UN PFII, 11th Session, May 2012

Report
DATE: FROM: TO: RE: 15 September 2012. Te Rarawa Mori Caucus Members, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2012. Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, Te Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata. REPORT ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES, 05-18 MAY 2012, UN HEAD QUARTERS, NEW YORK.
A: BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1. This reports on this years 11th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (the Permanent Forum) convened 7-18 May 2012, and seeks endorsement of recommendations to provide ongoing support for future Permanent Forum-related activities. Note the timing of this report which is in part due to the release of the final Permanent Forum report to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in July. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2. We wish to warmly acknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their support for our participation at the Forum: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa; Ngti Kuri Trust Board; Te Rnanga-A-Iwi o Ngti Kahu; Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated; Permanent Forum Pacific Representative, Valmaine Toki; Aotearoa Matike Mai The Independent Constitutional Working Group; Peace Movement Aotearoa; Aotearoa is not for Sale organising committee; and Te Puni Kkiri.
PERMANENT FORUM MANDATE 3. Established in 2000, the Permanent Forum is mandated by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) and reports to ECOSOC. It provides both a platform for the global Indigenous community to voice their concerns, as well as specialist Indigenous experts to hear these concerns. It meets annually at the UN in New York for two weeks. The Permanent Forum is supported by a Secretariat which stays active throughout the year
assisting the Permanent Forum members to undertake their work, to disseminate information, coordinate events and otherwise advance indigenous matters.1 Permanent Forum Membership Pacific Representation 4. The Permanent Forum comprises 16 global independent experts: eight are State-elected and eight are Indigenous-nominated. In 2011, Valmaine Toki was appointed as the Indigenous Pacific representative to the Permanent Forum. Her representation includes New Zealand, Australia and our Pasifika brothers and sisters. Significantly, Valmaine is the first Mori and first New Zealander to be appointed to this position. PERMANENT FORUM DELEGATIONS 5. The Permanent Forum included the participation of some 2,000 or more Delegates from Indigenous groups, State Governments, Civil Society organisations, academia, UN Agencies and other intergovernmental organizations. Mori Caucus 6. To the best of our knowledge, 2012 saw the largest number of Mori Delegates in attendance in all the 11 years of the Permanent Forums existence. Also, the Mori who did attend worked together more strategically with common purpose. Mori Delegates included: a. Catherine Davis (Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, Te Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata; and Ngti Kuri Trust Board); b. Piripi Moore (Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa); c. Rachel Witana (Te Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata member) d. Lillian Toki (Te Ihutai hap); e. Moana Jackson (Ngti Kahungunu); f. Professor Margaret Mutu supported by Podge Housham (Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu); g. Tracey Castro Whare (Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust); h. Andrew Erueti (Amnesty International); and i. Sarah Smith (Ngti Kuri New York based Business Owner). 7. These Mori Delegates were collectively referred to for the duration of the Permanent Forum as The Mori Caucus. As each had their respective issues that they were mandated to focus on, between them they covered a wide range of subjects such as New Zealand Constitutional transformation, matters concerning the WAI 262 Flora and Fauna claim, and those relating to the Aotearoa Not for Sale hikoi. PERMANENT FORUM MODALITIES Permanent Forum Agenda 8. Refer to the attached pdf file Proposed Organisation of Work.2 This years Permanent Forum was particularly important, not only due to the nature and scope of critical
1
For more information on the Forum, see http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/AboutUsMembers.aspx .

Te Rarawa Mori Caucus Members, UN Eleventh Session of the PFII, 2012| Report
environmental and economic issues affecting all Indigenous Peoples around the world, but also because the overarching Theme for this 11th Session: The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on Indigenous Peoples and the right to redress for past conquests (articles 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)3. This Theme permeated all discussions during the Permanent Forum. 9. Plenary sessions ran from 10:00am-1:00pm and 3:00pm-6:00pm. The two hour lunch break in between was rarely an actual break, as Side Events were also scheduled during this time. Evening and weekend events were also organised, making for a very hectic schedule. Permanent Forum Reports and Recommendations 10. The outcome of each Permanent Forum is the production of a final Report4 including the issuance of official recommendations5 to ECOSOC. These are ordinarily made with a thematic focus, and outline specific action that is needed by UN programmes, funds and agencies, Governments, Indigenous and other organizations, civil society, the media and the private sector to improve the lives of Indigenous Peoples overall. Once these recommendations formally become part of the UN documentation record, they serve as the primary platform for advocacy and work programme implementation, and provide an additional source of support and leverage for the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights. Interventions 11. The primary mode of information exchange at the Permanent Forum was through interventions (or statements). All Delegates submitted their written interventions to the Secretariat which would then draft the Speakers Lists for each Agenda item. Generally, there were more interventions submitted than there was room on the Speakers Lists. These constraints necessitated the enforcement of speaking time restrictions and the prioritisation of Indigenous regional caucus and joint statements over individual NGO statements. Despite best efforts of the Secretariat, Delegates often missed out on delivering their interventions (although they could still request their written statement be registered in the official document bank). This eventually became a source of discontent which the Permanent Forum Members later attempted to address, but with mixed success. a. Indigenous interventions may also be found at the Indigenous Peoples Centre for Documentation, Research and Information: http://docip.org/Online-Documentation.32.0.html
For a list of documents submitted to the Forum Secretariat ahead of the meeting, see http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Eleventh/Documents.aspx . 3 For a full copy of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, see http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement . 4 For a complete list of Reports, see http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/RecommendationsDatabase.aspx . Note that as at 7 June 2012, the Report for this Eleventh Session had not been loaded up on to the site. 5 For a complete list of recommendations, see http://esa.un.org/dspdEsa/unpfiidata/UNPFII_Recommendations_Database_list.asp .
Indigenous Caucuses 12. Indigenous Caucuses are a key part of each Permanent Forum. They allow for consolidated advocacy and cooperation to take place among Indigenous Delegates and their various organisations. Indigenous Caucuses are generally organized by region (Africa; Asia; Central and South America and the Caribbean; the Arctic; Eastern Europe; the Russian Federation; North America; and the Pacific), with an additional global Indigenous Caucus. Caucuses are also run according to thematic groups (e.g. the Indigenous Womens Caucus and an Indigenous Youth Caucus). Mori Caucus 13. The Mori Caucus was clear that each Mori Delegate individually represented their own Mori interest group (e.g. iwi Authority) first and foremost. This was reflected in our interventions to the Permanent Forum which were written jointly as individuals representing our respective groups. Overall, our effectiveness in participating as individual Mori delegates at the Permanent Forum was much enhanced due to the formation of a Mori Caucus Pacific Caucus 14. The Mori Caucus participated in the regional Pacific Caucus along with caucuses from Australia, Hawaii and a number of other small Island Pacific States. Pacific Caucus meetings were generally convened each morning at 9am. It was interesting to note, however, the number of missing Delegations especially from the small island states. It was felt that the Pacific Caucus might consider how we can support those Delegates to participate more in future activities. Global Indigenous Caucus Preparatory Meeting 5-6 May 15. A gathering of Indigenous Delegates is ordinarily convened the weekend immediately prior to the opening day of each Permanent Forum. This years Global Indigenous Caucus prep meeting was held at the World Church Centre which is located across from the UN Head Quarters. There were about 80 Delegates that attended each day. Side Events 16. These were an opportunity during the daily lunch breaks for Delegates to run workshops through which they could share information, raise awareness and further discuss Indigenous issues of particular interest.6 Mori may wish to consider the value of conducting a Side Event at future Permanent Forum meetings. Ones which the Mori Caucus attended are covered below. B: PERMANENT FORUM HIGHLIGHTS 17. Following are highlights only of the Permanent Forum. For supplementary commentary, media releases and highlights of each day for the duration of the Permanent Forum, see:
6
For a complete list of the Side Events, scroll down to the link on this page: http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Eleventh.aspx
http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Eleventh/MediaandNews.a spx . GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 18. The Permanent Forum is still viewed by many Indigenous Peoples as one of the most strategically important meetings on the UN calendar every year whereby they can raise awareness about Indigenous rights violations. Key mechanisms and instruments, such as the various Special Rapporteurs (including the Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples), the International Labour Organisation No. 1697 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) were referred to consistently in Indigenous Peoples statements to the Permanent Forum. Delegates persistently urged UN member states to comply with the indigenous human rights standards therein contained. 19. However, what made the Permanent Forum meeting stand out from previous sessions was the number of incidences which took place causing the Indigenous delegates to reflect hard on a number of considerations, including: a. what is it we as Indigenous Peoples really wanted to achieve in terms of promotion and protection of Indigenous Peoples responsibilities and rights; b. whether, in the face of all the resistance from States, Transnational Corporations and other actors, the processes we were using in the UN and elsewhere were as valuable, successful or effective enough as we needed them to be in order to create our desired outcomes; and, if not c. what activities should Indigenous Peoples be putting our interest, attention and energy into? 20. The result of all this soul-searching was a breakthrough paradigm shift by a critical mass of Indigenous delegates the North American Indian and Mori Caucuses in particular in terms of how we saw our ongoing relationship with the UN, and our commitment and focus on creating a better future for ourselves, and for the planet. WEEK ONE SATURDAY 5 MAY INDIGENOUS GLOBAL CAUCUS PREPARATORY MEETING, DAY 1 Karakia 21. The hui began with a traditional karakia led by a Mayan Delegate. He then reminded us of the significance of 2012. This was destined to be a time of great change and energetic shifts.
7
ILO 169 is a legally binding international instrument open to ratification, which deals specifically with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Today, it has been ratified by 22 countries. Once it ratifies the Convention, a country has one year to align legislation, policies and programmes to the Convention before it becomes legally binding. Countries that have ratified the Convention are subject to supervision with regards to its implementation. New Zealand has yet to ratify. See http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang--en/index.htm
Selection of Officers 22. The hui appointed two Co-Chairs, and a Secretariat for the two-day meeting. Permanent Forum Participation Controversy 23. Participants were notified that, due to ongoing office refurbishment and building renovation work,8 the UN intended to limit the number of Indigenous Delegates accessing the main Permanent Forum Plenary session room for the duration of the meeting. With such short notice and having overcome significant financial, political and other challenges just to register for the meeting and get to New York (not to mention the irony of the UN violating its own standards of best practice), this caused huge concern and offence to the Delegates. 24. However, Delegates had also received information (from Indigenous-friendly sources) that States were pressuring the UN to limit indigenous peoples' participation. This caused the more experienced Delegates in particular to become extremely cynical. After some lengthy discussion, the hui agreed to formulate our response tomorrow to this development, after discussing the situation with the Permanent Forum Members. Honouring the Past, Moving Forward 25. Perhaps moved by the mornings discussion, a string of Delegates stood to speak one after another about our inspirational leaders of the past who persistently sought access to the UN - despite the member States resistance. There were inspirational speeches made about the philosophical approach that we ought to be taking in regard to UN participation, e.g.: a. We honour those who over the years helped secure what voice Indigenous Peoples have in UN spaces and mechanisms, their vision and their sacrifice to that end. We also know the system is imperfect, and we ought not to expect (in the short-term, at least) States to substantively help promote and protect our responsibilities and rights. But the situation is progressively improving. Transforming countries constitutional arrangements will also help. To acknowledge this work and sacrifice in a practical way, we must continue to participate at the UN, even if only to monitor and witness State behaviour. b. However, we must also remember that we are essentially spiritual beings first, physical beings second. We are directly descended from the Creator. Therefore, we must act in alignment with that Truth. I.e., instead of focussing so much on our issues, suffering and problems, we should do more conscious-raising among ourselves and put attention on our creative power and the positive things we wish to manifest. We certainly ought not to be asking the States for permission for anything. That just implies an acknowledgement that States have sovereign right or some other kind of 'status' over us.
Delegates were aware of the continuation of this work from last year, so expected some disruption. However, Delegates were told that the disruption had been exacerbated by 'double bookings' of the available meeting space with other meetings happening at the same time.
SUNDAY 6 MAY INDIGENOUS GLOBAL CAUCUS PREPARATORY MEETING, DAY 2 FOOD SOVEREIGNTY 26. This generated a lot of interest from the hui. It highlighted a complex problem that we all need to work together on. The Mori Caucus reiterated that food sovereignty is not something that is just for the physical human body. In our traditions, our practices of gardening, working with the seasons in nature, using the stars and the planets as signs to guide us through the seasons for planting and harvesting these are a core part of our culture and also our language. So, to erode our rights to exercise food sovereignty is also an attack on our culture and traditions. That being so, food is also integral to our spiritual wellbeing. We need to elevate the issue above, and re-frame the issues beyond it merely being about, our right to plant seeds and harvest fruit and vegetables. Other speakers added that: a. Ref in particular DRIP Article 31. b. Food security affects job security. Free, prior and informed consent is also an issue with Genetically Modified organisms (GMOs). c. The World Trade Organisation (WTO), which only cares about profit-making, has a huge impact on food security. E.g. The Coco seed isnt ours any more, it creates more production and profits for companies. Free Trade Agreements are also facilitating violation of our food sovereignty rights. d. The increase of ills like cancer (even while babies are developing in the womb) is integrally linked to the lack of purity in what were consuming and our waters which are more and more polluted with toxic pesticides and other substances. e. Regaining control over or ownership of our lost territories would assist protecting our food security. But even then, we are finding ourselves increasingly surrounded by exotic (e.g. eucalyptus and pines) and GMO plantations (e.g. corn), and are lured or forced into mono cropping instead of traditional shifting cultivation practices. f. We need a program of revitalising and normalising the use of heritage seeds. 27. Two recommendations were made: a. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is seeking feedback on how its new policy recognising the rights of Indigenous Peoples should be implemented. Therefore we recommended: That FAO establish a specific unit staffed by Indigenous Peoples to work with all their different branches; and b. That the June RIO+20 Conference9 addresses food sovereignty issues. 28. In summing up, the Caucus Chair stated that food sovereignty is strongly connected with political, cultural, economic, environmental and social sovereignty. Therefore, the denial of our food sources is nothing less than an attack on our identity, and our very survival. UN WORLD CONFERENCE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES10
9
For more information, see http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/about.shtml .

29. The hui was advised that the UN had developed, with the assistance of certain Indigenous individuals, a proposal to hold a High Level session of the UNGA. This has been adopted by the UNGA. In addition to the Permanent Forum, EMRIP and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples (the Special Rapporteur), States will be cooperating with Indigenous Peoples to hold this session. 30. The hui was told that although a Global Steering Committee with Indigenous Peoples membership had been established to facilitate logistics, this World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) is a State High Level session on Indigenous Peoples, not of and by Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, the risk was that Indigenous Peoples would not be enabled to meaningfully and equally participate. We were advised to insist on that, or boycott the session. 31. The hui then discussed the importance of Indigenous Peoples influencing the Agenda, and progressing logistics and preparation for and participation in the WCIP through the Global Steering Committee and the WCIP Facilitator, recognising that preparation alone will be a challenge (especially with limited Indigenous resources). It was suggested that perhaps Delegates could include a major meeting in proximity to next years Permanent Forum in New York. The most important thing is not to let the WCIP be a catalyst for further erosion of our rights and responsibilities. TRANS-NATIONALS (Pacific Caucus meeting) 32. At this point, all Pacific Delegates left the hui to attend a short Pacific Caucus meeting which was held across the street at a nearby Hotel. Being the first meeting, it was basically called to establish what our meeting routine and format would be for the coming weeks, and to notify Delegates that at the next Pacific Caucus meeting we would be appointing our Caucus Co-Chairs and WCIP Global Steering Committee Pacific representative. PERMANENT FORUM PARTICIPATION 33. The Pacific Delegates returned to catch the start of the Global Caucus discussions around yesterdays controversy concerning access to the Permanent Forum main meeting room. Some ideas that emerged about a response included: a. We should be inspired in our actions by Indigenous Peoples strong tradition of raising our voice at the UN. Mori have a strong tradition of awareness-raising and consciousness-raising called Hikoi. Its the critical mass of people that gives it power both Mori and our white brothers and sisters walk together. We know (1) its not the first time were being called upon to be courageous and speak out, and (2) it wont be the last.
10
For more information, see http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120514_Indigenous.doc.htm, and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc3997.doc.htm .

b. Have a strategic inclusive approach: enable Delegates to take concerted action, whether inside or outside the Permanent Forum meeting room. At the appropriate time, we must engage with the media to get exposure on this. c. Ask the Permanent Forum expert members for an explanation. MEETING WITH PERMANENT FORUM EXPERT MEMBERS Words with Aotearoa Representative 34. Before the meeting with the Permanent Forum Expert Members began, the Mori Caucus was able to speak briefly with Valmaine Toki. We cautioned her to expect some hard questioning from the Global Caucus about the limitations on Delegates registration. Her response was that the Expert Members ordinarily did not engage in dialogue with the Indigenous Delegates at these hui they merely introduced themselves, made some brief preliminary remarks, and then left. This created concern for the Mori Caucus. Introductory Statements 35. New Permanent Forum Chair, Edward John (Indigenous Chief, British Columbia) reinforced the importance of the work our Indigenous Delegates perform at the UN. Megan Davis (Australian Representative) was introduced as the Permanent Forums new Rapporteur. Other Permanent Forum members in attendance included the Indigenous representatives for Finland, Alaska, Aotearoa, Africa and Asia. Chair Ed John highlighted what he considered to be the key Permanent Forum Agenda items for our attention. He stressed that the Expert Members needed concrete outcomes-focussed recommendations that could be taken to ECOSOC. He predicted that this year at the Permanent Forum will require a lot of patience: weve in some respects conquered that space, but its still problematic. Other points raised: a. The need for supporting our young peoples participation, and succession planning. Some of us here have been engaged for decades in this UN work. b. Recognition of the painful impact of the Doctrine of Discovery, but also the imperative to look to the now, and to the future. c. Due to a heavy Permanent Forum Agenda, the need for strategic collaboration between Indigenous Delegates (e.g. when making statements) is high. d. Concern at the lack of African participation in this Indigenous prep meeting. e. The need to focus on adding value to the Permanent Forum recommendations11 and research papers already documented as a result of years of meeting and reporting, and learning how to better use the UN system and Agencies. Permanent Forum Participation 36. In response to the concerns from the Indigenous Global Caucus re limitations on Delegates participation, Chair Ed John asked us to consider the DRIP and other
11
For the list of all Permanent Forum recommendations, see: http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/RecommendationsDatabase.aspx

significant wins Indigenous Peoples had made, and the importance of keeping momentum up at the UN. The Permanent Forum Secretary apologised and reminded the hui that these arrangements were outside of the Permanent Forums control. She confirmed that only 500 passes would be given for Delegates to access the Plenary meeting room. This was due to construction activity but also security capacity limitations. But she suggested that overflow meeting rooms with audio/ video technology could be made available for those with secondary registration passes. 37. The hui, however was not satisfied. Some commented that they felt that this ill-treatment was simply an extension of the Doctrine of Discovery. If the UN (the one place thats meant to be looking out for us) cannot treat us with dignity, then where should we expect it from? 38. The Permanent Forum expert Members then left, with the hui feeling that the matter was unresolved. The Mori Caucus reflected that the engagement with the expert Members had hallmarks of Mori engagement with NZ Government officials back home. We became concerned, in particular, that Valmaine Toki needed greater support from us to provide her with a more nuanced political context about the space she was operating in, and how she ought rightly to respond given her role as our representative. The Mori Caucus decided to meet with Valmaine to discuss our concerns. MONDAY 7 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 1 MORNING SESSION 39. The Permanent Forum was held in the UN GA Hall the only time during the two weeks when Delegates would meet there. It opened with a brief Indigenous ceremony, followed by the election of Officers and a number of speeches by key Indigenous and UN dignitaries.12 Knowing that the remainder of the meeting sessions would be held in a different conference room with (we were told by the Secretariat) limited Delegate access, the Mori and North American Caucuses decided to ignore the advice re limited access, and spread the word to encourage other Indigenous Delegations to do the same. AFTERNOON SESSION - ITEM 3: DISCUSSION ON THE SPECIAL THEME: THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY Meeting Room Logistics 40. The afternoon session was held in a different location, in a UN conference room. Although there were some expectations of trouble regarding the controversy with access, such conflict did not eventuate, and all Delegates who wished to enter the conference room were given access.13 Panel Discussion
12
For opening statements made, see links on this site: http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples.aspx .

13
This may have been due to the confusion about access which kept many Delegates away, and/or the fact that (as is often the case) a significant number of Delegates were still travelling to get to New York.
10
41. A Panel of experts including Permanent Forum Member Valmaine Toki (Aotearoa), Professor in Native American Studies Rob Williams (University of Arizona), Victoria Tauli Corpuz (past Permanent Forum Chair, Philippines), Maria Espinoza (Equador, Minister of Heritage), and Moana Jackson (Indigenous Rights Lawyer, Ngti Kahungunu)14, shared their thoughts on this years special theme. Key points raised: a. The Doctrine of Discovery is essentially a Doctrine of Extinguishment of Indigenous Peoples rights to their lands and self-determination, without which Western civilisation as we know it today wouldnt exist. More than this, the Doctrine in itself constitutes a crime against humanity. All Governments still today display one manifestation or another of this racist paradigm. b. Understanding how this Doctrine originated (through a series/ collection of mere declarations and ceremony) is the key to demystifying and exposing it as having no basis in fairness whatsoever. Then, we must empower Indigenous Peoples by replacing that Doctrine with another that has legitimacy. c. Indigenous Peoples acknowledge the modern day rejection of the Doctrine by certain States and Churches. However, as those who profited from the Doctrine, such rejection is necessary but not sufficient: they must actively seek to undo its consequences in practical and meaningful ways. d. Transformative alignment of State Constitutions with basic Human and Indigenous Rights standards is a key part of undoing the harmful impacts of the Doctrine. e. Indigenous Peoples demand cessation of States use of the Doctrine of Discovery. Interventions - Item 3 (continued): Study on national constitutions and the DRIP 42. The rest of the afternoon comprised the delivery of interventions by Permanent Forum Delegates. Interventions of note included: a. Wilton Littlechild: Who recommended that the DRIP become a binding instrument. b. Indigenous Youth Caucus. c. The New Zealand Government.15 43. The Secretariat announced that an Overflow Room for Delegates would be made available the next day. TUESDAY 8 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 2 MORNING SESSION Interventions - Item 3 (continued) 44. Interventions for this Agenda Item continued, including delivery of the Pacific Caucus statement, and the Mori Caucus statement16 which contained a response to yesterdays NZ Government statement.
14 15
Ref M Jacksons statement, Attachment One. Ref Attachment Two. 16 Ref Attachment Three.
11
Panelists Summation 45. The Panelists from yesterdays discussion on the Doctrine of Discovery then made observations regarding todays interventions. Main points: a. The UNGA must take definitive action to denounce the Doctrine of Discovery, which is essential to resolve Indigenous land issues. b. State mechanisms to resolve Indigenous issues (e.g. the Waitangi Tribunal) simply dont meet DRIP standards. There is a need to more justly reflect Indigenous rights and freedoms in national constitutions and other comprehensive instruments. c. There was an astounding silence in the discussion by many States who have benefitted from the Doctrine of Discovery. While the NZ Government took part in the discussion, their response was dishonest: Even when the Treaty was in the process of being drafted, the coloniser exercised the Doctrine of Discovery. d. Regarding the claimed legitimacy of the Doctrine, we should ask legitimate according to whose law? The Doctrine held no legitimacy at the time of colonisation then, and it doesnt now. e. A study must be done into the Doctrine of Discovery and how various legal systems regarded it. Such a study should also include research into the term, conquest. Youth Caucus 46. Later in the day, a shocking announcement was made that the UN had expelled members of the Youth Caucus from the UN grounds for participating in a silent awareness-raising activity. Details later surfaced that the affected members had been unreasonably and violently accosted by UN Security, including one Guard ripping the I.D. badge from around the neck of a North American Elder who happened to be at the scene. Indigenous Delegates requested urgent action from the Permanent Forum Expert Members, viewing it as simply another expression of the Doctrine of Discovery mentality by States. SIDE EVENT RIO+20 Conference on Sustainable Development: 20-22 June 201217 Background 47. At this Conference, world leaders, along with thousands of participants from Governments, the private sector, NGOs and other groups, will come together to shape how we can reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection. It's a high level Conference including Heads of State and Government or other representatives. The Conference will result in a focused political document. RIO+20 will focus on two themes: (a) a green economy in the context of sustainable development poverty eradication; and (b) the institutional framework for sustainable development.18
17
18
See more at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/about.html, www.tebtebba.org or www.uncsdrio.org. The full range of issues that are up for discussion may be found here:
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/rio20issuesbriefs.html
12
48. Presenters led out by commenting that the RIO+20 is currently a bit of a disappointment, but Indigenous Peoples need to stay optimistic. May 4 concluded the last round. Only 3-4 Indigenous Peoples were involved! Of the 400+ paragraphs in the document, only 20 paragraphs were agreed. Indigenous Peoples succeeded in gaining recognition of the importance of our participation in sustainable development, and integrating DRIP standards in development strategies. We also secured an s in Indigenous Peoples in the high level document. These are significant wins but we still had to overcome strong resistance from certain States to achieve them. The question at the RIO+20 will be how do we implement the Johannesburg Plan of Action. Certain rich countries want to define and contain implementation plans in terms of greening their industries. But this is not sufficient. 49. One Indigenous Delegate expressed that Africans are more threatened today than ever before in terms of Food Security. Economic development creates serious conflict issues for local communities who can no longer sustain themselves. The RIO+20 will mean little without strong implementation. Another Indigenous representative mentioned that there are nine major groups involved in the RIO talks: e.g. women, farmers, science, business and Indigenous Peoples comprise just one of those groups competing for attention of our issues. Indigenous Peoples have so far voiced that in the RIO+20 main document, we want: a. Human rights and the DRIP should be the standard for any development, including the full and effective participation by, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of, Indigenous Peoples in matters affecting us. This can be used to offset States claims to full sovereignty over Indigenous knowledge and natural resources. b. Culture should be the fourth pillar of sustainable development. That includes spiritual dimensions, and respect for natural law. c. The recognition of Indigenous Peoples traditional knowledge and the diversity of our traditional economies must be the cornerstone of any Green Economy. d. Sustainability must be as defined by Indigenous Peoples, and include traditional knowledge systems, inter-generational and gender-sensitive approaches. Questions from the floor 50. The Delegate from Aotearoa raised concern that sustainability is now an outmoded benchmark in terms of responsible use of and living in harmony with our natural environment. Given the current critical state of the natural environment and the urgent imperative to secure the wellbeing of Mother Earth now and in the future, she called for an approach beyond sustainability that transcends this idea that its enough to just ensure our environmental wellbeing doesnt get any worse. Action must be taken to drastically heal Mother Earth, not just keep her in a holding pattern of her current vulnerable state. 51. One of the Presenters responded by agreeing that we do have to be more proactive because weve lost so much ground. Sustainability is almost pass if you dont have a relationship with the Earth, and if you dont understand the integration of nature. Its a huge mistake to think one has the intellect to resolve any environmental issue we as humans create. Neither do Indigenous Peoples have the political power in that RIO+20 space. Thats held with the media, the States, big business and others. However,
13
he believed that were at a time when Mother Earth will respond in her own way (e.g. with earthquakes, floods, tsunamis etc). 52. The Australian Delegate challenged the claim (upon which the RIO+20 is founded) that States have sovereignty over natural resources. RIO+20 must secure Indigenous Peoples rights natural resources, not just traditional knowledge. Another Delegate observed that sustainability challenges us to be conscious about our morals and to not abuse those resources. AFTERNOON SESSION Item 3 (continued): 53. Interventions were delivered concerning mechanisms and the impacts of climate change particular to the Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The Mori Caucus decided use this time to network with other Indigenous Delegates and draft our interventions for other items coming up on the Permanent Forum Agenda. WEDNESDAY 9 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 3 MORNING SESSION Item 3 (continued): Open dialogue (Governments, indigenous peoples organizations, United Nations agencies) 54. The Mori Caucus decided use this time to network with other Indigenous Delegates and draft our interventions for other items coming up on the Permanent Forum Agenda, in particular for tomorrows World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) item. AFTERNOON SESSION 55. The conference was closed in the afternoon for a meeting of the Permanent Forum Expert Members. The Mori Caucus accepted a dinner invite from the North American Indian Delegation for this evening. Dinner with the North American Indians 56. This dinner was very constructive, helped hugely by the trust and friendship which had been nurtured over the years between Moana Jackson and the Leaders of this American Indian Delegation. We reflected deeply on the weeks events so far, and mind-stormed strategies for the remainder of the Permanent Forum meeting and the future. 57. We realised how States and colonisers have this ridiculously successful creative technique of putting their attention on what they want, consistently taking action towards it, and feeling empowered. Whereas, Indigenous Peoples do the opposite: we react to what the UN and States are doing, seek to avoid what they are creating, and we consistently go into their spaces fighting, struggling, resisting (feeling disempowered, basically). It's time we followed the States' successful example (but with the integrity of protecting Indigenous Peoples' responsibilities to Mother Nature and future generations). We also considered the idea of creating a Declaration on the Responsibilities of
14
Indigenous Peoples (as opposed to the UN DDRIP), as it was more aligned to our traditional and natural paradigm of obligation to Mother Earth. 58. Ultimately, we agreed that the time had arrived for us to focus less on UN mechanisms and activities (but respecting the decisions of those Indigenous peoples who still choose to continue engaging at the UN), and instead hold our own true Indigenous World Conference. Our preparations would begin with four 'prep' gatherings around the globe, beginning with one in the Americas (Canada, or Denver Colorado), and another hosted in the Pacific by Aotearoa (or possibly Australia), then two more prep gatherings and finally a global Indigenous Conference. Moana was tasked with drafting (after his return to Aotearoa) a brief proposal paper for our comment and approval which could then be used to generate global interest and support. THURSDAY 10 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 4 MORNING SESSION Youth Caucus 59. Delegates received the news that Permanent Forum members and State representatives negotiations with the UN Secretariat to reinstate the expelled Youth Caucus members had succeeded, and those Indigenous Youth were once again participating in the Permanent Forum sessions. Item 5: World Intellectual Property Organization Report of the annual session of the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples Issues Background 60. Since Sunday, the North American Indian Delegation had been lobbying Indigenous Delegations to sign up to a Global Indigenous Caucus Joint Statement opposing WIPO. In their view, a critical analysis of WIPOs work revealed an aim to make Indigenous Peoples knowledge 'marketable' so it could be commodified and exploited 'legally' without effective protection. Neither did Indigenous Peoples participation in WIPO meet basic standards of acquiring Indigenous peoples' Free, Prior and Informed Consent. 61. As part of our decision-making process, the Mori Caucus had sought (at short notice) and received a communication from Moriori Lawyer Maui Solomon who had been active at the WIPO meetings. In Mauis opinion, the North American Indians analysis was correct, and he recommended Mori withdrawal from WIPO. So the Mori Caucus decided to support the Global Indigenous Caucus Joint Statement.19 In addition, the North American Caucus had printed and distributed 100 T-shirts20 with the phrase World Intellectual Piracy Organisation on it, including one for each Mori Caucus member.
19
Ref draft copy, Attachment Four.
20
Several Indigenous Youth who had been expelled earlier in the week decided to wear the T-shirts. There was some anxiety among a small number of senior Indigenous Delegates as to whether this would be viewed by UN Security as a breach of their reinstatement conditions (with the result of generating more conflict). However, there were no further incidents.
15
Interventions 62. The Mori Caucus statement21 was delivered during this session. Delegates wore our WIPO protest T-shirts during our delivery. However, the act of wearing protest T-shirts unnerved UN WIPO representatives to the point that they asked the Permanent Forum Chair to close the Agenda item off so they could leave, and the USA Government Delegation (who was scheduled to make a statement) left the room. Interestingly, the Permanent Forum Expert members almost didn't let the Global Indigenous Caucus make its statement, and had to be lobbied to keep the Agenda open long enough so that the Global Indigenous Caucus could deliver its WIPO intervention. Again, this behaviour by the Permanent Forum Expert members made us cynical about whether they were fully representing Indigenous Peoples interests. AFTERNOON SESSION Item 3 (continued): Combating violence against indigenous women and girls, and Study on the extent of violence against indigenous women and girls 63. The Mori Caucus used this time to network with other Indigenous Delegates and draft our interventions for other items coming up on the Permanent Forum Agenda. FR1DAY 11 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 5 PACIFIC CAUCUS MEETING 64. Progress reports were given on the Teams drafting Pacific Caucus interventions re the Food Sovereignty and the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples agenda items, and the DRIP fifth anniversary speech to the Permanent Forum. 65. The Mori Caucus was asked to lead a discussion on Pacific Caucus membership and representation, in particular the discomfort some felt with non-Indigenous members representing the Pacific Caucus in this UN environment. The Mori Caucus also expressed concern regarding the significant energy and attention that some members had contributed to UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) logistics design, before the Pacific Caucus fully understood our bottom lines for our participation in the WCIP (this, of course, was influenced by concerns raised during the Mori Caucus discussions with the Native American Delegation). PLENARY 66. The morning session was dedicated to Central and Eastern Europe matters, and the afternoon session was a closed Permanent Forum members meeting. So members used this time to network with other Indigenous Delegates and draft our interventions for other items coming up on the Permanent Forum Agenda. MONDAY 14 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 6
21
Ref Attachment Five draft only.

16
MORNING SESSION Item 6: Food Sovereignty 67. Ref the Mori Caucus Statement (Attachment Six). AFTERNOON SESSION Item 7: World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 68. Some of the re-occurring points mentioned by Delegates during this session included concerns about the potential cost-prohibitive nature of the WCIP for Indigenous Peoples, and the imperative to ensure that the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples is obtained on matters affecting them. Measures to facilitate the full participation of Indigenous Peoples were also raised, including the need for preparatory meetings, state funding, principled-based agenda-setting (including using the DRIP, the rights of Mother Earth and decolonisation as standards) and ensuring a meaningful outcomes document. 69. The Mori Caucus supported the matters raised in the Pacific Caucus statement for this Agenda item.22 However, we expressed to the Pacific Caucus our concerns about the significant effort and energy that had already and perhaps prematurely been put towards planning WCIP logistics (even by Indigenous Peoples members themselves), before clarity and commitment had been achieved around key issues of principle (e.g. ref para 68 above). The Mori Caucus reserved our full support for the WCIP until those key matters had been resolved. TUESDAY 15 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 7 PACIFIC CAUCUS MEETING 70. The Pacific member to the Permanent Forum, Valmaine Toki, attended our caucus meeting for the first time. She shared her desire to systematically meet as many Pacific Indigenous Peoples communities as she could so she could get to understand their particular issues. Having said that, she was uncertain how her work in between Permanent Forum Sessions were to be resourced, and speculated that she might be called upon to fund such activities herself. 71. The members discussed what themes the Pacific would like to propose for the next Permanent Forum. Our preferences were decolonisation (because we had several interested peoples like the Hawaiians, the Rapanui and the Tahitians who wished to decolonise. The Mori Caucus saw some alignment also with the constitutional review happening back home), and oceans, although we were reminded that the UN was very resistant to discussing decolonisation. MORNING SESSION Item 4: Human Rights Dialogue with Special Rapporteur
22
Ref Attachment Seven.

17
72. All participants had the privilege this session of spending time with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Prof. James Anaya. The Mori Caucus delivered our statement on Item 4, which included reference to the Aotearoa is not for Sale hikoi that was happening at the time back in Aotearoa (Ref Attachment Eight). We also addressed the Special Rapporteur directly on two questions: a. What strategic advice do you have for Mori...in terms of implementing the Declaration despite the impact of Article 4623 which appears to give states arguable justification for choosing NOT to fully implement the Declaration?; and b. Do you see any practical value in the development of an internationally-recognised instrument more aligned with our inherent nature as Indigenous Peoples: for example, a Declaration on the responsibilities of Indigenous Peoples, to be supported by States? 73. In reply to the first question, the Special Rapporteur replied that Art. 46 must be put in its proper context, which is to advance Human Rights: therefore it certainly does not provide licence for States to ride roughshod over Indigenous Peoples rights. In reply to the second question, he said that while the spirit of the declaration implicitly incorporates Indigenous Peoples concepts of responsibilities, he urged Indigenous Peoples themselves develop and declare their own codes, and to articulate from their perspective how the notion of responsibilities and rights might converge in practice. 74. The rest of the morning and afternoon sessions were spent with participants delivering their Item 4 interventions. WEDNESDAY 16 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 8 PACIFIC CAUCUS MEETING 75. Another theme around the impact of Trade Agreements and Transnational Corporations impact on Indigenous Peoples was submitted for consideration for the next Permanent Forum. The members discussed how to work more efficiently and strategically in drafting and delivering our interventions in the Plenary sessions, noticing (1) that some of us were repeating what others said (not adding value), (2) others werent clear in their recommendations to the Permanent Forum, (3) we should be making more joint statements rather than working independently, and (4) the small Island states were not getting enough speaking time. 76. The members were asked to consider a process for mandating Pacific Caucus representatives for the RIO+20 Conference (see para 47 above). MORNING SESSION 77. This was another closed session, for the Permanent Forum members only. AFTERNOON SESSION
23
The Declaration is constrained by Article 46 which reflects the right of States to act as they deem necessary to (a) maintain their territorial integrity or political unity; (b) recognise the rights of other non-Indigenous New Zealand citizens; and (c) meet the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.
18
Item 9: Analysis of the duty of the State to protect Indigenous Peoples affected by transnational corporations and other business enterprises. 78. Following on from many of the themes associated with the Aotearoa is not for sale hikoi, the Mori Caucus delivered our intervention 24, including recommendations that the Permenant Forum: a. establish an independant international montioring group to ensure that States are complying with the provisions of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in regards to emerging and existing trade agreements and State endorsed transnational activities; and b. urge the New Zealand Government to place a mortorium on: i. any futher sales of Aotearoa's land to overseas interests; and ii. any potential environmentally damaging extractive industries and immediately rescind its policy of licensing without the consent of the people of the land. 79. Before the afternoon session closed, the Permanent Forum Secretariat informed the hui that the UN General Assembly Hall, although the scheduled venue for tomorrows Item 9: the fifth anniversary of the UN DRIP, was no longer available. This caused offence to many Indigenous delegates, particularly (1) given everything else that had happened during this conference, and (2) as the Hall had now been allocated at short notice and without consultation with the Permanent Forum members to a Thematic discussion on the Economy and Finance. THURSDAY 17 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 9 PACIFIC CAUCUS MEETING 80. The members discussed the addition of strongly-worded text in our Pacific Caucus statement today to the Permanent Forum under todays agenda item, given yesterdays developments concerning the change of meeting venue for the fifth anniversary of the UN DRIP session. 81. Issues were raised around the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, and the Pacific Caucus lack of involvement in that group, including in the drafting of its interventions. We committed to organising ourselves better next year so that we could participate more effectively. We also agreed and initiated a nominations process for the RIO+20 Conference Pacific Caucus representation. Names would be finalised over the email. MORNING SESSION Item 9: Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 82. Deep disappointment of all delegates - Indigenous Peoples, UN member State delegations and UN Agencies alike was obvious in the interventions delivered regarding
24
Ref attachment ten.

19
yesterdays news of the venue change for todays session. Ref attachment eleven For the Pacific Caucus statement, and attachment twelve for the NZ Government statement. FRIDAY 18 MAY PERMANENT FORUM DAY 10 MORNING SESSION Item 11: Adoption of the report of the Permanent Forum on its eleventh session, and closing of the session 83. The Mori Caucus did not attend this session, as the convention is that by this stage, the drafting of the Permanent Forum report has all but been done including lobbying by delegates to have their preferred recommendations included in the report (although the Pacific Caucus did have a member attend this session, and it is known that he did reinforce some key preferences for recommendations). The final Permanent Forum report would be released at a later date. CLOSING COMMENTS 84. The Permanent Forums final report to ECOSOC was released in July, and is now available online at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/359/17/PDF/N1235917.pdf?OpenElement 85. Highlights from the report recommendations include that ECOSOC: a. Decides that the twelfth session of the Permanent Forum be held in New York, from 20 to 31 May 2013. b. Approves the provisional agenda for the twelfth session of the Permanent Forum as including: ...3. Follow-up on the recommendations of the Permanent Forum: (a) Health; (b) Education; (c) Culture. ... 5. Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds. 6. Discussion on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. 86. The Permanent Forum also: Doctrine of Discovery a. Calls upon States to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery and other such nefarious doctrines as the basis for denying indigenous peoples human rights. (para 4); b. Notes that Extinguishment, in the context of indigenous peoples rights to lands, territories and resources is inconsistent with the contemporary understanding in international law, specifically the peremptory norm of the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination. No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished. (para 6);
20
c. Notes, Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, treaty body jurisprudence and case law from all major international human rights institutions confirm that indigenous peoples hold collective rights to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used, and that respect for their customs, traditions and land tenure systems is owed to them. Such rights have the same legal status as all other property rights to lands, territories and resources. States are no longer allowed to deploy positivist legal interpretations of laws adopted during an era when doctrines such as terra nullius were the norm. (para 7); d. Recommends that States include in all education curricula, in particular the school system, a discussion of the doctrine of discovery/dispossession and its contemporary manifestations, including land laws and policies of removal. (para 9); National Constitutions e. Recommends that the process of constitutional revision in Member States should be driven by indigenous peoples. (para 12); World Intellectual Property Organisation f. Demands that The minimum standards reflected in the Declaration must either be exceeded or directly incorporated into any and all WIPO instruments that directly or indirectly impact the human rights of indigenous peoples. (para 47); Food Sovereignty g. Notes that indigenous peoples right to food and food sovereignty is inextricably linked with the collective recognition of rights to land and territories and resources, culture, values and social organization. (para 56); World Conference of Indigenous Peoples h. Recommends that the accreditation...reflect the principle of full and effective and direct participation of indigenous peoples (para 75); i. Considers that the two-day high-level...World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should be held in New York in September 2014... (para 84); Future work of the Permanent Forum j. Appoints Saul Vicente Vazquez to coordinate with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, for the purpose of preparing a consolidated report on extractive industries and their impact on indigenous peoples. (para 107); k. Appoints Ms. Sambo Dorough and Ms. Davis to undertake a study on an optional protocol to the [DRIP], focusing on a potential voluntary mechanism to serve as a complaints body at the international level, in particular for claims and breaches of indigenous peoples rights to lands, territories and resources at the domestic level. (para 109); l. Appoints Valmaine Toki, a member of the Forum, to undertake a study on decolonization of the Pacific region, to be submitted to the Forum at its twelfth session. (para 110);
21
m. Appoints Edward John, a member of the Forum, to conduct a study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, ...with reference to the Declaration, and particularly to articles 26-28, 32 and 40, to be submitted to the Forum at its twelfth session.(para 112.); C: RECOMMENDATIONS 87. That Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa and the Te Rarawa WAI 262 Taumata: a. Note the enhanced effectiveness of individual Mori delegates participation at the Permanent Forum due to the formation of a Mori Caucus; b. Note that the Permanent Forum meeting stood out from previous sessions due to the number of disturbing incidences which took place in terms of treatment of Indigenous Peoples by the UN and its member states; Important Developments c. Note that the Mori Caucus advocates reserving any decision to participate in the UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples unless and until it is demonstrably clear that it satisfies standards of fairness and equity in terms of DRIP standards, particularly regarding Indigenous Peoples participation; d. Note that the Mori Caucus and the Northern American Indian Caucus members supported the aspiration of holding our own World Conference of and by Indigenous Peoples; e. Note the withdraw of the Global Indigenous Caucus support for the UN World Intellectual Property Organisation; f. Continue to use the standards in the DRIP, and other UN instruments and mechanisms where appropriate, to advocate and protect Mori responsibilities and Indigenous human rights, including continuing to encourage the Government to: i. Comply with the DRIP; and ii. Implement the recommendations of the two Special Rapporteur New Zealand Country reports (200525 and 201026); g. Initiate a dialogue with the Tai Tokerau Iwi Chairs and/ or National Iwi Chairs Forum about strategising for: i. Preparation for, and representation at, UN bodies (such as the Permanent Forum); and ii. Contributing to dialogue generated by the Iwi Chairs Forum Constitutional Working Group, including the establishment and/ or maintenance of a cohesive, functional and strategic nation-wide Mori political Body; h. Note the Permanent Forums final report, in particular its recommendation to ECOSOC that its 12th Session be held in New York from 20-31 May 2013; i. Note the opinion of this report that:
25
E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3, at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/NZIndex.aspx
A/HRC/18/35/Add.4, at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/SR/A-HRC-18-35Te Rarawa Mori Caucus Members, UN Eleventh Session of the PFII, 2012| Report
26
Add4_en.pdf . 22
i. Despite the disappointments of this years Permanent Forum, there is still value in continuing to support participation to witness state behaviour, and to facilitate the promotion and protection of our tangata whenua responsibilities and indigenous human rights, and those of Mori generally in Aotearoa; and ii. This value will be significantly supported and enhanced when complimented by and aligned with ongoing active participation throughout the year in indigenous advocacy networks (such as those established for Pacific representatives) and other Indigenous activities; j. Apply to the UN Voluntary Fund for assistance to attend the Permanent Forums 12th Session (application deadline is 1 November 201227); k. Actively seek funding to participate in the two extra days of Global Indigenous Caucus preparatory meetings (which is not covered by UN Voluntary funding); and l. Consider conducting a Side Event at future Permanent Forum meetings. Heoi ano, Te Rarawa Mori Caucus members to the UN PFII 2012
27
Ref http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/IPeoplesFund/Pages/ApplicationsForms.aspx and

23
ATTACHMENT ONE:
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues:

Panel Discussion Presentation
Check against delivery Eleventh Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Item 3: Study on national constitutions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples with a view to assessing the nature and extent of the inclusion of indigenous peoples human rights in national constitutions, with reference to the rights affirmed in the Declaration. Delivered by Moana Jackson: moana.jackson@paradise.net.nz
Mr Chair, 1. Others on this panel who are far more expert than I have already covered much of the history and the basic unjust illogicality of the Doctrine of Discovery. I would like to focus briefly on one part of the doctrine that is perhaps often overlooked, and then devote most of my time to what may be called an indigenous re-discovery of our own rights, law and sovereign authority. 2. As I am sure many of your will know, the original meaning of the word to discover is to open up to the gaze of others. What I would like to suggest in most of this presentation is the need for indigenous peoples not just to require that colonizing states and their agents reject the doctrine and its application, but that as indigenous peoples we re-open the ancient discourses of our ancestors and explore again how we might redefine and reclaim what our rights and authority mean. 3. First of all though, I would like to urge us all to remember that while the Doctrine of Discovery was always promoted in the first instance as an authority to claim the land of indigenous peoples, there were much broader assumptions implicit in the doctrine. For to open up an indigenous land to the gaze of the colonising other, there is also in their view an opening up of everything that was in and of the land being claimed. Thus, if the Doctrine of Discovery suggested a right to take control of another nations land, it necessarily also implied a right to take over the lives and authority of the people to whom the land belonged. It was in that sense, and remains to this day, a piece of genocidal legal magic that could, with the waving of a flag or the reciting of a proclamation, assert that the land allegedly being discovered henceforth belonged to someone else, and that the people of that land were necessarily subordinate to the colonisers. Rather like the doctrine of terra nullius or indeed the very notion in British colonising law of aboriginal title, the Doctrine of Discovery opened up the bodies and souls of indigenous peoples to a colonising gaze which only saw them as inferior, subordinate, and in fact less human than them.
24
4. At its most base, it expresses the fundamental and violent racism which has led to the oppression of millions of indigenous peoples over the last several hundred years. It was thus more than a mere doctrine with unfortunate consequences: it was in fact, and remains to this day, a crime against humanity. And like any crime, it has had, and continues to have, many different manifestations as states continue to exercise the power to dominate which they believe the doctrine has given to them. 5. Sometimes it is manifest in the large and overtly violent actions of an individual state against an indigenous peoples. At other times it can be the dismissive and often petty bureaucratisation of their power, as we have sadly witnessed in this forum with the initial unwillingness of states to allow us the space to gather together to speak about the common problems that we face and the thoughts and visions of who we might yet become. Indeed, when the global caucus was informed yesterday that the General Assembly Hall was only available for a limited time because of matters of greater priority states were in effect further marginalising our peoples just as the Doctrine of Discovery has enabled them to do for so long. That states through this organisation were prevailed upon to retract their original planned restriction is perhaps a cause for some quiet satisfaction, but it does not necessarily negate or remove the underlying ethos of denial and domination which underpinned it. 6. In my view, it will therefore not be sufficient for states or churches or others who have profited from the doctrine to merely reject it in the 21 st century as an unfortunate product of another time. Neither will it be sufficient for states or churches to simply apologise for its invention and use (important though that is), but rather to actively seek to undo its consequences in practical and meaningful ways. 7. In effect, any colonising rejection of the doctrine, any apology, will be meaningless unless wit, wisdom, and compassion is applied to a practical and proper recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples as defined by the indigenous peoples themselves. The aim should be not just to recompense for the past actions but to accept that a better and more just future for indigenous peoples will ultimately require a restoration of the political and constitutional authority which the colonising states have so consistently sought to suppress. 8. Most indigenous peoples have of course long waged a struggle to deal with the costs of the purported right of discovery, and more recently have tried to protect our communities and nations from the genocide which it justified and the ongoing dispossession which it has enabled. Many other indigenous peoples, particularly in recent times, have pointed out the lack of logic in its thesis and the injustice inherent in its application. Still others have sought remedy in international forums or in domestic courts. 9. However, what I would like to respectfully suggest today, is that we aim for something more. For if we are to have the Doctrine of Discovery revoked by those who invented it we must also be as brave and imaginative as our ancestors and rediscover and revalidate the law and full sovereign authority which they exercised. If we able to do that, we will be discovering for ourselves once again that we have the inherent right and power to take back that which was allegedly discovered and stolen from us. Indeed I would hope that while our states may at last find the honour and good conscience to reject the doctrine, we
25
as indigenous peoples will also seek to rebuild the damage it has caused in ways that reflect the power and the beauty of who we are. 10. I do not underestimate the difficulties of that task, because the pressures of what may be called the culture of colonisation remain so intense whether it be through the continued rape and pollution of the mother Earth, or the many forces of violence still being directed at indigenous peoples. When contemplating how we might chart our future beyond the Doctrine of Discovery, I am also aware that the process will be difficult if only because of the warning given many years ago by the African American philosopher Frederick Douglass when he said: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. 11. However, I firmly believe that we have power too, and that while the Doctrine of Discovery may have led to a practical destruction of the institutions of that power and the law which sanctioned it in all indigenous societies, the spirit and hope of that power has never died. Perhaps this seemingly narrow debate about a doctrine spawned out of hatred and greed in a place far from most of our homes, may also give us as indigenous peoples the confidence to restate and give life to that power. 12. If we embark on that journey, which is rather like the liberation that Franz Fanon once described as the ultimate decolonisation, each indigenous nation will no doubt find its own way of reaching that goal. We will each find our own unique way of rediscovering and reopening our pasts to the gaze of our generations yet to come, and in their sight we will give substance once more to the spirit of our power. At the same time, I am sure that we will also share some of the common values which have underpinned the many indigenous concepts of power. I am sure that we will all want, for example, to find 21st century ways of giving effect to the ancestors obligations to protect the mother Earth. I am confident too that we will all find ways of nurturing the relationships of interdependence, and mutual responsibilities that bind all indigenous nations together. 13. We may give expression to those shared values in different political and Constitutional ways. But if we do so based on the justice of our own rules and the heritage of our own understandings of how we might live with a law rather than under it, then we will rediscover truths that will benefit all of the world. We will replace a crime against humanity with a new sense of responsibility which cherishes all that humanity can be. 14. In Aotearoa, New Zealand, Mori people are currently striving to reach towards that new kind of political understanding. In a small way we are attempting to move into a postdiscovery world, and embark upon the ultimate decolonisation. In doing so we are focussing on less on what the New Zealand Government or courts might do about the Doctrine of Discovery, and concentrating more on what we might do to re-open to our gaze the power and wonder that existed before the doctrine was dumped on our shores in 1769. 15. If I may, I would like to briefly share with you part of that process in the hope that it might illustrate some of the themes that I have tried to place before you today. In our language at home, our nations are called iwi or hpu, and at a major gathering in 2009 our people decided that we should independently begin to formulate a new
26
constitution for our land based on our own laws and values. It was also decided that part of the design of this new constitution should be based on a document that we call He Whakaputanga or the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the Treaty we signed with the British Government in 1840. 16. I am proud to be part of the Working Group that has been given the responsibility for this task along with a number of others, three of whom are here today: Margaret Mutu, Catherine Davis and Valmaine Toki. This month, we began the first of a series of gatherings with our people which will continue for the next 12 months as we seek to gain from them both the philosophies and the knowledge of the institutions which once allowed us to govern our own land. For although the English word constitution is often seen to be a complicated and complex term, it simply means the values and processes which a people choose to determine their own destiny. In our view it is fundamental to the proper exercise of the right of self-determination which in itself is a denial of the Doctrine of Discovery. 17. We also undertake the work, convinced that a constitution for our land must come from our land. We believe that the imposed colonising constitution from Britain grew from that place, and that we must find something which breathes from the stories in our own land. We further undertake the work confident that the notion of democracy and indeed the very concept of political power itself are not unique to Britain or Western Europe, but have roots deeply grounded in our own history and traditions. 18. Finally, we undertake the work convinced that even if the New Zealand Government was to apologise or resile from the Doctrine of Discovery without a fundamental shift in the way governing decisions are made, then we would remain trapped within the clutches of all that the Doctrine of Discovery presupposed. 19. For us, then, part of the journey beyond the doctrine is necessarily the rediscovering of how we once cared for ourselves in our own land. We are not naive enough to think that the colonising power will immediately accept the work that we do, or that the demands we make through constitutional change will be enough of a demand in itself for them to give of their power. However, we are hopeful that by re-beginning such a dialogue, we will truly rediscover who we once were and who we might once again be, and that in itself will be our rejection of the Doctrine of Discovery.
Thank you Mr Chair.
27
ATTACHMENT TWO:
New Zealand Permanent Mission to the United Nations
Te Mngai o Aotearoa
600 THIRD AVENUE 14TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016-1901, USA TELEPHONE (212) 826 1960 FACSIMILE (212) 758 0827 HOMEPAGE: http://www.nzembassy.com/newyork _________________________________________________________________________________
Eleventh session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 7 18 May 2012 New Zealands constitutional review process
Ms Jane Fletcher Deputy Director, New Zealand Office of Treaty Settlements
Wednesday 9 May 2012 As delivered
28
Thank you Mr Chair, We have listened with interest to the discussions over the past days regarding the Doctrine of Discovery and the need for constitutional reform to take into account indigenous peoples. There has been some discussion on the subject of New Zealands constitutional review process and given the level of interest, we thought it might be useful to provide some further information. New Zealand doesnt have a single written constitution but rather its constitutional arrangements are drawn from a variety of sources including the Treaty of Waitangi and various pieces of legislation and constitutional conventions. New Zealand began a cross-party constitutional review process in 2010 as a part of an electoral arrangement between the Maori Party and the National Party. The process is led by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Bill English and the Minister of Maori Affairs and co-leader of the Maori Party, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples who attended the Permanent Forum in 2010 to announce New Zealands move to a position of support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. An advisory panel has been established and is due to report to Government in late 2013. Its members are drawn from a cross-section of society and includes a Maori co-chair, Sir Tipene ORegan. A programme of engagement is being developed which explicitly includes seeking the views of Maori in ways that reflect the partnership model and are responsive to Maori consultation preferences. The Constitutional Review is wide-ranging. It will include Crown Maori relationship matters such as Maori representation including the number of Maori seats in Parliament and in local government, Maori electoral participation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitutional arrangements and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution. Public consultation guides this Review. As Minister Sharples has said, it is understood that Maori want to talk about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution and how our legal and political systems can reflect Tikanga Maori and that these issues require proper consideration. The advisory panel has indicated that it will welcome views throughout the process about how to reach as many people as possible. Given the work underway on our constitutional review process, we look forward to the upcoming study by the Permanent Forum on constitutional reform which will focus on Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand and will look closely at its findings. Thank you Mr Chair
29
ATTACHMENT THREE:
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Intervention: Mori Caucus

11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Check against delivery
Item 3: Study on national constitutions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with a view to assessing the nature and extent of the inclusion of indigenous peoples human rights in national constitutions, with reference to the rights affirmed in the Declaration: Delivered by Catherine Davis: catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz Mr Chair, Honorable Indigenous brothers and sisters and in particular, the Indigenous Youth Caucus, and our hosts the Haudenosaunee, and Other Delegates to the Permanent Forum, Recommendations 1. 2. The Mori Caucus first wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Peace Movement Aotearoa28 in the drafting of this statement. In regards to the New Zealand Governments constitutional review process, the Mori Caucus makes the following recommendations: That, in recognizing the urgent imperative to remedy the profound prejudice to Mori as a result of the Doctrine of Discovery, the Permanent Forum:a. reminds the state party of its obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in particular, to implement legislative and policy measures giving full effect to those obligations; recommends that the State Party refrains from implementing any findings or recommendations from its constitutional review process until it has obtained the free, prior and informed consent of Mori, and any recommendations put forward by the Mori-led Independent Constitutional Working Group; and Calls on the State Party to fully recognize and enable Mori to gain effective remedies for any breaches of all such aforementioned Indigenous rights.
b.
c.
28
www.converge.org.nz/pma
30
Main Statement Mr Chair, 3. From our perspective, one of the main challenges to full implementation of our Indigenous rights as expressed through the Declaration and other human rights instruments is our critical situation with our New Zealand Constitutional arrangements, which may be summarised in this way: New Zealands human rights protections are fragile, in the absence of a comprehensive constitutional document or entrenched legal provisions The NZBORA and the Human Rights Act 1993 are not enforceable against the legislature meaning parliament can pass discriminatory legislation such as the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.29 4. We note the New Zealand Governments statement yesterday that New Zealands founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, is of fundamental constitutional and historical importance. However, it is the Mori version of that document - Te Tiriti which is of fundamental constitutional importance, not the English version. The collective and individual Mori rights guaranteed by the Crown under te Tiriti30 still remains vulnerable. 5. We also note the state partys comment yesterday that the New Zealand Government is "proud of its unique framework for settling the grievances of its indigenous people", and we wish to remind the state party of two significant points: a. First: the correct reference to Mori is "Indigenous PEOPLES", and second, Mori have never given our free, prior and informed consent for what we consider to be a Crown Treaty settlement process which violates the standards contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and It is correct that the current New Zealand Government has established a Constitutional Review Panel. However, the Terms of Reference of that Panel are restricted in our view to merely making superficial adjustments to the constitutional status quo, while what is really required is radical transformation.
b.
6.
Mori on the other hand have established our own Independent Constitutional Working Group with the following terms of reference: 1. To work on developing a model for a constitution for our country based on our tikanga [rules] and fundamental values, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o
29
Ref A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/3 (23February 2009), Summary Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, In Accordance with Paragraph 15(c) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resoultion 5/1.
30
Refering to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the English version which is known as the Treaty of Waitangi): the agreement signed between Mori and Crown representatives in 1840 which enabled the protection of Mori lands, forests, fisheries, our other prized possessions, and our self determination in exchange for Crown Governance in New Zealand.
31
Niu Tireni [the Declaration of Independence 1835] and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the work already carried out in this area. 2. To give consideration to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Bolivian constitution and the international context. 3. To ensure that whnau and Hap [Mori peoples] are fully informed and participate fully in the development of the model. 4. To discuss the model with government once Maori are satisfied with it. 7. In the spirit of giving effect to a Doctrine of Re-Discovery of Indigenous Peoples rights, we encourage and support our own Indigenous brothers and sisters around the world to likewise pursue their own process of constitutional transformation.
Thank you for your attention Mr Chair.
32
ATTACHMENT FOUR:
UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES Eleventh Session, May 7-15, 2012, New York City Joint Statement of Indigenous Peoples Regarding the World Intellectual Property Organization Intergovernmental Committee On Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge & Folklore -DRAFTSubmitting Organizations: Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB), Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics - University of Colorado at Denver, American Indian Movement of Colorado, This statement is made on behalf of __ Indigenous Peoples and Nations, and Indigenous organizations. We present the following statement and recommendations with grave concern as to how WIPO may negatively affect our rights to our Indigenous knowledge systems and genetic resources which have been developed and maintained by our Peoples over millenia. As the original, free and independent peoples of our lands and territories, we reaffirm our right to selfdetermination, and our spiritual and cultural relationship with all life forms, knowledge systems, and ways of life within our traditional lands and territories. We are the guardians of every aspect of our cultural heritage passed down from our ancestors from generation to generation and we reaffirm our responsibility to protect and perpetuate this knowledge for the benefit of our peoples and our future generations Indigenous Peoples and Nations are the protectors and holders of every aspect of our cultural heritage including the subject matter under negotiation at WIPO: traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources. A careful review of WIPO processes indicate it is clear that WIPOs member states wish to subsume Indigenous Peoples knowledge systems and cultural heritage into the intellectual property framework of states and transnational corporations. We ask WIPO, under what moral and legal authority do you presume to possess a right to impose an intellectual property rights regime upon Indigenous Peoples and Nations knowledge and resources? Candidly, the work undertaken at WIPO is solely for the benefit of states that want access and proprietary rights to Indigenous Peoples knowledge and resources; WIPO seeks to protect its theft of already appropriated GR, TK and TCEs from Indigenous Peoples that is now considered to be in the public domain, or otherwise protected with state/corporate intellectual property rights for their own commercial benefit. As such, WIPO reflects a modern day band of pirates and thieves continuing the process of theft from Indigenous Peoples lands and territories. WIPO is actively promoting and advancing the racist, ongoing process of the Doctrine of Discovery. We say, no mas!, no more! WIPO has no right to take any more from us not one more drop of blood, not one more seed, not one more song or story or teaching. Nothing! Issues Regarding Indigenous Peoples Rights at WIPO
33
Very serious issues exist regarding Indigenous Peoples participating in the IGC 18 th, 19th, and 20th Sessions that unanimously expressed our dissatisfaction with our unequal participation in the deliberations of the international instruments(s) under negotiation in the WIPO IGC. On February 20, 2012 nearly all of the Indigenous delegates in attendance decided to withdrawal from active participation in the WIPO negotiations because the right of Indigenous Peoples, as Peoples and Nations, to participate as equals in the negotiations continues to be denied. Indigenous Peoples have seen a continual process of diminishing our participation in key small working groups, and our text proposals require the support of at least one state to remain on the table. Without state support, Indigenous Peoples proposals are ignored. State vetoes of Indigenous Peoples participation and proposals is intolerable and unacceptable. The single most significant and non-negotiable demand by Indigenous Peoples is that, at a minimum, WIPO amend its rules of procedure to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in all processes that affect us. Until that change happens, we cannot conscientiously participate in a process that will continue to undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and threaten our future generations. Without a change in the WIPO rules of procedure, it is completely unrealistic for Indigenous Peoples to engage in any meaningful way in the WIPO process. As representatives of our Nations, we cannot continue to sit in meetings where we are diminished and silenced, while thieves discuss taking the most fundamental elements of our cultural heritage for their own use. Within the current WIPO process, Indigenous Peoples are being denied meaningful participation on matters directly affecting us, resulting in the denial of Indigenous Peoples' rights as articulated within international legal norms, conventions and within sections 18, 19, 25, and 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The WIPO process is dehumanizing and denying our right to participate effectively and with integrity as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. We challenge WIPO to answer the following specific points: 1. What is your specific definition of the term Indigenous in your draft instruments? Does the use of the term Indigenous mean that you specifically recognize the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and Nations? Are you willing to change and to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as rights holders in WIPO negotiations? If not, why not? Recommendations 1. We call upon the UNPFII to request that WIPO amend its rules of procedure to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in all processes that are effecting affecting them, and to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Nations and Peoples in all the WIPO processes including the IGC, the General Assembly and Diplomatic Conference. We call on the UNPFII to inform WIPO that if it does not change its rules of procedure, WIPO is in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 2. We recommend that the UNPFII make it clear to WIPO that it has no authority to regulate Indigenous Peoples traditional knowledge nor does it have a right to access to such and associated genetic resources, and that those remain under the control of Indigenous Peoples.
34
3. We recommend that UNPFII and the United Nations call for dismantling the WIPO IGC negotiations and instead to mandate the development of true international mechanisms to protect Indigenous Peoples systems for protecting our traditional knowledge and genetic resources and protecting such rights. 4. We call upon all Indigenous Peoples to stand in solidarity with indigenous peoples who are standing in opposition to this 21st Century version of the Doctrine of Discovery, and withdraw our active participation in the WIPO processes on GRTKF unless and until the States change the rules of procedure to permit our full and equal participation at all levels of the IGC, and until the instruments recognize and are consistent with the existing international frameworks for the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and Nations within the scope of the IGC. 5. We recommend that Indigenous Nations and Peoples set our own legal standards for the protection of our traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources and we insist that the UN inform WIPO that it must respect Indigenous Peoples traditions, practices and laws on these issues.
35
ATTACHMENT FIVE:
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joint Intervention: Aotearoa

(Comprising the Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu) 10 May 2012 11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Check against delivery
Item 5: Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds - World Intellectual Property Organization. Delivered by Rachel Witana (representing Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa): rachelwitana@gmail.com Mr Chair, Honorable Indigenous brothers and sisters - in particular, the Indigenous Youth Caucus, and our hosts the Haudenosaunee, and other Delegates to the Permanent Forum, 1. This joint statement is made on behalf of the Mori Iwi (or first nations peoples) Authorities of Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu.
Mr Chair, 2. The Mori Caucus has been particularly keen to make an intervention on the United Nations Agencies and Funds, in particularly WIPO, for a number of reasons. Firstly, in keeping with the special theme for this Session, it is our considered view that WIPOs ongoing attempts to commodify both Indigenous knowledge and its products is a direct and deliberate extension of the doctrine of discovery. Indeed, the doctrine of discovery has always involved taking control, commodifying, and seeking to profit from the treasures of the Indigenous peoples being invaded and dispossessed. Whether it was the actions of the British naturalist Joseph Banks, stealing flora and fauna to establish the Kew Gardens in London, or the explorations of Humbolt capturing flora and fauna from the Americas, the aim was always a perceived colonizing right to take and control something that was not theirs. The current western construct of intellectual and cultural property is based on the same idea of commodification for profit, and a belief that what Indigenous peoples possess can rightly be taken by somebody else. Indeed, as the representation of WIPO stated earlier, there is a fundamental conflict between the WIPO philosophy and that of Indigenous peoples because, whereas WIPO suggests nature is not protectable, our law places a fundamental responsibility on us to protect Mother Earth. Similarly, we found it objectionable that the WIPO representative presumed property rights to be an absolute, when in fact the very idea of western style property is completely contrary to our notions of relationships with all tangible and intangible things. WIPO was established to facilitate that process. It was never established for, nor has it since given any firm indication of, any other purpose. Of all United Nations Agencies, it has been one
3.
4.
5.
36
of the most exclusionary and co-optive of Indigenous interests. WIPO has in fact been obstructive of any Indigenous attempts to properly engage or even to consider any Indigenous philosophy of the nature and protection of those treasures that rightfully belong to those Indigenous peoples. The recent efforts of Indigenous peoples to engage in the IGC, which eventually led to their withdrawal, is an indication of its ongoing unwillingness to recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples to control and protect their own knowledge treasures and everything associated with it. 6. The Mori Caucus therefore supports the actions of Indigenous peoples at the last meeting on the 20th of February 2012 to withdraw from active participation. The Mori Caucus also declares our unwillingness to participate further in WIPOs deliberations unless WIPO is prepared to change its processes, and more importantly give meaningful consideration to Mori and indeed all Indigenous perceptions of knowledge. It is disheartening to report that on issues of intellectual property, the New Zealand Government continues to dishonor Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the constitutionally founding document of Aotearoa /New Zealand). In its ardent pursuit of new right economic ideologies, the State Party assumes that anything is commodifiable, a point of view completely at odds with our understanding that everything on Mother Earth is interrelated and part of us. Equally importantly, the New Zealand Government continues to assume that the only interests we might have in those matters are necessarily subordinate to the overarching authority the Government believes was granted to it as a result of the doctrine of discovery. That is illustrated most clearly in the matter of a claim laid by our people to the Waitangi Tribunal known as the WAI 262 Flora and Fauna Claim which has been reported on before to a number of UN Agencies. The purpose of that claim was to seek recognition that everything in our world was part of who we are and ultimately for which we were responsible. The claim hearings process took over 20 years to complete, often because of deliberately obstructive tactics by the Crown. These included the passage of legislation which effectively took away many of those things which our people hoped the findings of the Tribunal might help us protect. Most tragically, of the original six claimants, only one was still alive when the report was finally issued last year. The report itself was detailed and wide-ranging, but sadly it failed to recognize in a comprehensive way the rights and responsibilities which our people claimed and still claim as Kaitiaki or Guardians of everything in our world.
7.
8.
9.
10. The opposition to WIPO which we stated earlier is in many ways an extension of the difficult battle that we continue to wage at home in protecting our knowledge. As part of this intervention we wish to submit to the Permanent Forum a proposal which all descendents of the original WAI262 claimants are developing as a way to protect and exercise authority in relation to. 11. In brief, this proposal acknowledges that the ultimate right of kaitiakitanga or protection and authority in relation to all Mori Intellectual property rests with Mori. This planned proposal also seeks to find ways in which the benefits of our knowledge can be appropriately shared with others both at home and overseas, especially with our Indigenous brothers and sisters. The claimants remain committed to the underlying philosophy that we are part of everything in our world and everything in our world is part of us, and that we therefore have responsibilities that no State or organization such as WIPO can usurp. Recommendations
37
12. We recommend that: a. WIPO engage in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous peoples consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on the substantive topic of defining our nature and therefore the interest in traditional and contemporary Indigenous Knowledge, and the consequent need to resile from the essentially racist ideology that everything is commodifiable and ownable as property; any changes in the WIPO processes aimed at ensuring more practicable and respectful participation be based upon the substantive shift outlined above; and the Permanent Forum encourages the New Zealand Government to engage more honestly with the WAI 262 Flora and Fauna claimants in a way that acknowledges the authority and commitment of those claimants to protect their traditional and contemporary knowledge.
b.
c.
Thank you Mr Chair.
38
ATTACHMENT SIX:

(Comprising the Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu, and Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation) 14 May 2012 Check against delivery
11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Item 6: The rights of Indigenous Peoples to food and food sovereignty. Delivered by Rachel Witana (representing Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa): rachelwitana@gmail.com Mr Chair, Honorable Indigenous brothers and sisters (in particular, our relatives in the Pacific Caucus and the Indigenous Peoples of this land), and other Delegates to the Permanent Forum, 1. This joint statement is made on behalf of the Mori Iwi (First Nations Peoples) Authorities of Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu and Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation. The Mori Caucus accepts and supports the Jokkmokk Agreement statement (made 19 June 2011 in Sweden) that Food Sovereignty is the right of all peoples, including Indigenous Peoples, to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. Furthermore, in light of the Theme of this Session of the Permanent Forum, the doctrine of discovery, we agree that a nation cannot be sovereign if it cannot feed its people. 31
2.
Mr Chair, 3. The protection and authority in relation to food and indeed all the bounty of Mother Earth has always resided in, and been part of, our political and constitutional power as iwi and hap (or Mori Nations) as reaffirmed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. Because of that, we wish to draw to the attention of the Permanent Forum Members our deep concern about the legislation being currently imposed by the New Zealand Government which will not only diminish our authority, but pose grave threats to the civil and political rights of everyone in New Zealand. Mr Chair, the New Zealand Government is currently considering a Food Bill which it argues is necessary because of obligations under the World Trade Organisations (WTOs), Food and Agricultural Organisations (FAO) and World Health Organisations (WHO) Codex Alimentations (Food Book) scheme. However, this scheme by sleight of hand forces the New Zealand Government to actually legislate food sovereignty rights violations. This in turn
http://www.ienearth.org/food-sovereignty.html
4.
5.
31
39
prevents Mori from fully protecting our tino rangatiratanga (absolute authority) concerning food sovereignty as guaranteed under Te Tiriti. 6. This situation is contrary to the very values upon which the United Nations is founded on. Some of the most disturbing features of this legislation are as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. It essentially takes away the human right to grow food, and replaces it with a regime of horticulture as approved by Government. It imposes a strict regime of food distribution rules which threaten the existence of small farmers markets and home selling in favour of agri-business interests. It empowers the New Zealand police to raid food premises without a warrant if they have cause to believe that food is being grown or distributed in breach of the Bill. It empowers members of agri-business corporations to act as Food Safety Officers with the same authority to raid food premises as the police, and gives such officers immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. It turns basic food stuffs such as grain seed, seed potatoes, rice, etc, as controlled substances which may be subject to the same restrictions as illegal drugs which are presently the only controlled substance under New Zealand Law.
v.
7.
Mr Chair, those are only some of the more draconian provisions in the legislation. Regrettably, it is just one example of the many concerns that we as Mori have about the sort of restrictive practices the New Zealand Government is agreeing to as part of the WTO. It privileges multinational companies over Mori, and indeed all other New Zealanders. It is a fundamental breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the guarantees we have in relation to our lands and forests, and is of course in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration). We will address the matters further in our proposed intervention on Transnational Corporations later in the week, but would like to again draw to the attention of the Permanent Forum Members the fact that this proposed legislation is also contrary to the claims made in the WAI 262 Flora and Fauna claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal at home. Mr Chair, we are aware that other WTO member states will also be bound by its rules to implement similar legislation, and we offer our support to other Indigenous Peoples who may be faced with similar legislation.
8.
9.
Recommendations 10. We make the following specific recommendations: that the Permanent Forum:a. b. Recommend to the State Party that, as proposed legislation that breaches numerous human rights instruments, the New Zealand Government withdraws its Food Bill; and Requests an urgent revision of WTO, FAO and WHO rules and powers, in particular mechanisms such as the Codex Scheme, which appear to enable those UN Agencies to force the New Zealand Government to legislate food sovereignty rights violations.
Thank you Mr Chair.
40
ATTACHMENT SEVEN:
WCIP intervention for the Pacific Caucus32

We acknowledge that the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples is a major opportunity to not only begin a truly constructive dialogue between Indigenous Peoples and States, but to accelerate the formal implementation of the DRIP. Conversely, the associated risk is that States will destroy Indigenous Peoples' interest and desire in participating in the WCIP if it is not organized rightly - that is, if it is not organized consistent with internationally-recognized standards which the UN Member States have themselves endorsed as worthy of implementation. Such standards include: i. those contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly those that would ensure Indigenous Peoples' direct, equal and full participation in all aspects of the Conference, whether they be matters of process and substance. We acknowledge that we are working together in creating the modalities of the conference, the goals that can be contemplated and the formation of the agenda. We therefore request that the organizers pay special attention to Indigenous priorities in this regard; inclusivity of Indigenous communities, especially those communities who do not have access to normal channels of the UN. We encourage and want to give room to imaginative thinking and ideas outside the box;
ii.
iii. obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples regarding any and all decisions made having the potential to impact in any way on our responsibilities and our human rights; and The name of this conference should also accurately reflect that what is currently proposed is a UN State Conference on Indigenous Issues. This takes into account the plenary nature and high levels talks anticipated to happen in Norway, and the associated modalities that presently constrain the UN from realizing the standards referred to in paragraph 1. above. We look forward, however, to the situation aligning correctly so that the conference name may be amended to reflect its nature as a true World Conference on Indigenous Issues. In addition, prior work of the Permanent Forum and the compelling issues expressed there, such as this years theme of Doctrine of discovery and De-colonialisation, should be referenced to, and be reflected in, the WCIP's agenda. 1-The third decade of Indigenous peoples. 2-The Forum to begin to create institutions to address mechanisms of the implementation of the DRIP. 3-Create an agency to fund participation more fully and be responsive to the special needs of IPO to represent their interest internationally.
32
For final copy lodged with DoCiP, see http://www.docip.org/gsdl/collect/cendocdo/index/assoc/HASH0129/e4e52bf4.dir/pf12lawrence212.pdf#sea rch=%22Lawrence%20Keali%27i%27olu%27olu%20GORA%22

41
4-implementation of the DRIP to secure land rights and self-determination under international law and practice, including the DRIP. 5-To create free and open dialogue about the status of Indigenous Peoples with States in order to effectively identify problems from an shared indigenous perspective. 6-To address the emergency situation of Low lying Islands in the Pacific as to modalities of their survival, whether repatriations to new island with sovereignty intact or mitigate high tides effects with technologies. 7- To have full and free access to healthcare facilities and to deal in particular with issues like the AIDS pandemic; lack of mental healthcare. States have to provide all available facilities in order to secure immediate access to medical care. 8- To effectively preserve land and water by ending devastation and commercial exploration and respect the peoples with their ancestral heritage who living on these grounds. As water means life, exploitation of water and land by executing water policies to be explored by private investors and corporate managers of states and disregarding the livelihood of communities. 9- To create liaisons or persons with each state embassy/consulate to begin a direct relationship between Indigenous Peoples communities. 10- To call the conference such as Preliminary high level talks. We as the Pacific Caucus aim to work constructively with states to build a future based on mutual trust and respect. This can only serve to benefit indigenous peoples all over the world. Thank You
42
ATTACHMENT EIGHT:

(Comprising the Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu, and Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust) 15 May 2012 Check against delivery
11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Item 4a: Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and Item 4b: Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Delivered by Catherine Davis (representing Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa): catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz Madam Chair, Honorable Indigenous brothers and sisters (in particular, our relatives in the Pacific Caucus and the Indigenous Peoples of this land); Distinguished guests, including Special Rapporteur Prof. James Anaya; and Other Delegates to the Permanent Forum:1. This joint statement is made on behalf of the Mori Iwi (First Nations Peoples) Authorities of Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu and Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation; as well as Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust and the Aotearoa Not For Sale Hikoi organizers (2012).
Recommendations 2. Madam Chair, remaining mindful of the ongoing impact of the doctrine of discovery on Indigenous Peoples, the Mori Caucus recommends that the Permanent Forum: a. recommend to the New Zealand Government that it carries out a comprehensive review of New Zealands constitutional arrangements, including meaningful consideration of: i. ii. b. mechanisms for the recognition and protection of human and Indigenous rights; and the Independent Constitutional Working Groups (Aotearoa Matike Mai) findings and recommendations; strongly encourages the State Party to urgently implement transformation of New Zealands constitutional arrangements, ensuring to obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Mori regarding any issues affecting them; acknowledges the intervention made today by the New Zealand Government Delegation, in particular its statement that it is committed to ensuring the fulfillment
c.
43
of the rights of indigenous peoples and that it reaffirms [its] support for the Declaration [on the rights of Indigenous Peoples], its principles and its aspirations; d. That, in the interests of maintaining State Party integrity, the Permanent Forum enthusiastically challenges the New Zealand Government to align its aforementioned words of commitment and support with its conduct and performance, by taking urgent and concrete action to fully implement the recommendations contained in the two New Zealand Country reports of the Special Rapporteur; and strenuously encourages the State Party to: i. fully recognize the profound impact which colonization has had in increasing the incidence of violence against women, suicide and other social ills amongst Mori; and be mindful of this nexus when undertaking its constitutional review.
e.
ii.
Aotearoa Not For Sale Hikoi 3. Madam Chair, last week saw the final day of a civil society march through New Zealand called the Aotearoa Not For Sale Hikoi. Initiated, led and hosted throughout the country by Mori peoples and communities, the Hikoi lasted over two weeks, was joined and supported by tens of thousands of New Zealanders, and was officially supported by: a. b. c. Numerous civil society organizations (including Greenpeace and Global Peace and Justice Auckland); a host of Workers Union groups (including the Rnanga arm of the Council of Trade Unions); and the Mana Political Party (which was born out of a commitment to providing an independent Mori voice in Parliament):-
amongst others all of which represent a significant group of the Mori population. 4. The Hikoi culminated with a rally on the steps of the New Zealand Parliament to demonstrate unprecedented opposition to a multitude of critical Government-led social justice and environmental issues including: a. b. c. d. e. privatization and the continued sale of our countrys natural resources, land and public services to third party foreign investors; the Trans Pacific Partnership trade Agreement that places unconstitutional limits on Aotearoas economic sovereignty; the Food Bill which violates the human right to food security of Indigenous Peoples and citizens generally; Petroleum and minerals mining, fracking and other extractive activities that threaten our environmental security; and attacks against workers rights:-
to name but a few. These and other crimes against humanity must be halted and prevented with the constitutional entrenchment and effective enforcement in Aotearoa of our Indigenous and Human Rights. Violence Against Women
44
5.
Madam Chair, we note the New Zealand Governments acknowledgement last week (brief, though it was) that colonization and structural violence are factors in terms of violence against women, suicide and other social ills amongst Mori. We would go further, however, and emphasize that the sustained intergenerational attack of successive Governments colonization polices is itself a form of violence on our Mori peoples indigenous identity and our core traditional values including our peoples sense of self-worth, and our societies respect for our women.
Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 6. In closing, we have two questions for the Special Rapporteur.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Impact of Article 46 7. First, we heard earlier today the statement from the State Party concerning its commitment to ensuring the fulfilment of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to the Declaration. However, Mori understanding is that New Zealands commitment to the Declaration is severely constrained by Article 46 which reflects the right of States to act as they deem necessary to: a. b. c. 8. maintain their territorial integrity or political unity; recognise the rights of other non-Indigenous New Zealand citizens; and meet the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.
Question 1: What strategic advice do you have for Mori, and indeed all Indigenous Peoples, in terms of implementing the Declaration despite the impact of Article 46 which appears to give states arguable justification for choosing NOT to fully implement the Declaration?
A new DRIP? 9. Second, there has been some discussion at this session among Indigenous Delegates about the notion of rights being somewhat foreign and contrary to our Indigenous values in terms of our natural relationship with the environment and with one another in this global human family of ours. The notion that feels more correct and appropriate to us is the notion of RESPONSIBILITY: to protecting Mother Earth, and to one another as brothers and sisters.
10. Question 2: Do you see any practical value in the development of an internationally-recognised instrument more aligned with our inherent nature as Indigenous Peoples: for example, a Declaration on the RESPONSIBILITIES of Indigenous Peoples, to be supported by States? Thank you Madam Chair.
45
ATTACHMENT NINE:
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Reply of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Questions from Aotearoa
(Comprising the Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu, and Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust) 15 May 2012 11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Item 4b: Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Prof. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur33 1. James suggested we take a Human Rights based view of that provision, one that understands the particular context: that the instrument (the declaration) is to overall advance the recognition and advancement of Indigenous Peoples rights. And from another level, one might say that Article 46 does no more than re-state the existing standards of international law relating to international Human Rights systems, which some might refer to as a savings clause in some respects. But it does not provide licence for States or any other actors to ride roughshod over the rights pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. While it might provide some level of limitation on the exercise of those rights, those limitations are no more than just general ones within the Human Rights system, and are related to (as the Mori Caucus says) to responsibilities of the rights-holders. So I would put a cast on [those limitations] which sees it as relating to responsibilities of all, and indeed to reiterate the responsibilities including of Indigenous Peoples re the (1) outside world, re (1) other sectors of humanity and (3) the natural world as well. 2. Which is important regarding your second question, more specifically to keep in mind that the declaration is a product of a dialogue between Indigenous Peoples, States and other actors that took place over many years. It is what I think is an intercultural expression of aspirations of Indigenous Peoples, one that while grounded in fundamental respects in Indigenous Peoples own world view, it necessarily (1) speaks to the language of the broader international legal system, and hence uses the language of rights to build on that tradition, and (2) is rooted within the contemporary international Human Rights system. 3. Nonetheless, the spirit of the declaration is to build upon Indigenous Peoples world view, and incorporate that world view, and so I see the declaration as implicitly incorporating the notion of responsibilities as Indigenous Peoples have expressed. Its striking that throughout my work in various parts of the world, the issue of responsibility arises in connection with rights, that being expressed by Indigenous leaders themselves. Thats extremely important, and I would urge Indigenous Peoples themselves to come up with a statement of responsibilities. That is
33
Transcript notes taken from video recording, now posted on Youtube: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b3KaaNHxEo forward to 5:45 minutes into the video for start of Prof. Anayas reply.
46
extremely important, because Indigenous Peoples do have the capacity to come up with their own codes, their own declarations appropriate to their own circumstances and world views. And those have authority they do have authority, to articulate from their perspective this confluence of rights and responsibility. ENDS
47
ATTACHMENT TEN:

(Comprising the Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu and the Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust) 16th May 2012 11th Session New York 7-18 May 2012 Item 5: Future work of the Permanent Forum - Duty of the State to protect Indigenous Peoples affected by transnational corporations and other business enterprises Delivered by Piripi Moore (representing the Maori caucus): te_ao@xtra.co.nz Mr Chair, 1. Honourable indigenous brothers and sisters - and in particular the first nations people of this land, other Delegates to the Permanent Forum. 2. This joint statement is made on behalf of the Mori Iwi (or first nations peoples) Authorities of Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa, the Ngti Kuri Trust Board, Te Rnanga-a-Iwi o Ngti Kahu, Te Whanau a Apanui, the Ngti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation and Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust. 3. We in the Maori caucus fully support the interventions of our relatives in the Pacific Caucus on the future work of the Permanent Forum. 4. However we would like to focus on the role of the Permanent Forum in regards to the activities of transnational corporations as they impact on indigenous peoples, and in particular how they impact on our people through the current actions and policies of the NZ Government. Indeed it is of very real concern that because of the NZ Government's commitment to the World Trade Organsation and a number of bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements, our rights are currently being threatened by multinational corporations, that are usually based far from Aotearoa New Zealand. 5. The first issue that we wish to draw to the attention of the Permanent Forum is the current rapid increase in the granting of government licenses to multinationals involved in extractive industries. For example, there has been in the last year a change in Govenment policy which effectively allows an oil company to prospect for oil on land without the consent of the people, subject to whom the land belongs. This clearly infringes the civil and political rights of all New Zealanders and particularly breaches the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 6. These actions of the Government are clearly privelleging the interests of transnational corporations at the expense of our peoples interests and rights, and in the face of extensive opposition. Many of our people have clearly expressed their opposition in current treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown and a large number of people recently took part in a hikoi or protest march throughout the country to further signal their opposition.
48
7. That the Govenment seems determined to proceed in spite of this opposition is not just a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but also a grave threat to the environment, especially with the large number of licenses granted to allow fracking or hydraulic fracturing. 8. We have submitted with our intervention, for the consideration of Permanent Forum, a statement by Te Whanau a Apanui which outlines a recent example of the actions and policies of the New Zealand Government and how these breach of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 9. The second issue that we wish to draw to the attention of the members of the Permanent Forum, is linked to the privilleging of multinational agribusinesses that was referred to earlier in our submission on food soveriegnty. We can illustrate this particular issue by pointing out to the forum that NZ has in the last five years sold more land to overseas interests per capita than any other OECD country. Such land sales are of course in fundamental breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but also take away from other New Zelanders the ability to farm and use the land. Just recently for example, the Government approved the sale of 16 large scale farms to Chinese business interests while ignoring competitive bids from potential New Zealand buyers, including iwi or Maori peoples to whom the land inherently belongs. 10. Mr Chair, the New Zealand Government seems determined to transfer so much of the land to transnational corporations that we who are the people of the land may soon have very little land to be the people for. That situation is not only a fundamental violation of the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but is also a direct challenge of the very essence of our being and our uniqueness. In a very real sense that seems to us, to be a 21st century application of the Doctrine of Discovery, in that it removes our control of our lands with a unilateral transfer to somebody else. 11. The third issue that is of concern to us is the ideologically driven committment of the New Zealand Government to an ongoing series of so called free trade agreements that further privilege the interest of transnational corporations. For the last several years the New Zealand Government has been involved in the negotiations for a Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement or TPPA. This agreement is part of a pattern discussed in our earlier intervention on the New Zealand Food Bill, and is being negotiated with no involvement of Maori and in a secret manner which is both contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the fundamenal principles of democracy. It was announced just recently by the Government that the terms of any final agreement will be kept secret until four years after the agreement is signed. We are not aware of any other agreement which so completely excludes indigenous people and indeed all people from both its process and its terms. In that regard it terms not only breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but also the Covenant on Civil and Politicial rights. 12. The forth issue of concern to the Maori Caucus is the current Government policy to sell what the Government calls State Owned Enterprises. These enterprises are in fact primarily based upon assets and resources originally taken from our people without their consent. This action by the NZ Government has led to a number of iwi and other Maori organisations to seek an urgent hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal in an attempt to halt the process. To on sell assets such as the water which drives electricity generation capacity of power companies is a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is therefore of grave concern that we recieved the news earlier this week, that the Government will proceed with the sales in spite fo the claim currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. That amounts to a denial of due process and will effectively force the
49
Tribunal to either abondon hearing the claim or seek to ajudicate on the issue prior to the proposed sale which will effectively pressure the Maori claimants in a way that will prevent a fair and considered hearing. 13. Mr Chair, we do not have the time in this intervention to canvas in more detail the many inter related denials of just process that the unholy partnership between the New Zealand Government and transnational corporations is creating. In many ways the New Zealand Government is embarking on a policy of land and resource confiscation that is no different than its predecessor unleased on our people in the 19th century. We urge the members of the Permanent Forum to strongly resist such policies as they are applied at home and indeed in the territories of other Indigenous Peoples. To that end we make the following three recommendations. 1. That the members of the Permenant Forum establish an independant international montioring group to ensure that States are complying with the provisions of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in regards to emerging and existing trade agreements and State endorsed transnational activities. 2. That the Permanent Forum urge the New Zealand Government that a mortorium be placed on any futher sales of Aotearoa's land to overseas interests. 3. That the Permanent Forum urge the New Zealand Government to place a moritorium on any potential environmentally damaging extractive industries and immediately rescind its policy of licensing without the consent of the people of the land. Thank you Mr. Chair
50
ATTACHMENT ELEVEN:
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Pacific Caucus Statement Thursday 17 May 2012 DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Introduction Mr. (Honorable) Chair, UN Member States, Members of the Permanent Forum, Indigenous brothers and sisters
1. [Elder delivering: please offer some statement about 20 seconds long?] 2. Mr Chair, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 66/142 it was resolved to convene a high-level event during this 11th Session of the Permanent Forum to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Pacific Caucus therefore expresses our deep disappointment in the decision yesterday to move this event from the General Assembly Hall, in favor of a thematic debate on Economy and Finance, as this appears to be a continuation of the Doctrine of Discovery where Economy and Finance takes priority over all Equality and Fairness.
3.
Self-determination 4. The right of self-determination is the heart of the UN Declaration Article 3: we continue to assert our self-determination despite the international legal framework that too often serves to undermine our absolute authority. As sovereign First Nations, our political relationships may vary. But despite these differences, we are grateful for a Declaration that recognises our particular historical situation, meets us where we are in the present and works with our own particular way we want to express that. Weve always asserted this. Thats our reality. It is our right. Doctrine of Discovery
51
5.
Mr. Chair, as eloquently expressed by Moana Jackson during this Permanent Forum Session, the gaze of the colonising other as expressed through the Doctrine of Discovery has had a profound, all-pervasive and lasting effect on Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific, and indeed, around the Globe. As the dominant approach to States relationships with Indigenous Peoples in both historical and contemporary times, its reach seems to know no bounds, extending to our lands, natural resources, culture and social structures even to the very depths of our souls. All will know of the debilitating impact the Doctrine of Discovery and its offspring, Colonisation has had our capacity to realise self-determination in (Oceania) the Pacific and elsewhere. More fundamentally, the doctrine and its colonial champions have crushed our ability to realise our Human Right to simply exist as who we are, and to freely and naturally express our inherent nature as Indigenous Peoples whether as individuals, as Indigenous communities, or as First Nations States on our traditional lands and territories.
5.
Doctrine of Discovery and Decolonisation 6. When the UN was created, one of its main objectives was to bring an end to colonialism. To accomplish this, under Article 73 of the UN Charter, there was generated a list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs), along with Administrative Nations appointed to help the client territories prepare for decolonization following policies, criteria and mechanisms established by the UN. From the original roster of 51 members in 1945, today, there are 192 (193) members of the UN due in large part to the U.N.s mandate for decolonization. (We believe there should be at least a dozen more added to the family of nations) 7. In the past 20 years, the decolonization process slowed to a crawl. Those remaining are primarily Oceanic territories. (The right to self-determination must be respected and realized) The nations of the Pacific pursuing decolonization are Tahiti, Rapa Nui, Kanaky, West Papua, Maluku, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaiiand in the far North Pacific, Alaska. 8. However, in the spirit of the Dalai Lamas generous words which recognise our most sacred friends (that is, those we find it most difficult to forgive), and encouraged by what is arguably a landmark moment in political history with the World Council of Churches denouncement of the Doctrine of Discovery earlier this year, we the Indigenous Peoples remain ever hopeful for a better future. Such a future can only be created by instituting a new Indigenous paradigm of rediscovering, redefining and reclaiming our rights and responsibilities, complimented by an enlightened, progressive and mutually-respectful relationship with States. 9. UN member States must transcend the mere articulation of aspirational Indigenous Human Rights standards, and commit to their full implementation. The unqualified decolonisation of Indigenous Peoples lands must be prioritised as absolutely necessary in this process, if we are to achieve true reconciliation, justice and
52
freedom. We call for a decolonisation with dignity. Implementation of Indigenous Rights and Responsibilities 10. Mr. Chair, in this regard, we wish to highlight for the UN member States four areas of particular importance in terms of implementation (and realization) of our Indigenous rights and responsibilities as affirmed by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples and other standard-setting instruments.
[C1] Transnational Corporations 11. An important issue within the Pacific is the negative impact of business activities of large multinational corporations on the daily lives of Indigenous peoples. The scale and scope of the resource exploration and exploitation of indigenous peoples lands and waters affects us as Indigenous peoples and our right to exercise our rights are expressly stated in Article 3 of the Declaration where Indigenous peoples right to selfdetermination and right to pursue their economic, social and cultural development is expressed. Indigenous Peoples traditional hunting and fishing rights and our right to cultivate and harvest food is gravely impacted upon by the number of transnational corporations engaging in the exploitation of resources, which our land and waters across the Pacific provides. Whilst transnational corporations have begun to implement standards of social responsibility, their approaches towards building relationships and engaging with Indigenous peoples is not always consistent with the cultural, spiritual, social and economic aspirations of the Indigenous peoples outlined within the Declaration. 12. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum highlights the tensions felt between Indigenous peoples, States and multinational corporations. The trade policies and practices advocated by APEC pursue profit by circumventing Indigenous Peoples rights. Transnational entities obliterate Indigenous identities through marginalisation and assimilation. The power of these multinational corporations is far-reaching. The gluttony of economics and shareholder profits has taken precedence over Indigenous perspectives and Indigenous peoples collective human rights. (The Moana Nui model provided a process for cooperation to create a future rooted in human rights and indigenous cosmology. We look forward to more Moana Nui meetings paralleling regional economic governmental meeting in our homeland of Oceania)
Climate Change 13. Another pressing issue is the clear and present danger of climate change too our lands and our oceans. There is already empirical evidence recorded as to rising sea levels, contamination of underground freshwater lenses due to encroaching seas; higher acidity and high ocean temperatures leading to permanent coral bleaching and more frequent extreme weather conditions. To prevent this further, we must recognise the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples through their active assistance as experts
53
within UN expert agencies and forums on designing and implementing strategies for preventing further climate change. 14. There are many imminent issues of human rights of indigenous peoples such as the right to water, food, and health. Unfortunately, there are violations taking place today among our indigenous island nations. More important, there are many issues relating to self-determination such as what will happen when waves roll over the sovereign shores of our states? ) Demilitarisation 15. While todays high level event , and, the Pacific Caucus respectfully requests that the UN General Assembly urge all States to recognize First Nation Peoples right to their lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned and occupied or otherwise used. Another important issue of concern in the Pacific is that of demilitarization. 16. Military in the Pacific poses extreme stressors on the lands, its resources, and the overall health of all indigenous peoples of the Pacific. Military activities include restrictions to land-access, contamination, and pollution resulting in dangerous outcomes with near irrevocable outcomes. Many military sites are located in areas considered sacred to the peoples; the presence of the military restricts cultural connection to our lands and in many cases completely prevents access to these lands. In addition to the restrictions placed on these occupied lands is the major environmental concerns resulting from military presence. A major concern is the dumping of military munitions that have resulted in contamination of our oceans, our lands, and our aquifers. The results of these contaminations are devastating health affects undermining our rights to livelihood and survival. (Even more alarming is the expansion of the United States even in indigenous communities of Australia this year)
UN Agency accountability and coordination. 16. We acknowledge that audits and reviews of UN Agencies have been undertaken regarding alignment with Permanent Forum recommendations. However, the UN needs to ensure it acts consistent with its own policies and standards. We must cooperate in genuine partnership to realize the recommendations in the UN agencies. Youth statement 17. While we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Declaration, we also acknowledge the many more miles we have to go in our journey to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. And, and as evidenced by the events of the past two weeks, we have not reached this goal. The Declaration has been in the making for over the last 25 years through exhaustive negotiations between Indigenous Peoples, UN agencies and member states. Only through its implementation within the legislative and policy framework of member states will the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be fully protected.
54
Participation 19. Furthermore, we need to encourage and prepare our Indigenous youth in participating within the international and local mechanisms in the protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is important that we Indigenous youth are prepared for the responsibility of advocating further for the rights of our Indigenous peoples as our elders have and their elders before them. With this we can carry on the path our elders have taken to reach for a system of protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We walk in the footsteps of our ancestors: To our indigenous brothers and sisters we say, we cannot let any of these challenges impede our aspirations and dreams for a future of peace and freedom.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
55
ATTACHMENT TWELVE: New Zealand Government Statement 34 to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Item 9: Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Chair, I make this statement on behalf of X, Y, Z. We expected to celebrate, as announced in the UN Journal for many weeks, the fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the General Assembly Hall. We received notice yesterday late afternoon that it could not be held in the GA Hall. We regret this unfortunate and untimely move of the commemoration. We note that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues have faced similar obstacles to access the GA Hall in the past. We trust that the competent authorities of the United Nations will make every effort to ensure that indigenous peoples and indigenous issues are awarded fair treatment at the United Nations, in accordance with the Declaration itself.
34
Copied from email from NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trades Tara Morton to Catherine Davis.
56
57

UN PFII, 11th Session, May 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UN PFII, 11th Session, May 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Report

For more information on the Forum, see http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/AboutUsMembers.aspx .

For more information, see http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/about.shtml .

For more information, see http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120514_Indigenous.doc.htm, and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc3997.doc.htm .

For the list of all Permanent Forum recommendations, see: http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/RecommendationsDatabase.aspx

For opening statements made, see links on this site: http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples.aspx .

Ref draft copy, Attachment Four.

Ref Attachment Five draft only.

Ref Attachment Seven.

Ref attachment ten.

Ref http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/IPeoplesFund/Pages/ApplicationsForms.aspx and

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues:

Thank you Mr Chair.

New Zealand Permanent Mission to the United Nations

Ms Jane Fletcher Deputy Director, New Zealand Office of Treaty Settlements

Wednesday 9 May 2012 As delivered

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Intervention: Mori Caucus

Thank you for your attention Mr Chair.

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joint Intervention: Aotearoa

Thank you Mr Chair.

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joint Intervention: Aotearoa

Thank you Mr Chair.

WCIP intervention for the Pacific Caucus32

For final copy lodged with DoCiP, see http://www.docip.org/gsdl/collect/cendocdo/index/assoc/HASH0129/e4e52bf4.dir/pf12lawrence212.pdf#sea rch=%22Lawrence%20Keali%27i%27olu%27olu%20GORA%22

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joint Intervention: Aotearoa

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joint Intervention: Aotearoa

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Potrebbero piacerti anche