The Indigenous World 2022: UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“World Heritage Convention”) was adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference in 1972. With 194 States Parties, it is today one of the most widely ratified multilateral treaties. Its main purpose is the identification and collective protection of cultural and natural heritage sites of “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV). The Convention embodies the idea that some places are so special and important that their protection is not only the responsibility of the states in which they are located but also a duty of the international community as a whole.
The implementation of the Convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee (WHC), consisting of 21 States Parties. The WHC keeps a list of the sites it considers to be of OUV (“World Heritage List”) and monitors the conservation of these sites to ensure that they are adequately protected and safeguarded. Sites can only be listed following a formal nomination by the State Party in whose territory they are situated, and are classified as either “natural”, “cultural” or “mixed” World Heritage sites.
A large number of World Heritage sites overlap with Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Although most of these are classified as purely “natural sites”, without recognition of Indigenous cultural aspects, there are also some sites that are listed for their Indigenous cultural values or interlinkages between nature and Indigenous culture.
The WHC is supported by a secretariat (the UNESCO World Heritage Centre) and three advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) that provide technical evaluations of World Heritage nominations and help monitor the state of conservation of World Heritage sites. An Indigenous proposal to establish a “World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts” as an additional advisory body was rejected by the WHC in 2001.
This article is part of the 36th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of Indigenous Women standing up and taking the lead in the land rights struggle of their community in Jharkhand, India. This photo was taken by Signe Leth, and is the cover of the Indigenous World 2022 where the article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2022 in full here
Human rights abuses by eco-guards at World Heritage sites: WWF independent review
Despite the recent adoption by the WHC of policies and operational guidelines encouraging States Parties to follow a human rights-based approach in the implementation of the Convention and to respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the nomination, management and protection of World Heritage sites,[1] the management of many such sites continues to be marked by a lack of respect for Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to the land, a lack of protection of their traditional livelihoods and disregard for their cultural heritage. Human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples continue to occur unabated in many sites.
Ample evidence of this can be found in a November 2020 report[2] of an independent expert panel that was established by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to conduct an independent review into WWF’s role in connection with human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and local communities in and around protected areas in Africa and Asia. The alleged abuses included instances of murder, rape, torture, physical beatings, unlawful arrests and detention, invasion of homes, and destruction and theft of personal property, all allegedly committed by eco-guards and other law-enforcement agents acting under the authority of governments, and were described in a series of articles published in BuzzFeed News and the Kathmandu Post in early 2019.[3] Of the eight protected areas that are implicated, five are listed as World Heritage sites (Lobéké National Park, Cameroon; Salonga National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]; Dzanga-Sangha Protected Area, Central African Republic; Chitwan National Park, Nepal; Kaziranga National Park, India), and another two are tentatively listed for future World Heritage designation (Boumba Bek and Nki National Parks, Cameroon).
The independent panel report makes clear that the underlying cause of the human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples is the systemic denial of their customary rights to access and use their ancestral lands, territories and resources, as the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage (IIPFWH) has remarked, noting that “the World Heritage Convention is in many ways enabling, and sometimes even driving” the violations:
Regrettably, the decisions of the WHC, the Advisory Bodies and UNESCO have in many ways contributed to this denial, and may also have directly contributed to some of the violations described in the study, for instance by encouraging ‘voluntary relocations’ of Indigenous Peoples or by identifying traditional resource use as a threat. A contributing factor is also the fact that all of the implicated World Heritage sites are listed as purely ‘natural sites’, without an adequate recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to the land in the OUV, and in disregard of our holistic view of our heritage. We therefore call on the Committee to stop labelling World Heritage sites in Indigenous Peoples’ territories as purely ‘natural sites’, and to make changes to the wording of the natural criteria, so that the indissoluble bonds between Indigenous Peoples and their lands can be fully and consistently recognized in all sites.[4]
44th Session of the WHC, Fuzhou/Online meeting, July 2021
Originally scheduled for June/July 2020, the WHC’s 44th session in Fuzhou, China was moved to July 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was held as an online meeting. Chaired by Tian Xuejun, China’s Vice Minister of Education, the session was characterized by an extraordinary lack of regard for the views and concerns of Indigenous Peoples and civil society organizations and a lack of possibilities for them to meaningfully participate in the Committee’s deliberations. Throughout the meeting, representatives of Indigenous organizations and NGOs were given the floor only after the Committee had already adopted its decisions on the various agenda items, and were thus completely excluded from the decision-making process. Their speaking time was in most cases restricted to just one minute. Not even the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Francisco Cali Tzay, was allowed to speak on the nomination of the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand) before the Committee had adopted its decision. He therefore emphasized in his statement:
It is regrettable that your current working methods do not allow Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision-making processes which clearly affect their rights and the future of their lands and resources. To ensure credibility, your working methods need to be brought in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[5]
Also deplorable was the blatancy of politicized decision-making during the session. The World Heritage Convention has long been plagued by a decision-making culture within the Committee that allows the vested economic and political interests of individual States Parties to override the conservation purposes of the Convention, human rights principles, and the expert assessments and recommendations of the Committee’s technical advisory bodies. This decision-making culture “strongly undermines the credibility of the Convention and UNESCO, and the effectiveness of protection strategies”, as the IIPFWH has noted.[6] The inscription of sites on the World Heritage List and the declaration of sites as “World Heritage in Danger”, in particular, have become highly politicized affairs often marked by aggressive lobbying, political maneuvering and deal-making.[7] As a result of this politicization, the WHC has approved many World Heritage nominations in recent years despite the advisory bodies recommending a referral or deferral because of unresolved concerns over the protection and management frameworks for the respective sites.
Even so, the extent of politicized decision-making was extraordinary during the Fuzhou session. Led by a phalanx of mostly authoritarian states (including Russia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand), the WHC approved 37 of the 38 World Heritage nominations considered during the session,[8] even though the advisory bodies had recommended 16 nominations for referral or deferral. The WHC did not inscribe a single site on the List of World Heritage in Danger although, in the assessment of the advisory bodies, seven sites should have been declared as “In Danger” (including at least three sites of significance to Indigenous Peoples: Volcanoes of Kamchatka, Russia; Great Barrier Reef, Australia; and Kathmandu Valley, Nepal).[9] There are clear indications that several of these decisions by the WHC were the result of political horse-trading.[10]
Another site, the Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania), was kept on the World Heritage List by the Committee despite the fact that IUCN and the World Heritage Centre had concluded that a deletion from the List was unavoidable[11] because the site’s outstanding universal value (OUV) had been irreversibly damaged by the ongoing construction of a huge hydropower dam at the heart of the reserve, built by state-owned companies from China and Egypt. During the Committee’s debate, China and other Committee members portrayed the hydropower project as a good example of finding a balance between conservation and “sustainable development”. Only one Committee member, Norway, spoke out in favor of de-listing, noting that the decision was “a test of the credibility of the Committee”.[12] Environmental organizations are highly concerned about the precedence that the decision not to de-list Selous sets in terms of the acceptability of large-scale developments within the boundaries of World Heritage sites.[13]
Inscription of the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC), Thailand
A particularly disturbing example of politicized decision-making was the WHC’s inscription of the KKFC as a natural World Heritage site, in blatant disregard of serious and persistent human rights violations against the Karen Indigenous communities in the KKFC; considerable concerns among the Karen that World Heritage status may have negative consequences for their land rights and traditional livelihoods; and the failure of the Thai government to meaningfully involve the Karen in the nomination process and obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In inscribing the KKFC, the WHC ignored the recommendation of its advisory body IUCN,[14] as well as the strong pleas from Karen organizations, UN human rights mechanisms, and international NGOs[15] that the decision be deferred until the human rights concerns had been resolved and the Karen had provided their consent.
The decision to inscribe the KKFC was taken even though the WHC was fully aware, from official communications by UN human rights experts, that the “human rights violations [were] of a continuing nature, notably the failure to address the land rights concerns of the Karen in the KKFC as well as the impunity for the killings and enforced disappearance of human rights defenders and the forced evictions of members of the Karen community”; that “ongoing criminalisation and harassment of Karen community members and human rights defenders in 2021 undermine[d] the possibility to conduct good faith consultations”; that there was a “lack of concrete measures to address land tenure rights and to recognise the traditional rotational agricultural practices of the Karen”; and that “inclusive and effective participation of indigenous peoples, equitable governance arrangements, collaborative management systems and redress mechanisms ha[d] not been established.”[16] The UN experts expressed particular concern over Thailand’s “lack of consultation with affected indigenous Karen and the failure to seek their FPIC”. In a press release issued shortly before the Committee’s decision, they warned: “Should the nomination as heritage status be approved it would perpetuate the denial of the Karen’s right to remain on their traditional lands and carry out their traditional livelihood activities based on rotational farming.” [17]
In approving the nomination, the WHC disregarded not only its own policies and commitments regarding Indigenous Peoples, as contained in the Operational Guidelines and the World Heritage Sustainable Development Policy (WH-SDP), but, with Thailand newly-elected to the Committee, also its own prior decisions concerning the nomination, in which it had requested Thailand “address in full the concerns that have been raised… concerning Karen communities within the KKFC” (2015), “achieve a consensus of support for the nomination of the property that is fully consistent with the principle of FPIC” (2016) and “demonstrate that all concerns have been resolved, in full consultation with the local communities, in accordance with paragraph 123 of the Operational Guidelines [on the need to demonstrate the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples]” (2019).[18]
Although IUCN had made it abundantly clear that “the Committee’s requests have not been fulfilled yet”,[19] the decision by which the KKFC was inscribed declares that it was “made on the understanding that the State Party has addressed the issues raised in [the 2019 decision], thus fulfilled the requirements of the Operational Guidelines”.[20] Neither the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples nor Indigenous organizations were allowed to address the Committee and challenge this “understanding” before the decision was adopted, although several Committee members explicitly requested that the Special Rapporteur be given the floor so that the Committee could make an informed decision.[21]
Only one member, Norway, argued against inscription and dissociated itself from the WHC’s decision, noting that “for Norway it’s not possible to support nominations where there are unresolved human rights issues… As a committee, we have a responsibility to also ensure that paragraph 123 in the Operational Guidelines related to Indigenous Peoples and local communities is addressed”.[22] Emblematic for the alarming level of politicization within the WHC was the fact that even a country like Australia (which had ceremoniously pledged in 2018 that it would be an advocate for upholding the WHC’s technical integrity and credibility during its term on the Committee and who had insisted on the need to obtain the FPIC of the Karen during the 2019 session[23]) remained completely silent during the debate, presumably in exchange for a vote by Thailand against the “In Danger” listing of the Great Barrier Reef.[24]
The IIPFWH remarked in an intervention after the decision was adopted:
The decision represents one of the lowest points in the history of the Convention and indeed in the history of UNESCO. It tramples on the most fundamental principles and purposes of UNESCO, as well as those of the United Nations Charter… This decision is not the result of sound expert judgment based on the purposes of this Convention, good heritage practice and the principles of the [WH-SDP]. It is the result of highly politicized lobbying and horse-trading based on the economic interests of Committee members. [25]
Reaction to the WWF independent review into human rights abuses
Under the agenda item “State of conservation of World Heritage properties”, the WHC passed decisions on four of the five World Heritage sites implicated in the independent review into human rights abuses commissioned by WWF (Salonga, Lobéké, and Chitwan National Parks and Dzanga-Sangha Protected Area; the state of conservation of Kaziranga National Park was not considered at the session).[26] Drafted by IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, all of the relevant decisions refer to the independent review, express concern about the human rights violations and request the States Parties concerned to take action to address the issues in accordance with relevant international standards and the WH-SDP. However, significant discussions on the human rights violations did not take place at the Fuzhou session, the Committee simply adopted the provisions referring to the independent review as drafted by the secretariat and IUCN.[27]
Especially noteworthy is a general decision on the World Heritage sites of the DRC, which lays out a number of concrete measures the DRC should take to address the issues raised in the independent review. The decision expresses “significant concern” about the reported human rights abuses (not only in Salonga but also in Kahuzi-Biega National Park[28]) and requests the DRC to:
take urgent measures to further strengthen its efforts to address this issue, including by establishing and implementing a national code of conduct for eco-guards and a grievance mechanism for human rights abuses, and by training all protected area staff on human rights issues as part of regular law enforcement training, as well as ensuring that management processes follow a rights-based approach and ensure full involvement of all stakeholders, in particular local and indigenous communities, in line with relevant international norms...[29]
Although it is positive that the WHC, UNESCO and IUCN have expressed concern over the human rights abuses and are calling for rights-based site management, it must also be noted that the UNESCO/IUCN state of conservation report and the WHC’s decision on Salonga National Park once again reinforce the idea that the Yaelima Indigenous communities are a threat to the Park and should thus be relocated.[30] UNESCO and IUCN continue to list “Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting” among the threats to the site[31] and the WHC’s decision requests the DRC to “pursue and accelerate the current process aimed at best preparing the relocation” of communities living within the Park, cautioning only that relocations should follow the principle of FPIC.[32] The IIPFWH therefore urged the WHC and IUCN to “recognize that the right of access by Indigenous Peoples to traditional lands, territories and resources contributes effectively to nature conservation, the preservation of biodiversity, as well as the reduction of poverty in rural areas”, to “stop promoting the ‘voluntary’ relocation of Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands”, and to “stop identifying ‘Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting’ as a threat to the Park.”[33]
Other noteworthy decisions
As always, many of the WHC’s decisions under the “State of Conservation” item concerned sites inhabited by Indigenous Peoples. Several decisions also directly referred to Indigenous Peoples’ livelihoods, resource use, cultural heritage, or involvement in management and decision-making.[34]
Noteworthy is the decision on the Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russia). The site is home to several groups of Indigenous Peoples and part of it has been legally set aside for the protection of their traditional way of life. In 2020, Russia presented plans for a tourism resort and theme park that would be partly located in the World Heritage area. Russia subsequently informed UNESCO that it had modified the boundaries of a protected area within the site, the South Kamchatka Nature Park (SKNP), and thus removed the legal protection of part of the site in order to accommodate the tourism project. According to the Russian Indigenous network “Aborigen Forum”, the decision to change the boundaries of the SKNP was taken without seeking the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples, although it affects the territory set aside for the protection of their way of life and creates a threat to their native habitat.[35] IUCN and the World Heritage Centre assessed that “removal of the legal protection of part of the property constitutes a clear potential danger to the property in line with… the Operational Guidelines” and therefore recommended that the Volcanoes be inscribed on the List in Danger. However, although the WHC expressed serious concern about the boundary modification and the proposed tourism resort, it only requested Russia “not to permit any construction of such kind and scale… if such construction could have negative impact on the property’s OUV” and to invite a UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission to the property.[36]
Another noteworthy decision is that on the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Tanzania. As mentioned in The Indigenous World 2020, UNESCO, the WHC and the advisory bodies have for many years identified the livelihood activities and growing population of the NCA’s pastoralist residents as major threats to the OUV of the site and repeatedly encouraged Tanzania to promote the “voluntary relocation” of the Indigenous communities to areas outside of the NCA. Based upon their recommendations and requests, the Tanzanian government has imposed multiple restrictions on cattle grazing and a complete ban on agriculture (including home gardens) in the NCA. These prohibitions have led to serious food insecurity, hunger and starvation among the NCA’s residents and form part of the strategy to encourage their “voluntary relocation”.[37] Additionally, the Tanzanian government has recently undertaken a review of the NCA’s current Multiple Land Use Model (MLUM) and is considering the adoption of a new MLUM and accompanying resettlement plan that would radically rezone the NCA, significantly reduce the land available for pastoralism and remove over 70,000 of the NCA’s Indigenous residents.[38] In early 2022, there were reports that the government was preparing to begin evicting people forcibly by the end of February 2022, leading to panic among the NCA residents.[39]
At the Fuzhou session, the WHC passed a decision[40] highlighting the need for an “equitably governed consultative process… with participation of all rights holders and stakeholders” in order to identify long-term sustainable solutions to address the continued conflicts with the communities in the NCA and the challenges resulting from population growth. It also requested Tanzania to ensure that the General Management Plan for the NCA, which is currently being developed, “is finalized in consultation with, and with the FPIC as appropriate of local stakeholders and rightsholders”. Additionally, the WHC recommended that Tanzania invite a UNESCO advisory mission to the NCA to consider, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders and rights holders, whether the proposed MLUM, voluntary resettlement scheme and zoning of the property are adequate to address the issues. Notably, UNESCO and the advisory bodies proposed[41] that the IIPFWH be included in this mission, which would give the IIPFWH a role that it has advocated for but has thus far never played.
23rd session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention, Paris, November 2021
Given the WHC’s increasing politicization, it is noteworthy that the General Assembly of States Parties in November 2021 adopted a “Declaration of principles to promote international solidarity and cooperation to preserve World Heritage” as a “means to uphold the integrity and credibility of the Convention and the World Heritage List”.[42] Although the declaration is explicitly “not legally binding” (and notably does not contain any references to human rights), it expresses a commitment to impartial decision-making based on objective and scientific considerations, verifiable technical evidence, and respect for the Operational Guidelines. States Parties to the Convention shall “Refrain from influencing the Committee’s deliberations and decision making through lobbying before and during the WHC sessions” according to the declaration. The declaration also states that the WHC commits to “encourage interventions from observers including… indigenous peoples’ representatives… before decisions are made by the Committee”.
50th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention
In 2022, UNESCO will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Convention and has invited all concerned stakeholders to take stock of the achievements of the Convention and reflect on conservation challenges and strategies for the future through events and other activities. A dedicated website has been developed as a platform to connect across various activities.[43] A resolution adopted by the General Assembly in this regard recognizes “the importance of undertaking a reflection on how to strengthen the involvement and contribution of local communities and NGOs… to ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development in line with the [WH-SDP]”.[44]
Stefan Disko works as an independent consultant on issues related to Indigenous Peoples, heritage and human rights. He holds an M.A. in ethnology and international law from LMU Munich and an M.A. in World Heritage Studies from BTU Cottbus.
This article is part of the 36th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of Indigenous Women standing up and taking the lead in the land rights struggle of their community in Jharkhand, India. This photo was taken by Signe Leth, and is the cover of the Indigenous World 2022 where the article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2022 in full here
Notes and references
[1] Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, WHC.21/01 (2021), paras. 12, 14bis, 64, 117, 119, 123; Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention (2015), paras. 20-22, https://whc.unesco.org/document/139747.
[2] “Embedding Human Rights in Nature Conservation: From Intent to Action”, available at https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/wwf_independent_review_/.
[3] Katie J.M. Baker and Tom Warren, “WWF’s Secret War” (article series), Buzzfeed News, 2019-2020, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/collection/wwfsecretwar; Tsering D. Gurung, “Nepali park officials tortured a man to death. Then, the government and the World Wide Fund for Nature rewarded them”, Kathmandu Post, March 3, 2019,
https://kathmandupost.com/investigations/2019/03/03/nepals-park-officials-who-beat-and-tortured-a-man-were-rewarded-by-the-government-and-the-world-wide-fund-for-nature.
[4] Statement at the 44th session of the WHC, Agenda item 7 (State of conservation of World Heritage properties), July 17, 2021, //iipfwh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">https://iipfwh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
[5] Statement under agenda item 8B.7, July 26, 2021. A video recording is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW9Ip0YUOU&t=7920s.
[6] Statement at the 44th session of the WHC, agenda item 8B.7 (Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex), July 26, 2021. A video recording is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW9Ip0YUOU&t=8071s.
[7] See, e.g., World Heritage Watch, The Potsdam Papers: Results of the Potsdam Consultation on the Future of the World Heritage (2021), https://world-heritage-watch.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Potsdam-Papers-Results-of-the-Potsdam-Consultation.pdf.
[8] Not counting nominations that were withdrawn at the request of the relevant States Parties.
[9] See UNESCO, “Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List” (Addendum), WHC/21/44.COM/7B.Add, June 21, 2021.
[10] See Graham Readfearn, “‘Low point’ in world heritage committee history as politics ‘tramples’ human rights of the Karen people”, The Guardian, August 6, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/06/low-point-in-world-heritage-committee-history-as-politics-tramples-human-rights-of-the-karen-people; and Eduardo Robaina, “Andrés Perelló: ‘No hemos traicionado a los ecologistas australianos’”, Climática, August 4, 2021, https://www.climatica.lamarea.com/andres-perello-gran-barrera-de-coral/.
[11] UNESCO, “Item 7A of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger” (Addendum), WHC/21/44.COM/7A.Add, June 21, 2021.
[12] For a video recording of the debate see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EsqE-Qa_Fg&t=6677s.
[13] E.g., Rivers without Boundaries, “Natural Heritage Receives a Major Blow as the Selous Game Reserve is Discussed at Fuzhou Session of the World Heritage Convention Committee”, July 2021, https://www.transrivers.org/2021/3341/.
[14] IUCN, “IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2021, Addendum”, WHC/21/44.COM/INF.8B2.ADD.
[15] For details, see IWGIA, AIPP, IIPFWH et al., “Joint Statement on the persistent human rights abuses occurring in the context of the World Heritage nomination of the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand) – A Submission to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee”, June 30, 2021, https://aippnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Joint-Statement-on-the-World-Heritage-nomination-of-Kaeng-Krachan-Forest-Complex.pdf. Also see the letter from Karen community members to the WHC of May 24, 2021, “Thai authorities disregard for human rights by arresting and prosecuting members of the Karen community and excluded them from participating in the World Heritage site proposal”,
https://iwgia.org/images/documents/Letters/Letter_to_the_world_heritage_committee_24052021.pdf.
[16] See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org, Special Procedures joint communications of 20 April 2020 (AL OTH 23/2020) and 30 June 2021 (AL OTH 209/2021).
[17] OHCHR, “Thailand: UN experts warn against heritage status for Kaeng Krachan national park”, July 23, 2021.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27333&LangID=E.
[18] Decisions 39COM 8B.5 (2015), 40COM 8B.11 (2016) and 43COM 8B.5 (2019) of the WHC.
[19] IUCN, “IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2021, Addendum”, WHC/21/44.COM/INF.8B2.ADD.
[20] Decision 44 COM 8B.7, para. 5.
[21] For a video recording of the debate, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW9Ip0YUOU&t=3879s.
[22] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW9Ip0YUOU&t=6445s.
[23] See the Summary Record of the WHC’s 42nd session (Manama, 2018), WHC/18/42 COM/INF.18, p. 40.
[24] Graham Readfearn, “‘Low point’ in world heritage committee history”, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/06/low-point-in-world-heritage-committee-history-as-politics-tramples-human-rights-of-the-karen-people.
[25] A video recording of the intervention is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAW9Ip0YUOU&t=8071s.
[26] Decisions 44 COM 7A.44 (Salonga National Park), 44 COM 7B.174 (Sangha Trinational), and 44 COM 7B.188 (Chitwan National Park).
[27] Norway briefly noted the allegations of human rights violations during the discussion on Salonga National Park, emphasizing, along with Australia, the importance of protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the Park.
[28] See Doc. WHC/21/44.COM/7A, p. 126.
[29] Decision 44 COM 7A.46 (General decision on the World Heritage properties of the DRC).
[30] See Decision 44 COM 7A.44 in combination with Doc. WHC/21/44.COM/7A and the reports of the 2020 and 2007 UNESCO/IUCN monitoring missions, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/280/documents/.
[31] See UNESCO, “State of Conservation: Salonga National Park”, https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/?action=list&id_search_properties=280 and https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/4048.
[32] Decision 44 COM 7A.44 (Salonga National Park).
[33] Statement under agenda item 7A.44, July 19, 2021, https://iipfwh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-Declaration-of-the-Network-of-Indigenous-and-Local-Populations-for-the-Sustainable-Management-of-Forest-Ecosystems-in-Central-Africa-3.docx (statement on behalf of REPALEAC, a network of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from Central Africa).
[34] Inter alia the decisions on Kenya Lake System (Kenya); Great Himalayan National Park; Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India); Central Sikhote-Alin (Russia); Tasmanian Wilderness; Greater Blue Mountains (Australia); Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada); Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras); and Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System (transnational).
[35] IIPFWH Statement under agenda item 7B.109, July 24, 2021 (on file with IWGIA). The presenter at the WHC session was cut off after 75 seconds, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsyYCARCrXI&t=17555s.
[36] Decision 44 COM 7B.109.
[37] Navaya James Ndaskoi, “Report of the Fact Finding Mission Conducted in Ngorongoro Conservation Area” (Arusha: PINGOS Forum, April 3, 2021), http://pingosforum.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Ngorongoro-Fact-Finding-Mission-Report.pdf. Also see William Olenasha, “A World Heritage Site in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Whose World? Whose Heritage?” In World Heritage Sites and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, ed. Stefan Disko and Helen Tugendhat (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2014), 189-223, https://www.iwgia.org/images/documents/popular-publications/world-heritage-sites-final-eb.pdf.
[38] See Andy Currier and Anuradha Mittal, The Looming Threat of Eviction: The Continued Displacement of the Maasai Under the Guise of Conservation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Oakland: Oakland Institute, 2021), https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/looming-threat-eviction.
[39] See IWGIA, “Urgent Alert: Threats of forced eviction of the Maasai indigenous pastoralists of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) and and Ngorongoro District in Tanzania”, February 23, 2022, downloadable at https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/4607-maasai-ngorongoro-tanzania-forced-eviction.html; and
Oakland Institute, “Over 70,000 Maasai in Loliondo, Tanzania Face Renewed Eviction Threat to Make Way for Safari Tourism and Trophy Hunting”, January 27, 2021, https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/maasai-loliondo-tanzania-face-renewed-eviction-threat.
[40] Decision 44 COM 7B.171.
[41] See UNESCO, “Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda” (Addendum), WHC/21/44.COM/7B.Add, June 21, 2021, p. 152.
[42] Doc. WHC/21/23.GA/INF.10.
[43] See UNESCO, “Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda” (23rd General Assembly of States Parties), WHC/21/23.GA/9, pp. 1-2.
[44] Resolution 23 GA 9.
Tags: Global governance
