Thursday, May 29, 2008

Indigenous Voices Bulletin 7

Host Government Delegates Support IPs Struggle to Save Biodiversity

Contribute by Ibrahim NJOBDI

The Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development and the Federal Minister of Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Government of Germany express the will to assist Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (ILC) struggle to protect Biodiversity. The Ministers support the ILC struggles in two separate meetings with the representatives of ILC at Maritim Hotel, Bonn yesterday.

The Ministers promised to lobby the government and other stakeholders and consider the problems in policy making. Development Cooperation Terms with the governments of Developing Countries will be re-emphasis, according to the Ministers.

ILC representatives briefed the Ministers on the ground alarming loss of biodiversity and the emanating problems. The Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development promises to consider supporting ILC’s seminars and workshops to restitute CBD process and implementation.

She says, “We can’t deny governments to allow extractive industries but their role is to make sure a transparent process.”

The Minister supports Britain’s position to include the issue of ‘Climate Change’ as agenda in the United Nations’ Security Council. She further stresses that agro-fuels has no place at this time of food crisis. She adds that the production of food is to feed millions of hungry people in the world and not for machines and engines.

The Minister of Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety pointed out that the Convention on Biological Diversity is the only international binding instrument where ILC exercise their rights and urges the ILC to utilize this opportunity to maximum, in his response to the call of the ILC to insure the inclusion of ILC in environmental projects or make a precondition for bilateral aid to governments.

He, however, regretted those sixteen years after its signing, the Convention’s full implementation is still a dream. The Minister opined that biodiversity will be protected if the overuse of nature is made more expensive than saving it and every individual have a moral responsibility to the conservation of biodiversity.

The Informal Contact Group on Article 8(j) has Finally Concluded

Contribute by Gam Shimray

The IIFB since its preparatory days in COP9 was skeptical of the negotiations that were to follow at the CBD. This has to do with the experience and outcome of the last Working Group on Art. 8(j). Both the Parties and the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) had complained of the unproductive meeting of the above but had different reasons to their justifications. IPs reasoned that it is because of ‘lack of political will’ and the politics of negotiation at the ABS on the International Regime spilled into the AHWG on 8(j), but of course, Parties have totally a different explanation to this. This was worrisome to the IIFB for it meant that the negotiations would not take place without prejudice.

Given this background, the IIFB and the Thematic Working Group on Art. 8(j) had three primary objectives at the COP9 negotiations. First, it was to secure the future work of 8(j) so that the AHWG continues and is not abundant. Secondly, it was to secure the important tasks of 8(j) for the next AHWG with a clear objective. Thirdly, it was to revitalize and bring back the foundational role that 8(j) plays in the participation of IPs at CBD and its crucial role in other thematic areas, especially on TK related negotiation within the International Regime.

As the negotiation began, it was not surprising that the IIFB’s 8(j) group were up against closed minds. But the IIFB were not ready to just cave-in without a fight. There was a long recess after the second Informal Group. However, it was not a break for any of the IIFB members. Lobby and reasoning with the Governments on one to one basis were pursued for days before the third Informal Group was reconvened. Positions remained stiff and were offered worthless words of compromises. However, the Latin American Governments came to the rescue. They stood by the IIFB and supported the voices of the IPs firmly. It was in this context that Governments began to bend and agreed to negotiate on compromised text and positions in a meaningful manner. What followed was convening of Friends of the Chair and bilateral negotiations. When flexibility became the basis of the negotiations, the Co-chairs were able to find the difficult path to ‘consensuses. The Informal Group was able to conclude in its fourth meeting with a document that was acceptable to the IPs as well.

The above objectives outlined by the IIFB finally seem to be secured to some extend. Further, the threat that convening of the future AHWG 8(j) meeting would be taken out of the core budget of the CBD has been dealt with, and now it remains as it was. With its funding secured and many tasks of priority being identified, it is implicit that both the IPs and Governments have plenty of serious homework to do for the realization of the decisions that would be adopted sometime tomorrow at the plenary.