page 10-11

a matter of rights

indigenous expectations for cop-6

interview by simone lovera, foei

FoEI's Simone Lovera interviewed Marcial Arias and Huburtus Samangun of the International Alliance of Tribal-Indigenous Peoples of the Tropical Forests and Malia Talakai of the Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition in March 2002.

What are your expectations for COP-6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity?

Marcial Arias : The most controversial issue for us is access to genetic resources, and sharing of their benefits.

Pharmaceutical industries and biotechnology companies want access to these resources because they form the raw materials for medicines and other biotechnological products. Traditional knowledge can be very important in such research, and thus commercially valuable. This leads to a major risk of bio-piracy.

The basic position of Indigenous Peoples regarding these resources is clear. Their traditional knowledge and the genetic resources found on their lands belong to Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples should be able to decide themselves whether such resources are to be exploited and, if so, how the benefits of these resources should be shared with the Peoples that have conserved them for generations. However, most international agreements do not respect these Indigenous rights.

It should also be realized that Indigenous Peoples have collective rights regarding these resources. Most intellectual property right systems are based on individual property rights.

Indigenous Peoples were invited to participate in the intersessional working group that has prepared the guidelines for the COP-6 discussions on access to genetic resources. However, a number of groups decided to boycott the meeting because they found that the discussions under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) on access and benefit sharing did not reflect their fundamental demands.

The main outstanding question is how decision-makers define the term "equitable sharing". Does this imply that benefits will be shared half-and-half between the Peoples on whose territory these resources are found and the government? We want not only the government proposals discussed; we also want to bring forward our own alternative proposals. This implies that Indigenous Peoples have to develop their own concepts and definitions.

Formally, our participation rights in the working group on Article 8j of the CBD, which deals with traditional knowledge, have been much better. Indigenous Peoples have been co-chairing this official working group side-by-side with governments, and they participate fully in all aspects of the working group.

However, even here some of our primary concerns have not been taken seriously. A key one is the fast pace of the decision-making process; Indigenous Peoples' representatives felt that they needed much more time to consult grassroots groups on this matter. They feel it is important that no fundamental decisions are taken about, for example, mechanisms Indigenous Peoples can use to ensure their knowledge is not appropriated and abused by biotechnological companies.

Hubertus Samangun: Some Indigenous Peoples want to participate in the working group on access and benefit sharing but others simply do not want to enter into negotiations about what they consider to be their collective property. Our participation rights in the working group on Article 8j are a lot better. My group is in favour of the implementation of the results of this working group.

Malia Talakai: You cannot sell your knowledge. Commercialization of genetic resources and traditional knowledge implies that you are moving away from communal ownership and accepting individual property rights over these resources. The main challenge is how to benefit the entire community that holds these resources. Knowledge is a collective right, which is why you cannot privatize it. That is also why Indigenous Peoples are rigorously against the patenting of life.

Indigenous peoples have not been actively involved in negotiations on the International Convention on Plant Genetic Resources. They have not even been actively involved in the working group on access and benefit sharing. Many groups have concentrated on the discussion on Article 8j (traditional rights) alone, but the entire CBD is about Indigenous Peoples. There is hardly an article in the CBD that is not of relevance for Indigenous Peoples.

Marcial Arias: Prior to COP-6 there will be an Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Biodiversity. This forum has now been formally recognized in the reports of the above-mentioned working groups, but there is a problem: it has not yet been institutionalized. Some Indigenous Peoples groups prefer to keep it informal, but others want to institutionalize the forum and establish a secretariat and a formal mechanism through which the forum could be officially represented.

Does the report of the 8j working group on traditional knowledge reflect the opinion of the participating IPOs (Indigenous Peoples' Organizations)?

Marcial Arias : Basically, we have succeeded in obtaining a unique set of participation rights. We can participate on an equal basis with governments, and we even co-chair the meetings. However, the negotiation documents are prepared by the CBD Secretariat, and the Indigenous Peoples' Organizations were not always properly consulted when these documents were drafted.

A more fundamental problem concerns the implementation of the decisions of this working group. Indigenous Peoples have demanded a moratorium on the exploration of all traditional knowledge and genetic resources until the affected communities are properly consulted and made aware of the political complexities. The guidelines on access and benefit sharing now being proposed to the COP are not necessarily opposed by the majority of IPOs, but far more grassroots consultation is necessary. Until these groups realize that their rights are at stake, there should be a moratorium on bio-prospecting and the exploration of traditional knowledge.

What are your expectations regarding the forest debate? Do you believe a well-implemented CBD work program on forests will benefit Indigenous Peoples?

Hubertus Samangun: A well-implemented CBD work program that builds upon the current draft will certainly improve the situation of Indigenous Peoples. I am more skeptical about the implementation of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) decisions. The UNFF duplicates the work done in other areas and excludes Indigenous Peoples from the debate. You wonder how it is possible that the CBD has put in place all these participation rights for Indigenous Peoples, while another forum like the UNFF completely ignores them. The negotiation draft for the UNFF on protected areas, for example, does not even mention Indigenous Peoples' rights. Meanwhile, the cooperation between the two fora seems to be dominated by the UNFF at the moment. We believe the CBD should take the lead.

Marcial Arias : Until now we have been completely marginalized in the official debate regarding forests, when instead we should be recognized as the main stakeholder. Many forests are found on our territories; we have a right to participate in the decision-making process regarding these forests. There should be recognition of the right to prior informed consent by Indigenous Peoples regarding forest policies that affect their lands.

Large-scale plantation development is an even greater problem. Indigenous Peoples strongly oppose such plantations as they destroy our livelihoods. There are already a lot of conflicts between Indigenous communities and plantation development companies.

Do you believe protected areas benefit Indigenous Peoples?

Hubertus Samangun: We feel there should first be a thorough assessment of the results and social impacts of existing parks and communities before any new parks are designated. Protected areas should not exclude access by communities to these areas. You need a conservation system that includes communities, that allows the presence of people within areas.

Moreover, the real benefits of protected areas for people should be estimated first. Their territories have a value that cannot be expressed in or compensated by money alone. These areas have a cultural value, a religious value. We need a new system in which the protected areas located within Indigenous territories are fully managed by those Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples should also have a decisive say in the establishment of the area.

That is why many Indigenous Peoples do not support the WWF proposal to establish "Indigenous territories" as a new category of protected areas. This proposal was developed without proper consultation of Indigenous Peoples, and it is feared that the designation of areas as Indigenous territories will be done without proper consultation. In many cases, people are only given marginal information about these kinds of land planning decisions. In the end the government decides, and people are at most consulted about the area's management after the decision is taken to establish the area.