This is a publication from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs / Development Cooperation, which you may find of
interest. It was put here for your information by the Innu
Support Group. Notes appear at the end.
I N F O R M A T I O N
Voorlichtingsdienst Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, bezuidenhoutseweg 67,
postbus 20061, 2500 EB 's Gravenhage, tel. +31-70-3486486
Number: 11(E)
Date: 14 may 1993
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE NETHERLANDS FOREIGN POLICY AND
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
On 29 March 1993, the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr P.H.
Kooijmans, and the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, Mr
J.P. Pronk, sent a memorandum to the Netherlands Parliament, to inform it
about the Netherlands Government policy with respect to the issue of
indigenous peoples in the context of foreign policy and development
cooperation. In the memorandum, the Ministers also respond to the reports
on the subject of their respective advisory committees. The document
presented here is the official English version of this memorandum.
1. INTRODUCTION
Not by accident, on 10 December 1992, Human Rights Day, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations inaugurated 1993 as the
International Year for the World's Indigenous People, with the motto:
"Indigenous people, a new partnership". In his speech he stated that
indigenous peoples comprised over three hundred million individuals across
the globe, individuals who were frequently the poorest of the poor, having
scant if any access to essential facilities. Intrusion into their age-old
isolation had led to the loss of land and the undermining of their culture.
It was fortunate, Mr Boutros Ghali went on, that the governments of
countries in which indigenous peoples lived were increasingly aware of this
injustice, and that in a number of countries negotiations were under way
concerning the return of land. The representation of indigenous peoples in
relevant international fora had also increased. By dedicating 1993 to this
theme, according to Mr Boutros Ghali, the UN is committing itself to a more
specific focus on the situation and needs of indigenous peoples. Emphasis
is to be placed on practical undertakings in the form of projects which
will benefit these populations. Their participation in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of these projects should play a crucial role.
On 18 June 1991, having in mind the impending designation of 1993 as the
International Year for the World's Indigenous People, the Netherlands
Minister for Foreign Affairs requested his Advisory Committee on Human
Rights and Foreign Policy (ACM) to draw up an advisory report on the
specific rights of indigenous peoples and members of these population
groups. On 12 November 1992, in the same context, the Netherlands Minister
for Development Cooperation requested the National Advisory Council on
Development Cooperation (NAR) to submit in the short term a brief report on
the problems of indigenous peoples within the framework of development
cooperation.(1)
This memorandum will look at the conclusions and recommendations of the
said reports, hereinafter referred to as the ACM and NAR reports. Where
relevant, reference will also be made to other texts, such as Agenda 21
(Chapter 26). Discussion of the conclusions and recommendations of the said
reports will for the sake of clarity be divided into themes: a. Indigenous
peoples and human rights (Chapter III); b. Identity and cultural rights
(Chapter IV); c. Representation and participation (Chapter V); d.
Indigenous peoples and development cooperation (Chapter VI). These chapters
will be preceded by a brief chapter defining relevant terms and looking in
particular at the African context (Chapter II). Chapter VII will contain an
analysis of the way in which the theme is currently dealt with within
development cooperation, including programmes set up by the Netherlands
so-called co-financing organisations.
The fact that 1993 provides a special focus on indigenous peoples was not
the sole rationale for this memorandum. One reason is the great need for
protection of this large and vulnerable section of the world's population.
Such protection should comprise guarantees for sustainable means of
survival. Among the characteristics of international justice should be the
power to protect vulnerable peoples against encroachment upon their means
of survival, and against decimation or annihilation, the frequent lot of
such populations up to now. A further important reason for focusing on
indigenous peoples is the individual and original contribution which they
make to cultural and social diversity throughout the world, thus providing
a welcome counterbalance to the trend of increasing uniformity.
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Definition of terms
In the course of the debate on this issue, indigenous groups have been
referred to as indigenous populations, peoples, and people. In the
designation of 1993 as the year of "indigenous people" the latter term is
used. The ACM and NAR reports alternately speak about indigenous peoples
and indigenous people. Since indigenous peoples is a term preferred by the
groups in question, it will be used in this memorandum, sometimes
supplemented by the term indigenous communities. The relevant literature
also contains terms such as Indians, indigenas and aboriginals, which all
refer to specific categories of indigenous peoples.
The typology adopted by UN Rapporteur Jose Martinez Cobo, which is used in
both the ACM and NAR reports, refers to "indigenous communities, peoples
and nations". Martinez Cobo defines them as follows:
"Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a
historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that
developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other
sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of
them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are
determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their
ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their
continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural
patterns, social institutions and legal systems."
Martinez Cobo's circumscription contains both subjective and objective
elements. The objective elements are:
a. material and spiritual ties with at least part of a population's
ancestral territory;
b. distinct identity and culture, and traditional social and judicial
systems which a people seeks to preserve;
c. a subordinate position in modern, postcolonial society and within the
national state, often leading to denial of indigenous peoples' identity and
discrimination against them.
A more detailed analysis of these points is given in the ACM and NAR
reports. Chapter III of the former report discusses the problem of
definition at some length. Pages 2 to 4 of the NAR report examine the
nature of the processes of marginalisation which have contributed to the
vulnerability of many indigenous peoples.(2) Chapter II of the ACM report
outlines the problem and discusses the factors which perpetuate the
marginalisation of indigenous peoples.
In various countries indigenous peoples are also referred to as tribal
peoples, i.e. are defined with the emphasis on their way of life, because
they are clans or tribes organised in small local communities, subsisting
from hunting, gathering or animal husbandry. In India indigenous peoples
are collectively referred to as Adivasi, meaning "oldest inhabitants". In
Indian policy documents the term "scheduled tribes" is used.
A subjective element in Martinez Cobo's circumscription of indigenous
peoples is that of self- identification and the desire of such peoples
actively to preserve their own identity. The example of the Masai
(Tanzania, Kenya) illustrates the importance of this subjective approach.
Although the Masai are certainly not among the poorest sections of the
population in those areas where they still possess large herds of cattle,
they themselves seek to be designated an indigenous people, and to this end
they have approached the UN Centre for Human Rights in Geneva. The Masai
claim that their pastures are being systematically encroached upon, thus
undermining not only their means of subsistence but also the basis of their
pastoral culture.
The case of the Masai raises two problems concerning the application of the
above definition, namely the questions of nomadic herdsmen and of the
general applicability of this definition to Africa. In the case of nomadic
herdsmen it would in the first instance seem inappropriate to speak of
"historic links with and rights to the land on which they live" (NAR
report, page 2). At issue in the case of these peoples is not only the land
in which they live, but also the pasture they require for their herds, and
the territorial area within which they migrate. Reference can be made in
this context to the chapter on "Recognising and strengthening the role of
indigenous people and their communities" in Agenda 21, a source not
explicitly cited by the advisory reports. The definition of "lands" in this
chapter extends to "the environment of the areas which the people concerned
traditionally occupy".(3) A policy which forces nomadic peoples to settle
within a restricted territory in fact violates their rights to land in the
wider sense. An example here would be the way in which the Turkana became
the victim of the Kenyan government's settlement policy. The nomadic
Turkana traditionally keep large herds of cattle, and are unable to adjust
their skills, customs and values to cope with the problems associated with
a settled way of living. As a result of enforced settlement these people
have become entirely dependent on state support, and cannot return to their
former way of life. Their marginalised position derives from a
confrontation with the Kenyan state a clash which threatens the survival of
their culture.(4)
The ethnic map of Africa provides a colourful picture of countless large
and small groups and peoples. In many cases the borders of the
post-colonial states run right through their traditional lands. Within
individual states various ethnic groups often form political alliances or
compete for domination. The term indigenous peoples would not be
appropriate in such cases. When using this concept in an African context
the focus is on peoples who have been marginalised, whose identity is not
acknowledged, and of whom no account is taken in national policy. In the
most extreme cases these groups are systematically repressed, and their
culture is annihilated. The Nuba, who live in the mountains of South
Kordofan in the Sudan, provide a disheartening example of such repression.
The Sudanese government pursues a policy of isolating Nuba villages from
the outside world and from essential facilities, and of separating men from
women. "The people will be dispersed. Thus, the culture and society of the
Nuba will become obliterated".(5)
The conclusion of this brief analysis of the concept "indigenous peoples"
is that the definition drawn up by Martinez Cobo comprises all the
essential elements for the identification of this category, but that in its
practical application differing weight can be attached to the various
elements, with self-definition as an important feature. The Netherlands
Government proposes to adopt Martinez Cobo's definition, as this is seen to
be in the interest of protective measures. However, it would note that its
application does not invariably produce a satisfactory result.
An illustrative overview of indigenous peoples In order to illustrate the
concepts which have been defined above, an overview of indigenous peoples
is given below. This listing - which is unavoidably not exhaustive - is
confined to Africa, Asia and Latin America, as it is there that the focus
of Dutch development cooperation activities lies. However, the issue of
indigenous peoples is by no means confined to developing countries. There
is general awareness of the position of the Indians and the Eskimos in the
United States and Canada. Over the last two decades Australia and New
Zealand have stepped up efforts to restore the dignity of the Aborigines
and the Maori, and to enable them to preserve their way of life. Japan,
too, has its indigenous peoples, notably the Ainu. In Western and Central
Europe indigenous peoples are generally considered to be confined to the
Lapps or Saami and the Greenland Eskimos, though some would claim that
gypsies should also be classified under this category. Eastern Europe,
particularly the Russian federation, is home to a wider variety of
indigenous peoples, notably the Yakut and the Uighur of Eastern Siberia,
and the Bashkir and the Tatar of Western Siberia. Experience has shown that
even developed countries such as Canada and New Zealand encounter numerous
obstacles in drafting a sound policy on the indigenous peoples living
within their territories, despite a genuine wish to deal fairly with them.
Africa
North Africa is home to several Berber tribes, whose members constitute
greater or lesser proportions of the populations of Morocco, Algeria and
Tunisia. These groups have their own language, culture (literature and
music) and traditions. So far efforts by Berber leaders and political
groups to establish their right both to their own identity and full
participation in national politics and society have met with varying
success.
In Ethiopia there are many ethnic groups, each with their own language and
culture. Some can be classified as indigenous peoples. These include the
Oromo, the largest ethnic group, which has suffered the most from Amharic
rule (despite being an ethnic minority, the Amharic people have been in
power in Ethiopia almost continuously for the last century). Smaller
groups, such as the Anuak, Barta and Komo have been driven from their
lands. Others, such as the Danakil, have suffered less. The Falasha,
Ethiopian Jews, have been oppressed for centuries, not because of their
indigenous status, but primarily because of their religion. The Afar and
the Issa in Djibouti are ethnic minorities, but are not persecuted as such.
The Afar, who originated in Ethiopia, are discriminated against, but this
falls outside the scope of the problems facing indigenous peoples.
Various African nations have experienced bloody conflicts as the result of
tribal and ethnic differences, especially where these are paired with great
social inequality or the uneven distribution of power, as in Mauritania or
Burundi. However, this again falls outside the scope of the issue of
indigenous peoples in the sense of peoples who have become so marginalised
in the course of history that their very physical and cultural existence is
threatened. This would exclude, for instance, the nomadic inhabitants of
the Sahel, such as the Tuareg and the Fulani, who have managed to preserve
themselves and their culture, or a people such as the Hadendoa of East
Sudan. It must be said, though, that adverse conditions, such as a
protracted drought, can seriously threaten the precarious ecological
balance on which nomadic peoples depend for their existence.
Southern Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania are home to various tribes which could
be categorised as indigenous peoples, such as the Dinka, the Nuer, the
Azande, the Turkana and the Shilluk. The case of the Turkana shows that in
certain situations these African peoples can be socially marginalised and
lose their cultural identity. As long as they are able to pursue their
traditional way of life in relative isolation and have access to adequate
means of subsistence there are no grounds for devoting special attention to
these groups, since protection is a basic element in policies towards
indigenous peoples and these particular groups are under such circumstances
not necessarily in need of protection. Problems arise when indigenous
peoples are made to submit to another culture and the power which this
culture represents.
Various African peoples clearly qualify as indigenous: the Pygmies in the
rainforests of the Central African Republic and Cameroon, the Tua in
Rwanda, the San or Masarwa (Bushmen) of the Kalahari desert (Botswana,
Namibia), and the various smaller peoples in Namibia (Herera, Nama) and
Zimbabwe (Tonga, Venda, Shangaan), although strictly speaking the latter do
not originate from that area.
Asia
The 66 million strong Adivasi in India (a collective term comprising over
200 different indigenous peoples) constitute some seven per cent of the
population of India. They live in various regions, notably in the
mountainous parts of Central India, as well as in the south (Kerala,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu), and in seven small states in the extreme
northeast of India, of which Assam and Nagaland are the best known.
Indigenous communities representing various tribal groups in Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat gained news coverage through their
opposition to the Sardar Sarovar Project. The controversial report by
Bradfort Morse states that 117,575 tribal people will be directly affected
by the project.(6)
The indigenous inhabitants of the Andaman islands comprise four separate
peoples, each with their own language and culture, who live from hunting
and gathering. They are classified as "scheduled tribes" in Indian
government policy.
The ethnic map of southern Asia is so diverse that it would be impossible
to give a complete survey. Various peoples have sought to draw
international attention to their plight as an indigenous people, such as
the Chakmas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. The Koochi, a
pastoral people living in Afghanistan, are being increasingly forced to
give up their nomadic existence. The Pathans, inhabitants of the
mountainous region on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, have been
able to preserve their culture in those areas in which the tribes are
autonomous. Others have been integrated into the national societies of both
countries. The Vedda are the oldest inhabitants of Sri Lanka. They are
hunters and gatherers and constitute an extremely vulnerable group, having
dwindled in number to perhaps no more than a few thousand. Accordingly,
they are one of the peoples whose rights are being championed by the UN
Working Group on Indigenous Peoples.
East Asia counts among its population numerous different peoples, some of
which are indigenous, marginalised and the victim of colonisation. Many of
these are tribal groups living in mountainous regions, of whom little is
known. Conversely, the Champa of Tibet are far from an obscure people,
having enjoyed centuries of geographic and cultural autonomy in the
inhospitable Himalayas, before finally being subjected to Chinese rule.
A large number of peoples, some numerous, others less so, whose existence
and way of life are under varying degrees of pressure, live in South-East
Asia, in the hills and mountains of Thailand, Burma and Laos. The
indigenous peoples of Thailand enjoy reasonable legal protection, thanks in
part to the personal concern of the King of Thailand. The situation of
indigenous peoples in Burma, on the other hand, gives cause for concern.
The precarious position of the Karen people, for instance, is well known.
In Vietnam various peoples live in the forests of the central plateaus.
They are officially designated as minorities, and little is known of their
position. The orang asli (original people) of Malaysia live in the
rainforests of the peninsula. Their culture is under pressure as a result
of the national promotion of Islam. They are also finding it increasingly
difficult to maintain their traditional way of life as hunters and
gatherers due to the erosion of their natural environment through logging,
etc. There are no alternative means of subsistence. The same applies to the
indigenous peoples of Luzon and Mindanao in the Philippines, and of Taiwan.
Similar problems exist within the enormous ethnic diversity of the
Indonesian archipelago, notably affecting the forest peoples of Kalimantan
(Dayak peoples), Sumatra and Nias. The policy of the Indonesian government
is geared to integrating the suku-suku terasing, or isolated tribes, into
Indonesian society. Understandably, this can cause problems. The languages
and cultures of the Papuan population of the province of Irian Jaya not
only differ markedly from those of the population of other parts of
Indonesia, but are in themselves divergent. There are numerous Papua
peoples, each with its own language and way of life. The extent to which
the cultural identity of various peoples is threatened differs greatly from
one people to another. The isolation of many of these peoples has only just
been penetrated.
The Papuan peoples of Papua New Guinea are not defined as indigenous
peoples because they do not confirm to the third element of the definition,
i.e. belonging to the "nondominant sectors of society". However, the
peoples of Bougainville, an island administered by Papua New Guinea, who
differ ethnically and linguistically from the Papuan peoples, may rightly
be classified as indigenous peoples.
With regard to Indonesia and the Philippines a study on indigenous peoples
and the loss of their ancestral land concludes: "Both in Indonesia and in
the Philippines, the loss of land is mainly the result of two major
political decisions. On the one hand, to make land available for non-
indigenous peoples, landless lowlanders in the Philippines and
transmigrants in Indonesia; on the other, by imposing export-oriented
economic development models, by providing logging and mining concessions or
by opening the land for multinational-controlled agri-business projects in
the Philippines, by developing nucleus estate schemes (NES) in
Indonesia".(7)
tLatin America
It is perhaps in this region that the problems facing indigenous peoples
are most apparent.
"The minorities question in South and Central America is dominated by the
case of the Amerindians," [....] "The Spanish, Portuguese, British, French
and Dutch colonization of the area destroyed the indigenous empires, and
reduced the people to powerlessness through conquest, annihilation,
enslavement, assimilation, evangelization, and social and political
domination. The States of Latin America do not reflect native power, but
the power of the colonizers and immigrants from Europe".(8)
Estimates of the number of indigenous peoples in Latin America vary. That
they are numerous is beyond question, almost all representing a different
linguistic group. Although many small peoples live in the rainforests
bordering the Amazon, subsisting from hunting, gathering and cassava
cultivation, the majority of Latin America's indigenous peoples live from
subsistence farming on the high plains of the Andes mountains. The Aymara,
Mapuche and Quechua are among the more numerous peoples, having local
communities in various countries. Those peoples who live from hunting and
gathering are smaller in number and until recently lived in isolation in
tribal communities. Their traditional way of life is now being slowly but
surely torn apart by logging companies, gold prospectors and government
interference. This process can only be reversed by restoring the peoples'
rights to their land, and by ensuring that these rights are actually
recognised in practice. The indigenous peoples of Latin America occupy
almost without exception a poor and marginalised position in the countries
in which they live, even in Bolivia and Guatemala, where the Quechua and
the Maya respectively form the largest population group. Even in Mexico,
where the indigenas are relatively better off compared to that of South
America, they still form the lowest social strata.
III. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Of the two reports referred to above, the ACM report devotes most attention
to the issue of human rights, an issue so crucial to indigenous peoples.
Four main themes can be distinguished in the conclusions and
recommendations. The first theme concerns recommendations geared to
improved use of existing mechanisms to protect the rights of individuals
who are members of indigenous peoples. The second is the right of
selfdetermination. The third relates to the question of individual and
collective rights. The last concerns new initiatives, such as the creation
of new bodies, a higher profile for indigenous peoples in existing channels
and reports, and the ratification by the Netherlands of the ILO Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples Convention (no. 169).
The Government considers legal protection or the protection of human rights
as one of the most important priorities in its policy on indigenous
peoples, together with reinforcing the identity of these peoples and
increasing their participation and representation within national and
international frameworks. In safeguarding human rights the Government sees
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against members of
indigenous peoples as its main objective, since discrimination is one of
the major threats to the dignity and civil and political rights of members
of indigenous peoples in societies dominated by others.
Use of existing mechanisms for legal protection The authors of this
memorandum would endorse the ACM's view (ACM-VII.7) that efforts must
continually be made to determine whether the problems facing indigenous
peoples can be tackled through existing legislation and jurisprudence. Note
has been taken in this context of the recommendation that an attempt should
be made to avoid trying to make too fine a distinction between indigenous
peoples and minorities in general. It is indeed the case that certain
mechanisms designed to protect minorities can equally well be applied to
indigenous peoples (ACM-VII.6).
The issue of legal protection centres on access to domestic remedies. The
Government is prepared to encourage and support improvements in national
judicial procedures in its cooperation with countries in which indigenous
peoples live. However, improving and making more accessible legal
protection procedures is not an easy task, and it would be unrealistic to
expect short-term results.
The ACM concludes quite rightly that the international scope for using
existing procedures in respect both of the individual right of petition and
the state complaint mechanisms is beset by legal and practical obstacles
(ACM-VII.22, 21). Nevertheless, in certain cases the Committee feels that
use of the petition mechanism provided by the First Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights could benefit not
only individuals but also the indigenous communities of which they are
members (ACM-VII.22). The Netherlands Government is in favour of extending
the scope for collective use of petition mechanisms.
The ACM is also right in concluding that the use of state complaint
mechanisms is a less realistic option than the individual right of petition
(ACM-VII.21). The state complaint mechanism is a legal instrument which has
not yet been used within the framework of UN convention mechanisms. Much
use has on the other hand been made of supervision mechanisms developed
within UN decision-making bodies, such as country resolutions and the
appointment of special rapporteurs. This method has for instance been used
to highlight the plight of indigenous peoples in Guatemala within the UN.
The Netherlands and the other EC Member States play an active role in such
procedures. Nor has use yet been made of CSCE mechanisms in cases involving
indigenous peoples, despite the fact that such a possibility exists in the
light of the contents of paragraph 29 of the Final Document of the
Follow-up Conference at Helsinki (July 1992).
The Government notes the points raised by the ACM concerning the possible
use of the Genocide Convention as a protection mechanism (ACM report, p.
12). However, the scope for protection offered by this Convention is
limited. Article II of the Convention defines genocide as "... acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group". Intent is a crucial factor, and in
practice the difficulty of proving intent constitutes a major obstacle when
applying the Convention in this way. The ACM also rightly notes the lack of
an international mechanism to monitor compliance with the Convention
(ACM-VII.I 1). Its suggestion that an international criminal tribunal be
established to try crimes against indigenous peoples should however be
brought up in a more general framework. In this context the Netherlands
supports the work of the International Law Commission.
The Netherlands will continue to focus on improving the effectiveness of UN
treaty mechanisms, both within the framework of the World Conference on
Human Rights and in other contexts. Efforts will be made to ensure that
existing committees use optimal methods to monitor compliance with the
conventions, including the protection of minorities. regard to ACM-VII.20
it should be noted that, in anticipation of the ACM report, a request had
been made by the Dutch delegation at the 47th UN General Assembly for
"general comments" on indigenous peoples and minorities. It transpired that
the Human Rights Committee had been working on this latter issue since as
far back as July 1991, but that texts are not yet available. In the debate
in Committee III the Netherlands has also proposed investigation of the
possibility of joint committee authorship of comments, with each committee
contributing its own specialist angle. The chairman of the ICCPR Committee
did not see this as a workable option in the light of each committee's need
to be independent.
The fact that existing mechanisms for the legal protection of indigenous
peoples are not used to the full is however primarily attributable to the
vulnerable position of the peoples concerned. Optimal use of existing
mechanisms tends to be practically infeasible for indigenous peoples
suffering from marginalisation and oppression. In the most extreme cases,
denial of their human dignity and the near total lack of legal protection
are two sides of the same coin.
The right of self-determination The Netherlands Government's basic
principles in respect of the issue of selfdetermination, for both
minorities and indigenous peoples, continue to be the interests of
individual members of the community concerned, the preservation or
development of identities and societies, (ACM report, page 20) and
international justice. External selfdetermination for 5000 indigenous
peoples would seem to be in the interests neither of the individual members
of such peoples nor of the international legal order. The Netherlands
Government is in favour of interpreting Article I of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICCPR), referred to in ACM-VII.10, to mean that the right of
internal selfdetermination is recognised in the sense that it must be
possible to hold national governments accountable. Article 27 of the ICCPR
offers a certain amount of scope for distinctive identity within a state
(ACM-VII.20).
The right of self-determination does not imply a right of secession, as the
ACM rightly notes. Nor would it be desirable to seek to achieve recognition
under international law of such a right. Secession should only be a last
resort. Whatever the rights and wrongs of historical developments, when
dealing with issues of self-determination one of the main considerations
should be where possible to respect the status quo. In this context states
should on the one hand be required to take effective measures to protect
the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, while on the other
minorities and indigenous peoples should be expected to show willingness to
participate in negotiations and joint efforts to seek solutions. Examples
of such dialogue - with the attendant trial and error- can be seen in
practice. The Colombian government, for instance, has now restored 10% of
the state's territory to the indigenous population. In Greenland, a
dialogue between the Danish government and Siumut, an indigenous political
movement, led to the development of a political structure within which the
indigenous population enjoys a large measure of autonomy.(9) In Namibia,
effective cooperation has been established between the regional government
of Eastern Bushmanland and the Nyae Nyae Farmers Cooperative (NNFC), a
Bushman organisation. Within the framework of regional development
activities Bushmen are accorded full control of their own land and
resources, and they preserve their own language and culture.(10)
Individual and collective rights
At the heart of many debates on the rights - particularly territorial and
cultural rights of indigenous peoples lies the problem of the relationship
between individual and collective rights. A collective right, to say, land
or culture cannot always easily be transposed into individual rights. In
the case of the Aboriginals referred to below, the rights to ancestral land
were expressively awarded on a collective rather than an individual basis.
The ACM report devotes a chapter to this general issue (Chapter IV). It is
important to promote consideration of this issue, and the government
accordingly applauds the ACM's proposal to draw up a report on this subject
at some future stage (ACM report pp. 16, 17, ACM-V11.8).
There are various sides to the issue. On the one hand there are indications
that "peoples' rights" are increasingly being incorporated in declarations
and conventions. The "African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights" or
Banjul Charter, for instance, which was adopted by the OAU in 1981,
contains a number of collective rights to which all peoples are entitled,
such as the right to self-determination, to assistance in liberation
struggles (political, economic or cultural), to their own resources, to
economic, social and cultural development, to peace and security and to a
general satisfactory environment. It is significant that the Charter is
based on the African philosophy of law, according to an introductory paper
published in Dakar in 1979. Indigenous peoples themselves also often
express a desire for recognition of collective rights.
On the other hand, the Netherlands Government, made wary by the terrible
lessons to be drawn from past ideologies which placed the group above the
individual, is reluctant to see collective rights accorded greater status.
However, clarification of the scope for collective action in the interests
of invoking or strengthening individual legal claims does fit in with the
government's policy of improving individual petition mechanisms where
possible.
In the light of further consideration of this subject, more detailed
analysis will at some stage have to be made of the distinction between on
the one hand rights of an entirely collective nature, such as the right of
self-determination, and on the other individual rights which can be
collectively exercised or enjoyed.
With regard to the protection of individual and/or collective rights,
overriding importance must be attached to those rights which are important
or essential to subsistence, continuity, sustainability and cultural
identity, i.e. rights relating to land, hunting, property, etc. A recent
development in Australia should be noted in this context. A court case on
land rights which had been filed by an Aboriginal tribe elder ten years
previously ended in a judgment by the High Court of Australia which will
have the effect of restoring the greater part of the Aborigines' ancestral
lands. The court rejected the doctrine of "terra nullius", a legal fiction
according to which the original European colonial settlers took over an
uninhabited country and thus took possession of it without negotiating
agreements with the population. It recognised indigenous rights to land
with which Aborigines have a demonstrable affinity and which is not subject
to formal or modern property rights.
Ratification of ILO 169 and other initiatives
Both the ACM and the NAR reports query the motives cited thus far by the
Netherlands Government for failing to ratify the ILO Convention concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The ACM report refers to the universal
nature of human rights and the shared responsibility of all states to
respect such rights (ACM-VII.15). The NAR report also notes that, contrary
to what is claimed, the Netherlands does in fact have a direct involvement
in the interests of indigenous peoples (NAR report, page 5).
In the light of the ACM and NAR recommendations, talks have begun with the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the first competent authority
for matters relating to ILO, to establish whether ratification would be
advisable, and, if so, when it should take place. Account will be taken of
the following points: the importance of the principle of universality of
rights (which the Netherlands would most strongly endorse); the degree of
support for the convention among representatives of indigenous peoples; the
fact that so few states have to date ratified the convention (four
according to recent figures); and the Dutch practice of in principle
ratifying only conventions which directly affect the Netherlands. Account
will also be taken of certain objections voiced by experts concerning the
substance of the convention. Criticism centres on the convention's failure
to impose sufficient restrictions on the enforced relocation of indigenous
peoples (Article 16), insufficient clarity on the scope for
self-determination (Articles 6 and 7) and a tendency to imply that national
law should take absolute precedence over indigenous customary law (Articles
8 and 9), whereas such precedence should be accorded, to the maximum extent
possible, only to internationally recognised human rights standards.
Despite these objections both the undersigned in theory favour ratification
at an appropriate time.
Many of the recommendations in the ACM report concern the tightening up or
broadening of existing procedures to safeguard the rights and interests of
indigenous peoples, or specific inclusion of indigenous peoples as a
category to which provisions and procedures can apply (ACM-VII.18, 23, 24).
The specific suggestions of this kind in the various recommendations will
be individually assessed and where possible adopted.
The ACM report refers to the scope for the use by indigenous peoples of the
various petition mechanisms within the ILO system (ACM-VII.25). However,
the onus will be on indigenous peoples to develop their own initiatives
here - a sometimes risky process, as the ACM rightly notes. Some
governments feel threatened even by the organisation of repressed groups.
Where possible the Netherlands Government will attempt to support
indigenous individuals and organisations in their legitimate struggle for
equality before the law, though it recognises that in practice it is
well-nigh impossible for third parties however well-intentioned - to
guarantee adequate legal protection for individuals and organisations in
situations in which human rights are accorded little value anyway and
retaliation is a possibility.
IV. SEPARATE IDENTITY AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
"The most pressing problem affecting us as indigenous peoples is the loss
of our dignity", Marcos Terena, Brazilian indigenous representative, in an
interview at the Ministry, 25 January 1993.
The international debate on indigenous peoples now recognises the crucial
importance for indigenous peoples of the right to maintain and develop
their own identity and culture. In many countries, however, indigenous
peoples suffer daily from discrimination which threatens their dignity and
identity. They meet with contempt, and a failure to recognise the value of
their culture and their traditional knowledge. The central role which
affinity with land plays in indigenous peoples' identity and way of life is
not infrequently dismissed and sacrificed to other interests - and yet
acknowledgement of this fact should be an integral part of recognition of
the right to a separate identity and culture.
In addition to the need to give precedence to the values and culture -
including affinity with land - of indigenous communities in the context of
development cooperation activities which directly affect such communities,
it will be necessary to take measures to strengthen the culture and
identity of indigenous peoples through education and support for specific
cultural activities to be identified by the indigenous peoples themselves.
Some scope is provided for initiatives of the latter type under the
Cultural Programme set up by the Netherlands Directorate-General for
International Cooperation (DGIS).
Education, particularly primary education, does much to shape individuals,
and thus significantly affects their future lives. Many indigenous children
have no choice but to be educated according to a system which takes no
account of their particular culture and background. This can be confusing
and alienating, and such schooling does not train as it should for full
future participation in society. It is in the very places where education
should provide a bridge between indigenous knowledge and culture on the one
hand and more universal knowledge systems and national cultures on the
other that the existing divide is actually widened. The Government would
therefore wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments expressed on this subject
in the ACM report (ACM- VII.16). The NAR report, too, looks at the problems
of children brought up between two cultures and the interpretive role which
educational establishments should play in this respect (page 8). The
educational policy pursued in the context of Dutch development cooperation
devotes attention to the educational problems experienced by children from
cultural minorities, not only in connection with the language of
instruction, but also as regards differences in cultural concepts and
underlying values.(11) An example of this would be the support given by the
Netherlands in Guatemala to measures to adapt the curriculum for primary
schools in line with indigenous languages and cultures.
Both the ACM (VII.16) and NAR (pages 8-9) reports consider the question of
the restitution of cultural artefacts to indigenous peoples. This issue has
already been raised in UN resolutions, in draft conventions and within the
framework of UNESCO. The International Committee for Promoting the Return
of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case
of Illicit Appropriation, a UNESCO agency, has been working in this area
since it was set up in 1979. A request for restitution can also be made in
a bilateral context. A transaction of this kind requires careful
preparation, with account being taken of the interests of all the parties
involved and the importance of conserving cultural objects. In the context
of the said Cultural Programme certain important ceremonial materials known
as tejidos were restored to the Indian population of Coroma in Bolivia.
The issue of restitution is frequently on the agenda of organisations such
as the International Council for Museums (ICOM). The latter body also
provides a forum for talks on the registration of the world's cultural
heritage, and on improving the worldwide accessibility of collections and
important items through the exchange of information, standardisation of
description and the loan of collection items for exhibitions. The question
of restitution would primarily centre on items of major symbolic
significance. The debate is one which greatly concerns indigenous peoples,
and their representation in a forum of this type should accordingly be
encouraged. However, the representatives of indigenous peoples, and of
developing countries in general, usually lack the resources, experience and
policy back-up to make their voice heard in the international debate. In
the light of this, courses on collection management and the mounting of
exhibitions designed for the staff of museums in developing countries have
already been set up under the DGIS Cultural Programme. The course for the
staff of a Bedouin museum in North Sinai, Egypt, funded by this programme,
is an example of the way in which indigenous peoples can receive assistance
in their efforts to preserve and make accessible their cultural heritage.
The specific suggestions listed on pages 8 and 9 of the NAR report for the
preservation of significant indigenous cultural heritage in all its
aspects, such as nature lore, language, oral literature, manuscripts and
artefacts will certainly be taken into account in policy making and
implementation. Activities of the type proposed by the NAR are already
incorporated in the DGIS Cultural Programme, though the Programme as such
is not specifically or exclusively geared to indigenous peoples.
In conclusion it should be noted that recognition of the separate identity
and cultural rights of indigenous peoples presupposes a greater awareness
and a change of attitude on the part of dominant cultures. In the dialogue
with indigenous peoples, members of dominant cultures must be prepared to
be open towards other cultures and, where necessary, to question their own
values and adjust their priorities.
V. REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION
It should be noted that when Martinez Cobo refers to social institutions
and legal systems in his typology of indigenous peoples, he is speaking of
cultures and societies which are highly decentralised, and whose laws are
uncodified. This significantly affects the question of the representation
of indigenous peoples in modern national states or in an international
context. Representation at such levels of the interests of groups organised
in local communities and enjoying only local leadership must inevitably
present a problem. Even where some form of central leadership exists, the
question of the legitimacy of representation remains. Representation and
participation are issues which the Government feels deserve attention.
The first point of focus should be participation within the national state.
Agenda 21, too, stresses the importance of strengthening the participation
of indigenous peoples in legislation, policy and implementation of
programmes relating to development cooperation and other administrative
measures which concern them. The question which then arises is: who should
participate, and on whose behalf?
The ACM report looks at the issue of representation. Who is a legitimate
representative? The straightforward imposition of a "democratic model" of
election on indigenous communities does not necessarily accord with the
views of indigenous peoples concerning legitimate leadership. However,
considerable interests can be at stake in talks with indigenous peoples,
and in such cases the question both of the legitimacy and the adequacy of
representation is crucial. The authors of this memorandum, like those of
the NAR report, would endorse the solution proposed in the ACM report to
this dilemma: "A minimum requirement might be that the position of a
representative should not be controversial, or should not be contested by
the people in question. In case of reasonable doubt it should also be
possible to require a representative to make plausible his claim to
represent an indigenous people" (ACM report, page 24). Unfortunately this
solution is not foolproof, as the ACM report rightly goes on to state, in
view of the fact that it is sometimes practically impossible to sound out
an indigenous people without going through those selfsame representatives.
On this issue politicians will have to learn from the experience gained by
specialist organisations (e.g. NGOs, IGOs).
Given the complexity of the issue, the government will for the time being
adopt the approach suggested by the ACM. This would not rule out assessment
on an ad hoc basis. An example would be the correspondence which took place
in 1980 between the Human Rights Committee and the tribal elders of the
Miqmaq Tribal Society (Canada) concerning the mandate of their soi- disant
representative. A certain degree of standardisation of the criteria to be
met by representatives should perhaps be a future aim (see ACM VII.12), but
it would be unrealistic to hope for hard and unequivocal criteria for the
time being.
rThe question of representation also has an international dimension.
Logistically speaking, it would be unworkable for representatives of all
the 5000 or so indigenous peoples to attend the meetings of the UN Working
Group on Indigenous Peoples - leaving aside the fact that their largely
decentralised organisational structures might mean that a single people
might deputise a number of representatives. The increase in the number of
representatives is creating a need for more umbrella organisations, which
again raises the whole question of representativeness, albeit at another
level.
Both the ACM and NAR reports pronounce on the need to increase the
accessibility of national and international legal procedures and other
relevant fora for indigenous peoples (ACM-VII.9, 12, 17, 26 and NAR,
pp.5-7). Proposals include the provision of translating and interpreting
facilities, direct financial support to enable indigenous delegates to
travel to relevant conferences, seminars and other events, and the
provision of training (e.g. Iegal training) aimed at members of indigenous
population groups. Following on from this last point is the NAR's proposal
to establish a scholarship quota for members of indigenous population
groups (NAR report, p.7). In practice, however, this proposal meets with
difficulties. The international education establishments in the Netherlands
have been assigned responsibility for implementing the Netherlands
Fellowships Programme. However, they are obliged, when awarding
scholarships, to take account of the policy of the Minister for Development
Cooperation, which is geared inter alia to redressing the disadvantaged
situation of certain population groups in developing countries.
The UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples, in which founding the
Netherlands had an initiating role, and the Special Fund for the Year of
the World's Indigenous People are largely geared to facilitating the
representation of indigenous peoples at fora and events of relevance to
them. In view of the importance of this work the Netherlands Government
will comply with the ACM's request (ACM-VII.26) that it continue
contributing to the Voluntary Fund and also contribute to the UN fund set
up to finance activities during the Year.
VI. lNDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
Environment and way of life
"We only want development which does not threaten our planet", Marcos
Terena, Brazilian indigenous representative, in an interview at the
Ministry, 25 January 1993.
"In view of the interrelationship between the natural environment and its
sustainable development and the cultural, social, economic and physical
well-being of indigenous people, national and international efforts to
implement environmentally sound and sustainable development should
recognize, accommodate, promote and strengthen the role of indigenous
people and their communities''.(12)
Both reports acknowledge the important and special relationship which
indigenous peoples have with their ancestral lands. The ACM
report"considers it essential that the specific nature of these rights and
of the relationship between indigenous peoples and their land or water be
recognised" (ACM-VII. 13). The NAR report states: "The significance of
'land' to indigenous peoples is frequently completely different from the
meaning we attach to it. Land has not only economic significance, but also
a social and spiritual importance. The way in which some indigenous peoples
venerate the land means that it cannot be regarded or treated as the
commodity it is largely regarded as by the majority of the world community"
(NAR report, p. 9). The respect that indigenous peoples feel for the earth
means that in general they are careful not to disturb the ecological
balance of their natural environment.
Serious disruption of this balance can nearly always be attributed to
external processes and intervention initiated by the dominant society which
cannot be controlled or reversed by indigenous peoples. The resultant
situation tends to be irreversible, with disastrous effects for the culture
and the environment of the indigenous populations involved.
The "natural" link which is often made between indigenous peoples and
sustainable development can result in indigenous peoples being used to
carry out environmental projects which are not directly in their own
interests, as the NAR rightly observes (NAR report, p. 10). Environmental
measures can also go so far that "indigenous people are hit
disproportionately hard" (ACM- VII.14). This should be remedied by
involving indigenous peoples in decision-making on measures and activities
which affect the area in which they live (ACM-VII.13), and by integrating
their views on development in an operational concept of sustainable
development which is acceptable to all parties. An interesting example of
specific attention for indigenous communities in an environmental agreement
is the allocation of a separate quota for "aboriginal subsistence whaling"
in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946).
The increase in interest in indigenous peoples' knowledge of their own
natural environment is a positive development. "Indigenous knowledge" can
make a significant contribution to the sustainability of agriculture and
the preservation of biodiversity. However, such interest also has a
negative side, as the NAR report points out. Agribusiness and the
pharmaceutical industry are already annexing such information for their own
purposes, and this trend looks set to continue. This constitutes alienation
of commercially valuable intellectual heritage. Indeed, scientists and
scientific bodies are themselves not above exploiting indigenous peoples'
lack of awareness of the value of their knowledge of the natural world. The
NAR report discusses this question at length and puts forward constructive
recommendations (NAR report, pp.10-11).
Increasing international attention is being paid, notably since UNCED, to
the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples in line
with the preservation of biodiversity and with developments in
biotechnology. The indigenous peoples themselves have stated: "Since we
highly value our traditional technologies and believe that our
biotechnologies can make important contributions to humanity, including
'developed' countries, we demand guaranteed rights to our intellectyal
property, and control over the development and manipulation of this
knowledge".13 The Netherlands supports the work of the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research, which is looking into this problem.
Development cooperation
"Our greatest fear is of being developed without first being consulted",
Marcos Terena, Brazilian indigenous representative, 25 January 1993.
There are two main points at issue here. The first issue is the need of
indigenous peoples for development activities or, to put it another way,
"who formulates the request for aid?" The second issue concerns taking
account of and protecting the interests of indigenous peoples in
development projects.
"Current policy on development cooperation views culture as a basis for
sustainable development".(14) This principle also extends to indigenous
peoples, embracing as it does participatory and culturally-oriented
approaches. In concrete terms, development activities must be welcomed by
the indigenous community for which they are intended, they must dovetail
with the needs formulated by that community, they must be compatible in
substance and structure with the community culture, and the community or
its representatives must be allowed to participate in the decision-making
on activities and their implementation and evaluation. If care is taken to
adhere to these guidelines - which also form the basis of the
recommendations made by the ACM and the NAR then the fears expressed by
Marcos Terena (see above) should be groundless.
In actual fact adherence to the guidelines is beset by a number of
obstacles, and there are very real grounds for concern. The first obstacle
is that often little is known of the indigenous communities in areas in
which development organisations operate. The NAR rightly underlines the
importance of freeing resources and time to increase knowledge of
indigenous peoples (NAR report, page 13). The ACM, too, states that aid
programmes must be set up solely on the basis of "detailed knowledge of the
indigenous peoples concerned" (ACM-VII.29). The Directorate- General for
International Cooperation (DGIS) has now taken steps to foster the
collection and transfer of knowledge on this subject.
A second group of obstacles consists of the problems referred to in the
chapter on representation and participation. There is much to be said for
the view expressed by the ACM that indigenous peoples often "first need
assistance to become organised to a greater extent and to acquire the funds
to enable them to undertake initiatives of their own" (ACM-VII.28). It is
true that a greater degree of organisation is often the first step needed
if indigenous peoples are to become fully involved in activities designed
to further their own development. The NAR makes a number of suggestions on
this point, under the heading of "institutional support", which will be
examined to see if they are practicable. It should be noted in this
connection that the decentralised organisational structure so
characteristic of indigenous peoples is not always amenable to
organisational forms imposed from outside. There are no straightforward
solutions to this problem, although the recommendation made by both the NAR
and the ACM (ACM-VII, 26 and 30) that higher priority and structural
support should be given to this issue in international and multilateral
frameworks may provide an answer.
That the interests of indigenous peoples can be damaged by development
activities is apparent in particular from large-scale infrastructural
projects, many of which deprive indigenous peoples of all or some of their
land, encroach upon their traditional means of subsistence or force them to
move elsewhere. While it is not always possible to spare them, a proper
balance should be struck between the conflicting interests, and the
indigenous peoples should have the right of appeal. In addition, every
effort should be made to minimise the damage and to provide prompt,
adequate compensation. World Bank directives on this point refer to the
far-reaching impact on the means of subsistence, cultural identity and
social structure of communities which fall victim to unavoidable
involuntary resettlement. The directive goes on to discuss all manner of
measures that should be taken right from the start to minimise the damage
and to compensate the communities in question.(15) However, indigenous
peoples usually lack the organisational capacity, knowledge of the law and
political clout to compel such measures to be taken. Responsibility in this
area clearly lies with the donor agency.
In any event, the interests at stake in large-scale infrastructural
projects involve more than simply indigenous communities and the
government, while indigenous communities frequently do not form a
homogenous group as regards the decisions to be taken (see also the NAR
report, p. 3). The complexity of the debate on the Narmada (Sardar Sarovar)
project in India, the largest irrigation project in Asia, is a case in
point. A number of the indigenous tribal communities, to whom the woodland
threatened by the project is of great material and cultural significance,
oppose enforced resettlement, with the support of environmental activists.
However, many farmers in the region are becoming increasingly convinced of
the potential blessings of the project, namely higher agricultural yields,
and they have the Indian government on their side.
Smaller development projects can also damage indigenous peoples if their
interests are not identified and taken into account at an early stage.
Indigenous peoples are often placed at a disadvantage, even vis-a-vis their
own government, by the weakness of their legal position, their lack of
organisation, their inadequate access to government and judicial
authorities and the media, with the result that they often lose out to the
interests of the dominant party.
Social and economic change is occurring in many forms. Most indigenous
communities no longer live in self-sufficient isolation; rather they are
faced with the market economy and structures of power and ownership that
are new to them. The various sections of indigenous communities (men,
women, young people, the elderly) are often affected in different ways and
to an unequal extent. Young people may suffer an identity crisis, since
neither the community from which they come nor the wider society to which
they migrate but where they cannot maintain themselves offers prospects for
the future. Women are comparatively hard hit if the means of subsistence
and the environment of the indigenous community are undermined, for they
are responsible for feeding the family and for the care of young children.
As the men leave, more and more women have to face these problems alone.
Indigenous women who leave their community, for example to earn money in a
town, are highly vulnerable and are often abused. Accordingly, the
government has taken careful note of the observations in both reports on
the position of indigenous women, with the comment that the scope for aid
to such women should be examined specifically from the point of view of
their own situation.
Information is of crucial importance to promoting the rights and interests
of indigenous peoples. The NAR report rightly devotes a good deal of
attention to this question (p. 6). The Development Cooperation Information
Department will develop activities this year in an effort to foster
understanding of the cultures and situations of indigenous peoples. In
consultation with the Netherlands co-financing organisations (MFOs) and
certain nongovernmental organisations concerned with improving the lot of
indigenous peoples, a plan is being developed to draw public attention in
the Netherlands to the problems of indigenous peoples. This will include a
series of events to be held in the autumn of 1993.
VII. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AS CURRENTLY AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
PROGRAMMES OF THE NETHERLANDS
Current development cooperation policy involves numerous activities which
benefit indigenous peoples. An internal survey showed that indigenous
peoples are actually major target groups of the Netherlands bilateral
development cooperation programmes in Latin America and, to a lesser
extent, in Asia. Indigenous and tribal communities in Latin America and
Asia are also target groups of programmes aimed at alleviating poverty, the
central objective of Netherlands development cooperation policy. The
majority of projects in India are targeted at the outcastes and tribal
peoples, the two groups representing the lowest social strata. The general
question of whether this approach adequately addresses the specific
cultural problems of India's tribal communities is a difficult one to
answer. Much depends on the sensitivity and knowledge of those implementing
the projects in the field. Development cooperation policy will endeavour to
foster these two qualities in the future.
A similar question may be raised with regard to poverty alleviation
projects in Latin America. To date, the problems of the indigenous
communities in that continent have largely been seen in a socio-economic
context, an approach which is legitimate enough in itself, though too
restricted. In recent years, however, the focus has widened to embrace
cultural identity and cultural rights, one example being the project which
is in preparation for a cultural and educational centre in La Paz for the
benefit of the indigenous population of the region (primarily the Aymara
and Quechua Indians). One of the main objectives of this centre will be to
enhance the cultural identity of the indigenous peoples concerned.
An internal survey proved the importance of the Small Embassy Projects
Programme as a means of responding to the specific needs and wishes of
indigenous peoples in a rapid, targeted way. Diplomatic missions in
countries where indigenous peoples' problems are on the agenda are made
aware of the scope for using this programme, to make better use of it for
the benefit of indigenous peoples.
The Development Cooperation Special Programme on the Environment and the
Cultural Programme also afford scope to enhance the position of indigenous
peoples within the framework of development cooperation. Some examples have
already been mentioned above .
The Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) has been debating this issue
for some time. It is hoped that this debate will give rise to a policy
memorandum to be issued this year, containing recommendations on the ways
in which the SNV, at local (project), national and international level, can
help to improve the position of indigenous peoples. The debate centres on
the question of the causes and consequences of discrimination against
indigenous peoples. A number of country programmes have formulated specific
objectives with regard to indigenous peoples. Within the Honduras
programme, for example, it has been decided to adopt an approach for two
out of the three target regions which will focus directly on indigenous
communities as target groups and partners, and in which the priorities for
action will be determined in direct consultation with grassroots indigenous
organisations.
Talks with the co-financing organisations (MFOs) have brought to light
their intention to involve representatives of indigenous peoples more
closely with development activities which concern them. If this is put into
practice, it could greatly help the MFOs to respond to the wishes and needs
of indigenous communities. The policies of all the MFOs emphasise the
importance of raising consciousness and improving organisation among
indigenous peoples. The MFOs are also concerned with the problem that the
areas occupied by indigenous peoples often do not fall within the borders
of any one state. In 1992, Columbus year, the MFOs appropriately focused on
improving the lot of the Indians of Central and South America.
One of the MFOs, CEBEMO, has been discussing policy on indigenous peoples
for some years now. They are a focus of policy because of their subjection
to a different, dominant, social, political and cultural structure, which
not only marginalises them in socioeconomic terms but threatens the
continued existence of their distinctive group identity. The aim of
CEBEMO's activities is to reduce socio-economic disadvantage and increase
the resilience of indigenous peoples.
1 These two reports were appended to the memorandum sent to Parliament in
the form of annexes.
2 Throughout this document page references refer to the original Dutch
texts of the NAR and ACM reports.
3 Agenda 21, Chapter 26, p. 16.
4 See also Vice Versa, December 1992.
5 See "Sudan: Eradicating the Nuba", Africa Watch of 9 September 1992, and
also Africa Watch of 10 December 1991: "Sudan: Destroying Ethnic Identity,
The Secret War Against the Nuba".
6 Sardar Sarovar: Report of the Independent Review, p.62. Ottawa 1992.
7 "Indigenous People and Ancestral Lands: Two Case Studies Compared". Pro
Mundi Vita: Dossiers. No. 2. 1987.
8 P. 40, World Directory of Minorities. Minority Rights Group. London:
Longman.
9 Jens Dahl: "Groenland. de politieke structuur van zelfbestuur".
Noord-Zuid Cahier, vol 17, no. 4, December 1992.
10 See Vice Cersa, December 1992.
11 Page 34, policy document Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en onderwijs in de
jaren negentig.
12 Agenda 21, Chapter 26, p. 26.
13 Charter of the Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forest,
point 44.
14 Policy document A World of Difference, page 205.
15 The World Bank Operational Manual. Operational Directive 4.30:
Involuntarv Resettlement. Washington, June 1990.