The Indigenous World 2002-2003 : Editorial

Written on 02 May 2003. Posted in The Indigenous World Editorial

The struggle for land and resource rights remained the major concern of indigenous peoples throughout 2002-2003.

A number of legal victories were recorded such as the adoption by the Nicaraguan parliament of Law No.445 on indigenous communal lands, and two landmark rulings on indigenous land rights - one by the SupremeCourt of India regarding the removal of settlers from tribal reserveson the Adaman Islands, the other by the High Court in Peninsular Malaysia in favour of the Orang Asli’s customary and property rights.

Unfortunately, however, 2002 also provided examples of the fact that new legislation, High Court decisions and international commitmentsare either not always followed up by implementation, or often suffer setbacks. In Nicaragua, the government did not fulfil the rulings of theInter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in favour of AwasTingni; in Kerala (India), the government failed to comply with the much acclaimed land agreement made in 2001 with indigenous organisations; and in Bolivia, the land titling process was in some cases stalled becauseof obstruction by farmers and livestock rearers.

On the whole, therefore, the land issue situation remained critical. The most vulnerable groups were, as usual, hunter-gatherers and forestdwellers. The Wanniyala-Aetto (Sri Lanka), the forest-dwelling Adivasis (India), the San, the Hadzabe and the Ogiek (Africa) were all faced during 2002 with either denied access to their ancestral lands or eviction from them in order to make way for commercial hunting, environmental conservation or logging interests. Another exposed group was the pastoralists,who suffered similar hardships in Ethiopia and Tanzania where land dispossession increasingly threatened their livelihood. Even the Saami reindeer pastoralists of northern Europe – often considered to be the most privileged indigenous peoples in the world - experienced aset-back. In several instances, land issues triggered off violence, gross human rights abuses and even massacres.

Social issues such as poverty, unemployment (often a corollary of land and resource deprivation) and high morbidity rates due to a lack of adequate health services were another major concern. These issues were seen as undermining the social fabric of indigenous communities, threatening their cultural as well as their physical survival. One stark example is that of the Evenk Autonomous Okrug (Russia) where the indigenous population has fallen by almost half over the last 7 years. Life expectancy is 20 years lower than among Russians ingeneral and, while tuberculosis is a main killer, many deaths are alcohol-related. This, unfortunately, is the case in many other indigenous societies but, as a rule, not something openly acknowledged as a problem. This also used to be the case in Alaska although the highrates of suicides, accidents and domestic violence were known to be alcohol and drug related. A new approach building on local solutions has changed this situation and communities are now for the first time openly addressing the problems linked to alcoholism and drug abuse.

An overarching and recurrent theme of many of the articles, however, is globalisation and its different aspects, which appears to be increasingly affecting indigenous peoples worldwide.

One foremost example, of course, was the global impact of George W. Bush’s “war against terrorism” and the conflict in Iraq. From Chile to India and the Pacific, governments eagerly used the pretext of antiterrorism to clamp down on indigenous individuals and organisations that were simply asserting their rights. The build-up to the Iraq conflict meant that attention was diverted from other events, making it possible for certain governments to intensify their repression of marginalized population groups, without attracting any significant international concern. A case in point was the situation in the Negev desert (Israel), where the Israeli government not only stepped up its anti-Bedouin policy of house demolitions but also introduced a new strategy: crop destruction by toxic spraying. Other examples were the Indonesian government’s military intervention in Aceh, and the increased military presence in Chiapas (Mexico).

Indigenous peoples also felt the increased impact of economic globalisation processes. Not only through the activities of multinational corporations but equally through the proliferation of free trade agreements and regional development plans, like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Plan Puebla Panama, and the forthcoming Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA) that were seen as new threats to indigenous territories and resources. In other parts of the world, like Cameroon, Cambodia and Namibia, indigenous peoples feared the impact of cross-border developments (e.g.pipe-lines and hydroelectric dams) that would affect their livelihood.

Globalization, however, is multifaceted, and although it has become a negatively laden concept for many indigenous peoples, it can also be beneficial to them. 2002-2003 saw many examples of this.

The Permanent Forum held its first session that confirmed its potentially important role. It also became institutionalised with the establishment of its permanent Secretariat in New York. The UN Special Rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, delivered two much praised reports from his missions to Guatemala and the Philippines to the Commission on Human Rights. With these two new “global” institutions,the concern and the responsibility of the United Nations system towards indigenous peoples have been considerably furthered.

At regional level, the process underway in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights towards the recognition of indigenous peoples in Africa, and the active role played by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR) in most Latin American countries,should also be seen as the result of international efforts to ensure aglobal view of indigenous issues. The Arctic Council is another regional effort with a strong indigenous participation and focus. In the Pacific, the Pacific Islands Forum has emerged as a united voice of the Pacific Islands, and 2002 witnessed the consolidation of the Pacific peoples into a stronger, more cohesive community, able to face challenges together. This included a framework legislation to protect Pacific intellectual property rights, and a joint strategy in dealing with the EU.

Finally, this volume also documents how globalization has made it possible for indigenous peoples to make themselves known world-wide by organizing international meetings, exchange visits and academic conferences; and by sharing their various cultural expressions whether films, books, music, or handicrafts.

However, to fully benefit from what the Paraguay report calls “this context of a new universal legal awareness that recognises [indigenous peoples’] participation in forming a new model of social, legal and political relations in their own right, on an equal footing with the societies with whom they live alongside, within the borders of nation states”, indigenous peoples’ organisations need to be strong so they can play a major and decisive role. It is therefore positive to note that 2002 saw several initiatives in South America to further the unity between indigenous organisations. It is to be hoped that this trend will continue in 2003-2004.

Diana Vinding

Coordinating editor

This article is part of the 17^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2002-2003 in full here

Tags: Human rights, IWGIA Report