July 2, 2012: Panel 2F - Indigenous Rights and Environmental Protection

Indigenous Rights and Environmental Protection Video

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:30:00 PDT

Protecting the Environment through Protection of the Rights of the Indigenous

Nawneet Vibhaw — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:30:00 PDT

The Constitution of India provides for special protection of the areas where Scheduled Tribes exist. India being a signatory to the International Labour Organization Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, has enacted domestic legislations like The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. These legislations provide that the Gram Sabha (village-council) would be a primary centre for tribal governance with ownership of minor forest produce and power to prevent the alienation of land. They recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. In essence, the statutes establish a mechanism for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

Unfortunately, in spite of enacting such legislations multinational companies have been permitted to carry out reckless mining in areas like the Niyamgiri hills which is home to thousands of indigenous people whose lifestyle and religious practices have helped nurture the area's dense forests and unusually rich wildlife. In spite of the mass protests by tribal communities in the many mineral-rich states of India no heed has been paid and its business as usual for the mining companies plundering the natural wealth, destroying the ecology in such pristine areas and conveniently separating the tribal communities from the very forests which have been their home and on which they have been dependent for centuries.

The Union Cabinet, as a solution to such problems and to provide the indigenous people their 'due', has proposed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2011. The Bill provides for profit sharing with the people affected by mining activities. However, whether such profit-sharing at the cost of ecology and tribal habitat is an apt solution and whether the domestic legislations on FPIC actually serve the purpose is what the paper proposes to explore in light of the above-mentioned international regulatory framework on FPIC. The proposed paper would be an attempt to retell a story of flawed priorities and of lessons yet to be learnt and that too the hard way.

The Duty to Consult on Natural Resources: Giving Substance to Procedural Rights

Jacqueline Hand — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:30:00 PDT

Awareness of climate change and its numerous, serious impacts has recently intensified across all segments of society. Both the impacts and the awareness are particularly acute among native peoples throughout North America due to their closeness to the earth. These impacts range from flooding of traditional villages, drought that endangers both subsistence crops and cultural practices that depend on the natural environment, and migration of wild life outside reservation boundaries. As a result tribes are working both individually and collectively to respond to the reality of global warming. First, tribes are working to lessen their already relatively modest carbon footprint, with efforts ranging from equipping tribal housing with solar power to investing in wind energy (Native Winds, Inc.) and growing trees for carbon sequestration, hoping to generate marketable carbon credits (Nez Perce Tribe). Second, tribes are working to develop ways of adapting to the reality of global warming, both for themselves and for the wildlife which are endangered by climate change. These efforts focus on legal as well as non-legal mechanisms, from passage of tribal ordinances to law suits against large green house gas generators, to cooperative agreements with the state and federal wildlife agencies and NGOs.

Indigenous Knowledge and Environmental Management: An Australian Case Study

Natalie Stoianoff — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:30:00 PDT

Australia is the most megadiverse developed nation in the world supporting 10% of the world’s biodiversity.[1] While this biodiversity plays a significant role in climate change mitigation[2], there has been much pressure placed on biodiversity in Australia due to the agricultural sector’s land clearing practices[3], poor land management leading to destructive fires, and poor water management. When one realises that the majority of land in Australia is managed by farmers, graziers, Indigenous communities, and other private land managers,[4] the importance of engaging landholders in natural resource management becomes apparent. Various programs have been established to abate land clearing practices and encourage the adoption of environmental management plans thereby conserving biodiversity.

One such program is the Environmental Stewardship Program ‘that focuses on the long-term protection, rehabilitation and improvement of targeted environmental assets on private land or impacted by activities conducted on private land, including freehold and leasehold’.[5] The Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry jointly administer this program.[6]

What has become apparent through this Program is the importance of engagement with Indigenous peoples and their ecological knowledge and practices. Specific examples will demonstrate how such knowledge has been utilised in land management and improvement. One such example lies in the cattle grazing practices of the Jarlmadangah Burru people in the Kimberley region of Northwestern Australia. This paper considers the outcomes of the Caring for Our Country Review Indigenous Forum held in May 2011 and the need to address the issues of protecting and accessing Indigenous ecological knowledge for the ongoing environmental management of Australian land and waterways and associated biodiversity.

[1] Conservation of Australia’s Biodiversity, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, at accessed 17/5/10

[2] G.J Nabuurs, O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: Forestry. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1370.0 - Measuring Australia's Progress, 2002, Land use: Looking more closely, updated 20 January 2006, at accessed 17/5/10

[4] 77% according to the Australian Government, Environmental Stewardship Program at < http://www.marketbasedinstruments.gov.au/DesigningMBIs/Othertypesofincentives/Stewardshipandecosystemservices/EnvironmentalStewardshipProgram/tabid/243/Default.aspx> accessed 15/2/2012

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.