tract of ocean and taking pressure off of over-fished species. And I’m glad that concern for the environment has gone mainstream.

But I am even more hopeful about the international coalition of activists, scholars, and advocates that is drawing connections between struggles and pointing in the direction of where more work has to be done.

• Kelsey Amos is a graduate student and graduate assistant at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She is also a writer/coordinator for the Purple Maia Foundation, which provides "access to empowering technology education for underserved youth in Hawaii."

IUCN and Native Hawaiians
SUBHEAD: Indigenous peoples’ lands and territories coincide with areas that hold 80% of the planet's biodiversity.

By Henry Curtis on 9 September 2016 for Ililani Media -

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has a reputation of collaborating with governments, and more recently, with large multinational corporations. Of placing nature above people.

Thus IUCN supported re-locating native people out of areas that become protected areas.

Sierra Club has been a member since 1956. Representing the Club at the IUCN was Richard Leonard in the l950s and David Brower in the l960s. NRDC has been a member since 1975. Two University of Hawaii units are members: Lyon Arboretum and the Richardson School of Law's Environmental Law Program (ELP). Hawaii Pacific University and the Conservation Council for Hawaii are members.

Over the past decades, IUCN resolutions have been approved regarding high-level military issues such as armed conflicts, chemical weapons, anti-personnel weapons, and cluster weapons, but generally not specifying opposition to specific conflicts.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published a Viewpoint on September 8, 2016, written by Koohan Paik, a Hawaii island resident and project director of the Asia-Pacific program at the International Forum on Globalization; Nelson Ho, a Hawaii island environmental activist; and Tom Luebben, a Native American rights and environmental attorney.
"At the World Conservation Congress (WCC) being held here in Honolulu, the
International Union for the Conservation on Nature (IUCN) is entrenching itself in a greenwashing tradition forged eight years ago at the 2008 WCC in Barcelona.

Then, the scientific community was shocked by IUCN`s announcement that it was taking money from Shell Oil. Many members quit IUCN for selling out.

Five years later, IUCN and Shell co-authored a report congratulating Shell for its progress in cleaning up the Niger Delta, an area Nigerians say Shell devastated irreversibly. More scientists and members, disgusted, quit after the 2012 WCC.

That's when IUCN accepted $12 million from the South Korean government in exchange for greenwashing the construction of the controversial Jeju naval base build beside a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, which destroyed a rare soft-coral reef and displaced a 400-year-old sustainable farming and fishing community. ...

The IUCN seems oblivious to the destruction visited upon Hawaiian ecosystems by many cycles of intense resource exploitation and military occupation in the last 200 years. ...

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources has abandoned, bungled or lost the fight with virtually every invasive species, including miconia, coqui frogs and the fire ant. There is expansion, rather than restraint, on transoceanic and interisland agricultural trade that spreads invasive species."
University of Hawaii at Manoa graduate student Kelsey Amos wrote a similar viewpoint for Civil Beat on September 9th. “IUCN: Where Is the Concern Over Military’s Environmental Impact?

A National Host Committee was established in 2014 to support hosting the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii.

The National Host Committee voting members include officers, executives, and directors of the Hawaii Medical Service Association, National Tropical Botanical Garden, Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources, Green Growth Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Bank of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, Office of the Governor of Hawai`i, and the East-West Center.

At the end of August, the Hawaii Independent published a viewpoint signed by a diverse group of organizations and individuals. The open letter to the IUCN World Conservation Congress asked for the Congress “to take clear and immediate action to stop” several controversial projects harming the environment, including the desecration of Sacred Mauna Kea, the Trans Pacific Partnership, the United States Military & RIMPAC war exercises, the proposed Department of Interior (DOI) Rule to create a Native Hawaiian Tribe, and the building of the North Dakota Access Pipeline.

The signers included members of Protest Nai Aupuni, Hui Ku Like Kakou, Destination Restoration, KAHEA - The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, Ka Lahui Hawaii Political Action Committee, ‘Ohana Koa Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Kai Palaoa, Nā Koa Ikaika O Ka Lahui Hawaii, and Kai ‘Ula Pono’i Texas HCC.

Over the past few years the IUCN has increased regional support and staffing beyond its historic European-US-centric past.

The members of the IUCN are electronically voting on, and holding delegate meetings on about 100 resolutions which will guide future IUCN policy. At least ten Resolutions are being voted that deal with indigenous people. Eight have passed and two are pending.

IUCN focuses on influencing governments, and the design of international treaties and agreements.

Which native people will be allowed to sit at the table, is as important as, permitting any native people to sit at the table in the first place.

Resolution 22 focuses on Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) occurring in “Indigenous Peoples' and Community Conserved Territories and Areas” (ICCAs).
“Recognising that while some (past and current) responses to IWT contribute to improved local livelihoods and security, in other instances they may inadvertently have collateral and negative impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities living with wildlife, and thus influence their willingness to contribute tangibly to combating IWT in the long term.”

“A sustainable long-term solution to IWT requires an integrated, coherent response built on the recognition that indigenous peoples and local communities that live with wildlife have a key role to play in conserving wildlife, and that these peoples and communities should be engaged (including through outreach and education) and incentivised through financial and non-financial benefits in combating IWT.”

“The World Conservation Congress …recognise the critical role of indigenous peoples and local communities that live with wildlife as full partners in planning, making and implementing decisions and interventions to address IWT, including through means of their traditional knowledge and the rules and regulations they strive to have respected in their conserved territories and areas (ICCAs).”

“Ensure that this need to engage and incentivise indigenous peoples and local communities is fully respected and reflected in IUCN and other relevant interventions and decisions, through means such as education and awareness-raising.”

“Promote opportunities for indigenous peoples and local communities to engage as equal partners in wildlife conservation and management decisions, including through establishing mechanisms for formal and structured consultation in relation to the decisions of multilateral environmental agreements.”
Resolution 29 recognized the extensive overlap between the territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities (ICCAs) and that of protective areas.

“Many indigenous peoples and local communities care for, self-govern, manage, protect, sustainably use, restore and enrich – in one word ‘conserve’ – all or parts of their territories and areas, including commons, sacred sites, and locally managed marine areas, in ways that meet IUCN definitions of indigenous peoples' and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs), IUCN and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) definitions of protected areas."

“Recalling IUCN's affirmation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and of indigenous peoples' collective rights and responsibilities with respect to their territories, lands, water and resources, including within protected areas, and additional prerogatives and responsibilities relevant to participating fully and effectively in protected area governance.”

“Recalling that IUCN and the Parties to the CBD affirm the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to participate fully and effectively in protected area governance and that IUCN guidance encourages fostering governance diversity, quality and vitality in protected and conserved areas.”

“Welcoming recommendations of the IUCN World Parks Congress (Sydney, 2014) … [and] the Durban Accord and Action Plan and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas recognise ICCAs and indigenous peoples' and local communities' right to participate in protected area governance.”

“Acknowledging that Native Hawaiian people lived in areas of Hawai'i now designated as national parks and other protected areas and may continue to maintain or wish to restore ICCAs in them.”

The World Conservation Congress …requests …appropriate recognition and respect for overlapped ICCAs before including any protected area in IUCN’s Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas or before advising the granting of World Heritage status, including by ensuring that the custodian indigenous peoples and/or local communities maintaining these ICCAs give their free, prior and informed consent to the proposed designation.”
Resolution 59 deals with IUCN support for the Paris Climate Accord. The Resolution is pending.

IUCN recognizes “the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity when taking action to address climate change … [acknowledging] the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and people in vulnerable situations as well as gender equality and intergenerational equity.”
“The World Conservation Congress … requests …further develop, document and communicate ecosystem-based adaptation approaches, including through engaging with relevant professionals, stakeholders and indigenous peoples, contributing to the resilience of vulnerable species, ecosystems, and indigenous, local and other communities at risk.”
Resolution 66 focuses on palm oil. The Resolution is pending.
"Many of the negative impacts associated with oil palm expansion are avoidable or could be mitigated through … legal reforms to secure the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.”

“The World Conservation Congress …requests …inclusive decision making processes, with the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders … [and to] ensure that land-use planning for oil palm plantations is done … while mindful that any resultant push to redirect oil palm expansion onto farmed lands can exacerbate the social conflicts between industry and local people.”
Resolution 71 deals with Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM).
“Noting that decentralised management enables local people to address unique social, political, and ecological problems and to find solutions ideal to their situation …Recognising the contemporary importance of indigenous Hawaiian principles such as kuleana (the indivisibility of rights and responsibilities) and aloha 'āina (the love of the land which feeds) to the well-being of Hawai'i and the world …Further Recognising that the indigenous people of Hawai'i developed a culture of environmental interdependence, achieving an abundance of resources that sustained a population near current levels.”

“Further recognising that the State of Hawai'i's adoption of CBNRM projects and indigenous Hawaiian resource management knowledge, principles, and practices furthers the spirit of reconciliation expressed in the United States' formal apology resolution in 1993 to the Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”

“Further recognising that Article XII Section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution protects Native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights.”

“Aware that Hawaii's voyaging canoe Hōkūle'a is sailing around the globe, bringing the message of Mālama Honua (Care for the Earth) from Hawaii to the world.”

“The World Conservation Congress …CALLS UPON IUCN, its Commissions and Members, to encourage the State of Hawaii to increase its support of CBNRM and indigenous Hawaiian principles in conservation by providing adequate funds and administrative resources to support communities seeking to implement CBNRM.”
Resolution 78 deals with Crimes against the environment. “Noting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasises the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain their own cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.”

Resolution 80 deals with the Whakatane Mechanism. “It has been estimated that most of the existing protected areas contain lands or territories and resources of indigenous peoples and rural communities.”
“The Whakatane Mechanism is a response to the call of the IUCN World Conservation Congress at its session in Barcelona, Spain (2008) for the Director General and Commissions to identify and propose `mechanisms to address and redress the effects of historic and current injustices against indigenous peoples in the name of conservation of nature and natural resources` …Recognising the importance of fully respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities relying on protected areas.”

“The World Conservation Congress … [requests that] progress of the Whakatane Mechanism in IUCN’s regular reporting to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues …[and] invites the CBD to take account of the Whakatane Mechanism …[with] the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, and also their prior and informed consent to or approval of, and involvement in, the establishment, expansion, governance and management of protected areas, including marine protected areas, that may affect indigenous and local communities.”
Resolution 83 affirms “the role of indigenous cultures in global conservation efforts.”
“Indigenous peoples and local communities can provide examples of sustainability to serve as global models, including by means of their traditional knowledge.”

“Recognising that the scope of indigenous knowledge is broad, including native species diversity, ecological processes and patterns, and land and sea management practices that are applicable today.”

“Also recognising that prior to Western contact, the indigenous people of Hawai'i sustained a population of up to one million people through the ahupua'a system of land management, which integrated land and sea ecosystems and relationships within a shared geographic, social, cultural, and political context.”

“The integration of indigenous peoples' and local communities approaches and knowledge systems with other conservation efforts is essential to achieve sustainable development

“The World Conservation Congress …invites the Director General and Council to acknowledge the value of indigenous peoples' and local communities' approaches and knowledge systems in helping to address the challenges facing our global ecosystems, and that working with indigenous knowledge holders appropriately to integrate their values and approaches into modern conservation efforts can greatly enhance the long-term success of conservation.”
Resolution 95 deals with synthetic biology, a multi-disciplinary field which includes biotechnology, evolutionary biology, genetic engineering, molecular biology, and molecular engineering.
“The diverse field called 'synthetic biology' is developing rapidly, largely independently of the field of biodiversity conservation, and, depending on the type of application, may have significant implications for many aspects of biodiversity and nature conservation, including sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.”

“Some applications of synthetic biology may have the potential to be beneficial to biological diversity and nature conservation and some have the potential to pose risks.”

“Recognising that the topic of synthetic biology has been under active consideration by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) …have urged a precautionary approach in line with the preamble to the Convention, for Parties to carry out scientific risk assessments with regard to potential effects on human health, and addressing, as appropriate and according to national and/or regional legislation, food security, and socio-economic considerations with, where appropriate, the full participation of indigenous and local communities.”
Resolution 97 focuses on safeguarding indigenous lands.
"Indigenous peoples’ lands and territories coincide with areas that hold 80% of the planet's biodiversity and are therefore fundamental contributors to the maintenance of such ecological services …a major challenge in ensuring such contributions remains in the fact that tenure rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and territories remain unclear or lack legal recognition in vast areas of the world.”
There are “many examples in which indigenous peoples’ land/sea use planning approaches, such as 'Indigenous Life Plans' and others, apply notions of indigenous self-development and include indigenous-designated protected areas, sacred natural sites, indigenous and community conserved territories and areas or other forms of protection of lands and seas.”

“Territories and resources which have been traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used by indigenous peoples are sometimes considered by governments as undeveloped or underdeveloped, and may be therefore exposed to external pressures for unsustainable developments, particularly from commercial exploitation, that do not consider the full rights, needs, and cultural contexts of indigenous peoples.”

“Imposing changes to the use of lands and territories which have been traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used by indigenous peoples may have negative impacts including on food security, biodiversity, climate and the preservation of culture.”

"The World Conservation Congress …Requests the IUCN Director General to …consider assembling a working group coordinated by the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) to consult with research teams, indigenous peoples' organisations, civil society organisations, governments and development industries to assess the extent of and approaches to respecting indigenous peoples’ rights to decision making around their lands, territories and resources, as well as provide recommendations on expanding efforts for strengthening tenure rights, reducing environmental degradation and enhancing conservation …including fair and equitable access to information and meaningful participation by indigenous communities in decision-making processes, to avoid negative impacts especially from externally driven unsustainable developments as well as other forms of land and ecosystem degradation … [and that] governments work with indigenous peoples to create, institute and enforce legal and management regimes, as appropriate and necessary, that recognise indigenous peoples' rights, protect indigenous lands, territories and resources, and at the same time reduce the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems.


No comments :

Post a Comment