EAIP NEWSLETTER
INFORMATION BULLETIN ON EUROPEAN POLICIES TOWARDS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
ISSUE 1 - OCTOBER 1996
Introduction
With this issue, the European Alliance with Indigenous Peoples is resuming
the publication of its monthly Newsletter. The issue in hand aims at
giving a review of what has occurred since January, allowing the reader to
catch up with recent developments. Copies of the documents referred to in
the articles can be obtained from the Alliance's secretariat.
Indigenous Peoples and Fur
In order to overcome a possible trade conflict with Canada and the US,
the European Commission avoided the implementation of the 'Fur Trade'
Regulation by initiating quadrilateral negotiations with Canada, the USA
and Russia with the aim of establishing international standards on humane
trapping methods. The Fur Trade Regulation, which provided for a ban on
importing fur from countries where the leghold trap is still in use and/or
where trapping does not match humane trapping standards, should have come
into force from January 1st, 1996 onwards. Though negotiations have
already started the needed amendments to the Regulation (in order to
postpone implementation) have not been adopted by the Council of Ministers
yet.
The Commission's proposed amendments have been discussed by the European
Parliament. In its Resolution, drafted by the liberal Carlos Pimenta (P)
the Parliament called for the immediate implementation of the original
Regulation. The Parliament further modified the amendments of the
Commission which directly relate to the indigenous peoples of the Arctic.
It calls for:
~ representatives of the indigenous peoples to be allowed to participate
in these negotiations;
~ a deletion of the special exemption of any import restriction to fur
trapped by indigenous peoples;
~ an evaluation of the possible effects of the Regulation on indigenous
peoples to be presented three years after the entering into force of the
Regulation. This last amendment is a weak variation of an original
proposal introduced by Maartje Van Putten (NL) and Richard Howitt (UK),
both from the Socialist group, asking the Commission to issue a study on
the possible impact of the Regulation on indigenous peoples, prior to its
implementation. In the meantime the quadrilateral negotiations have
progressed strongly, and it is said that they could be concluded at the
next meeting on October 9th.
~EP: Resolution on leghold traps
Brazil: Decree 1775
In January this year the Brazilian President, Mr. Cardoso signed decree
1775/96, which permits contestation of all so far demarcated indigenous
territories within 90 days after the decree's proclamation and will also
be applied for those territories still to be gazetted. According to
Minister of Justice Nelson Jobim, it was necessary to modify the
'unconstitutional' decree 22/91 that regulates the demarcation of
indigenous lands. He promised the contestations would not result in a
reduction of indigenous land.
The declaration of decree 1775 evoked protest among the Brazilian
indigenous peoples as well as in Europe, as the European Commission and
other countries partially finance the demarcation of indigenous
territories under the Brazilian Pilot Programme. In February the European
Parliament adopted a Resolution on the situation of the indigenous peoples
of Brazil, condemning the decree. In May an Indigenous delegation from
CAPOIB (Council of Indigenous Peoples and Organisations of Brazil) came to
Brussels. The EAIP organised meetings for them with members of the
European Parliament and the European Commission.
By April the National Indian Foundation FUNAI, which is responsible for
demarcating indigenous territories received 1749 claims in 55 areas
(equalling 35% of the demarcated areas subject to a challenge), mainly
from cattle ranchers and mining and logging companies. As FUNAI summed up
all challenges per territory, it presented 34 contestations to the
Minister of Justice, who on the 10th of July declared 26 of them as not
valid and requested further information on the remaining 8 territories.
While at the first glance the decree seems to have had little negative
impact, it has encouraged those contesting to occupy indigenous peoples
territories.
The decree 1775/96 was also one of the main issues of the meeting on the
Brazilian Pilot Programme from 10-12 September in Bonn. Germany, the
largest donor, stressed its interest in the completion of the demarcation
of indigenous lands. The Commission emphasised its "trust in the
Brazilians' will and capacity to implement the programme." Representatives
from COIAB, an Brazilian NGO also presented a document.
~EP: Resolution on the situation of the indigenous peoples of Brazil
~Third Evalution Meeting of the Pilot Programme to Conserve the
Brazilian Rain Forest by COIAB
French Guyana: National Forest Park
Following the UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the former French
President Franois Mitterand proposed to set up a National Forest Park in
French Guyana. After several preparatory missions, researchers from WWF,
IUCN and ORSTOM (a French scientific institute specialising in studies in
'former' colonies) proposed to establish the national park in the central
and northern parts of the country, because of its unique biological
diversity and because this region is almost uninhabited by indigenous
peoples dependant on the exploitation of forest resources. However, the
'Comit de Pilotage de la Mission pour la Cration du Parc de la Fort
Tropical Guyannaise', consisting of government representatives, local
councillors and scientists, proposed to locate the park in the south,
against the wishes of the indigenous peoples of French Guyana.
The one nominated indigenous peoples' representative in this committee
was prevented from participating in the meeting on account of the local
councillors, who argued he had not been democratically elected like them.
The major reason to promote a park in the southern part of Guyana is most
likely the interest of the leading political and economical groups to
exploit the promising mineral resources in the central part of the
country. Moreover, the park aims at stimulating the development of
ethno-tourism with the indigenous peoples as one of the attractions. The
Amerindian peoples living in the south, the Emerillion, Wayapi and Wayana
have rejected the tourism proposals.
To prevent these proposals from being realised, the indigenous peoples
of French Guyana started to campaign against the project. They demand:
~ to be represented in the 'Comit de pilotage'
~ to be able to participate in and to be consulted on all decisions
concerning their territories
~ the establishment of the national park in the northern and central
parts of the country. Despite the strong opposition from the Amerindian
peoples, DG XVI, the Directorate General for Regional Policies and
Cohesion, has made provisions for co-financing the project with ECU 1,5
million from the European Regional Development Fund.
During the Parliamentry session in Strasbourg in June, the French NGO
ICRA (International Commission for the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples) held
a press conference, seeking MEPs support.
NGO protests have obviously reached the Commission. In a letter to the
World Rainforest Movement dated July 31, an official from DG XVI assured
that the Commission will not finance the project before the discussion on
the location of the park has been concluded. He also said that the
Commission has informed the French authorities about the concerns of
different organisations to involve the indigenous peoples concerned of the
decision-making process. The same reply was also given to a written
question by Wolfgang Kreissl-Drfler (D) from the Green group.
~Answer from the Commission to a written question by Wolfgang
Kreissl-Drfler (Green group)
Hidrovia Paraguay Parana Project
The world-wide commotion on the Hidrovia project has finally also made
some impact on the European Commission, where more and more staff are
openly questioning the need for the Commission to be involved in this.
The Hidrovia Paraguay Parana Project is one of the main results of the
Mercosur co-operation. The governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Uruguay and Bolivia proposed the HPP project to establish a year-round
navigation for ocean going vessels on 3442 km between Nueva Palmira in
Uruguay and C rceres in Brazil. The waterway shall be used to transport
soya (to be fed to European animals), mining and logging products
downstream and agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers
upstream, most likely benefiting mainly the big enterprises, industries
and agricultural producers.
The implementation of the project will require extensive construction
works such as dredging, rechanneling and the removal of rock formations,
measures which will result in serious changes of the water regime. Experts
predict that the Pantanal, one of the largest wetlands in the world, will
loose 17 billion m3 of water during the first year of operation.
Predictions on long-term consequences include climate changes in the
Pantanal region, contributing not only to the loss of many animal and
plant species but also affecting the way of life of indigenous peoples.
Currently, the IDB (Interamerican Development Bank) and UNDP (United
Nations Development Programme) are undertaking a study on the
sustainability of the project, including an environmental impact
assessment (EIA). Though this study will not be finalised before the end
of 1996, preliminary results demonstrated that the waterway is economical
unviability, when social and environmental costs are taken into account.
Yet the governments continue to implement the HPP project. While
information on the ostensible economic benefits are well spread,
independent experts and NGOs are denied access to complete data on the
project. Rios Vivos, an association of more than 300 environmental, social
and indigenous organisations, which was established to campaign against
the project, has not been able to obtain the requested information
material for an analysis.
In July Rios Vivos, Sobrevivencia and Friends of the Earth Paraguay
organised a 'floating seminar', travelling the Paraguay river by boat. The
main objectives of the seminar were to inform people living along the
river about the HPP project and its possible impacts as well as to discuss
the people's present situation and their problems. Many people were found
to lack information.
Botswana: Bushmen
In March the EU/ACP Joint Assembly in Windhoek adopted a Resolution on
the San (Bushmen of Southern Africa), requesting the Commission to
undertake a study on the Bushmen, therewith responding to the requests of
Bushmen representatives from Botswana which came to Brussels at the end of
1995. One of the main issues was the situation of the Khwe, a Bushmen
group living in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) in Botswana.
In 1961 the CKGR was set up to guarantee reserve residents hunting and
gathering rights for subsistence purposes. However, over the years most
of the Bushmen settled down and started to cultivate small fields, keep
small stock or work on one of the big farms. Hunting and gathering
activities have become rare.
During a public meeting held in February this year the Botswana
government informed the Khwe that their relocation outside the reserve had
been scheduled for May. The meeting surely was meant to put an end to the
fruitless efforts of 'persuading' the Bushmen to leave the CKGR. From the
government's point of view the resettlement of park residents outside the
reserve would have only advantages: the relocated Khwe, now ranching
cattle, could be deprived of their hunting permits, what might result in
the recovery of decreased wildlife. Additionally, the promotion of
wildlife tourism is usually much easier in an uninhabited reserve; no
conflicts will occur between the promotion of animals and the interests of
people.
In reply to a written question by Maartje van Putten (NL) from the
Socialist group, the Commission said they are currently funding a project
in Botswana. The project's objectives are to support the management of
protected areas and to increase the sustainable use of natural resources
by local communities. At the present time the preparation of a management
plan for the CKGR is financed. From the MECU 6.4 allocated, the EU has
also earmarked some funds to be used for local communities involved in
tourism activities and resource utilisation. The Commission also showed
interest in undertaking the study requested by the EP in its Resolution on
the San the participation of the peoples concerned.
With assistance from the First People of the Kalahari (FPK), the Khwe
started to raise awareness about their situation, asking the European
Parliament, the Commission and the UN Commission on Racism and
Discrimination for support. When several ambassadors as well as the
delegation of the European Commission visited the CKGR in May, the
Botswana government had to give in. It assured that those Bushmen who wish
to stay in the reserve will not be relocated, though it can be doubted,
whether the authorities' promise to provide the social services is
reliable. According to the Bushmen, the school and the health centre were
closed down some time ago and the maintenance of the borehole was also
stopped.
~ACP-EU Joint Assembly: Resolution on the San
~Answer from the Commission to a written question by Maartje van Putten
(Socialist group)
East Timor: Human Rights Situation
In June the European Parliament and the Council adopted each a
resolution on the Human Rights situation in East Timor. The Parliament
Resolution condemns the Indonesian government for illegal occupation of
East Timor and demands the release of all political prisoners, including
Xanana Gusmoa. The Parliament further calls on the Member States to stop
military assistance and arms sales to Indonesia, as the country has been
reported to employ British arms for internal repression.
In the Common Position on East Timor, approved by the Council, the EU
committed itself to contributing to the achievement of a fair and
internationally acceptable solution to the conflict in East Timor with
regard to the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Timorese people,
and in accordance with international law. The EU further promises to
improve the human rights situation by calling upon the Indonesian
government to fully implement the relevant decisions adopted by the UN
Commission on Human Rights and by supporting "all appropriate action with
the objective of generally strengthening respect for human rights in East
Timor and substantially improving the situation of its people, by means of
the resources available to the European Union and aid for actions by
NGOs." Ireland, President of the Council since July, promised to make the
human rights situation in East Timor a priority during its presidency by
raising the issue during meetings with Indonesian ministers and diplomats.
The Irish government further promised to support the UN sponsored 'Inter-
Timorese-Dialogue', a series of talks aimed at resolving the conflict.
During a meeting between the Irish Minister of State at the Department of
Foreign Affairs, Ms J. Burton and the East Timorese Foreign Minister
in-exile, Jos Ramos Horta, the latter asked those EU member states trading
with Indonesia to support a just solution to the human rights conflicts in
his country and to put pressure on the UN to relocate the human rights
monitoring office from Jakarta to East Timor.
In June four British women, members of 'Seeds of Hope - East Timor
Ploughshares', went on trial for disarming a Hawk ground-attack aircraft
in a British Aerospace factory . rhe women argued in court that the
fighter, part of a second, recent aircraft command from Indonesia, would
have been used against Timorese people. After expert evidence from John
Pilger (producer of a TV documentation on East Timor), Paul Rogers (Prof.
of Peace Studies at Bradford University), and Jos Ramos Horta, the jury
judged not guilty.
~Council Common Position on East Timor;
~EP: Resolution on the situation in East Timor and the violation of
human rights in Indonesia
Working Group on Indigenous Populations
UN work on promoting indigenous peoples' rights has continued over the
last months, though the outcome has been minimal. In July the 14th session
of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations took place in Geneva.
This group of independent experts discussed recent development in the
field of indigenous peoples' rights. Little progress has been made in the
discussion on a definition of the term 'indigenous peoples'; on the study
on the legal implication of treaties made between indigenous peoples and
nation states; and on the establishment of a permanent forum for
indigenous peoples within the UN.
A lot of interventions from indigenous peoples' representatives also
highlighted the evolution in the discussion within the UN Human Rights
Commission on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Many
delegates complained about the slowness of the work and the low profile of
many EU-countries. Especially the rather negative approach of France and
Germany was deplored, while EU countries like Sweden, Finland and Denmark
were evaluated as supporters of the rights of indigenous peoples. In the
margin of the meeting a presentation was made by the International Labour
Organisation on the progress of ratification of ILO Convention 169
concerning indigenous and tribal peoples. Until now Denmark is the only
EU- country that has ratified the Convention, while Finland, the
Netherlands and Austria where mentioned as being in the process of
ratification. At the same time Belgium and Portugal remain signatory to
the original tribal peoples' Convention 107. After the presentation, ILO
staff announced further promotion of ratification of Convention 169
towards EU-countries.
In the same way also the European Alliance with Indigenous Peoples gave
a presentation about their recent Commission-funded study on the
Participation of Indigenous Peoples in the EU Development Policies. During
the presentation it became clear that many indigenous organisations expect
a lot from the European institutions. Therefore the Parliament's decision
to ask the Commission to earmark 500.000 ECU for projects regarding
indigenous peoples in the budget line on Human Rights in Developing
Countries was warmly welcomed. However, until now very little funding has
been spent on indigenous peoples' projects. Though, one important project
funded through this budget line is the successful consultation of
indigenous peoples and governments of the Pacific on the Draft Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
~Indigenous Peoples Participation in European Union Development Policies
Encounter of Indigenous Peoples from the Americas
From 3 to 10 August 1996 more than 100 Indigenous leaders met in
Copenhagen for the 'Encounter of Indigenous peoples from the Americas'.
The conference objectives were to exchange experiences about the current
problems in indigenous communities as well as to discuss possible
solutions. Main topics were 'autonomy and self-determination',
'territorial rights', 'sustainable development' and 'international
co-operation'. Further discussed were biodiversity, intellectual property
rights, women, communication, religion, education & culture, health &
indigenous medicine and international conventions. The encounter ended
with the approval of a declaration. The indigenous peoples'
representatives agreed that an 'Indigenous peoples' vision on sustainable
development' should consist of the following four objectives: economic
development, social equity and indigenous participation in the whole
development process, preservation of cultural values, and conservation of
the environment.
With respect to the gender issue, indigenous women concluded that
feminists from industrialised countries tend to transfer their western
concept of 'machismo' to indigenous societies. The women claimed to have
different values, not feeling suppressed by the men of their communities.
The representative of the European Commission, Julio Ruiz Murrieta,
presented a document 'Towards a European Policy on Indigenous Peoples'. He
gave an overview about the projects financed during the last years with
respect to Indigenous peoples and explained further that a European Policy
on Indigenous Peoples does not yet exist. Up to now actions to promote
Indigenous peoples were usually taken on the initiative of individuals
within the Commission. However, a future policy could be based on these
actions. Mr. Ruiz Murrieta concluded his presentation with a number of
guidelines that should be included in a future policy, inter alia the
promotion of the draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples of
the UN, self-determination, access to land and natural resources within
their territories, and demarcation. With respect to international
co-operation, the encounter called on the EU and its member states to
develop mechanisms of direct co-operation with the indigenous peoples'
organisations instead of using the go-between of non-indigenous NGOs.
Direct co-operation is wished for forest conservation, biodiversity and
the development of indigenous territories as model units of sustainable
forest management.
~Declaration of the Encounter
~Towards a European Policy on Indigenous Peoples
The European Alliance with Indigenous peoples is an umbrella
organisation of indigenous peoples' support groups. It advocates the
recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights towards the
institutions of the European Union and lobbies for the integration of
indigenous peoples issues and concerns in EU policies and practices.
The EAIP Newsletter is a monthly magazine written by Annett Grne and
Wendel Trio and published with financial support from the European
Commission's Human Rights Unit (DG IA). Excerpts of this newsletter may be
used with appropriate citation. The Alliance welcomes contributions on the
issues dealt with in this newsletter.
For further information as well as contributions to this Newsletter
please contact: EAIP, Keltenlaan 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium, Tel.: (+32-2)
733.36.53, Fax: (+32-2) 736.80.54, e-mail: eaip@gn.apc.org