National Tribal Environmental Council

 

The 16th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP-16) held in Cancun, Mexico recently ended with 194 countries (hereinafter “Parties) participating in the multilateral climate negotiations as did a number of civil society constituencies including the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC). Generally speaking, COP-16 provided participants with a pleasant backdrop for conducting business, but having multiple venues created some logistical problems for getting the participants to a central location to meet with their respective constituencies or government delegations. At least the “Ghost of Copenhagen,” a reference to last year’s COP at which five Parties co-opted the process by drafting a final Accord (Copenhagen Accord), seemed to have been put to rest by the Mexican government which worked fervently to make sure that all Parties were provided with consistent opportunity to influence the negotiations throughout.

 The overall tone of the Conference was positive, and culminated in the Cancun Agreement, an outcome which was essential to the continued viability of the UNFCCC process. The Agreement struck in the wee hours of December 11th, includes some important Indigenous-related provisions, but much work needs to be done to adequately address the concerns of Indigenous Peoples in a final international climate change treaty.

 The Cancun Agreement is modestly successful in several areas: the Parties reaffirm GHG emission reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen Accord; it provides greater transparency in the monitoring, reporting and verification of emission reductions, and corresponding actions to reduce such emissions; it creates a framework to better plan and implement adaptation projects in developing countries; it establishes a Green Climate Fund to help mobilize financial resources to assist developing countries in addressing climate change; and it provides for increased action by the Parties to limit emissions as a result of deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (e.g., REDD+).

 In the course of the COP-16 negotiations, the IIPFCC insisted that the following principles be guaranteed and implemented in all processes, agreements and actions on climate change:

• Full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including those contained in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);
• Respect for the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in all climate programs and activities; and
• Recognition and protection of the traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples as a basis for the generation of effective solutions to climate change.

Advancing these principles, however, was difficult for the IIPFCC workgroups tasked with oversight of distinct portions of the negotiating text. For each of three texts introduced during COP-16, the workgroups had to read it, develop appropriate recommendations, make these recommendations available in multiple languages, and then submit the recommendations to the larger Forum for its approval. If approved, the recommendations were then passed onto Parties with the intent that such recommendations be included in subsequent versions of the text.

Unfortunately, the IIPFCC’s North American representatives were unable to share any of the recommendations with the U.S. delegation which ignored multiple requests by the representatives to meet. Furthermore, the delegation failed to engage Indian tribes as it had done during the previous COP at which tribal and state representatives served on a U.S.-sponsored panel to speak about the leadership and innovations that their governments were taking to address GHG emissions. Similar tribal representation was conspicuously absent from panels sponsored by the U.S. at COP 16.

 

The Cancun Agreement also contains several references to Indigenous Peoples and their rights, as well as human rights in general. For instance, the Agreement emphasizes at times, the need to provide Indigenous Peoples with full and effective participation in the international processes addressing climate change. Unfortunately, there are many more places in the Agreement where participation of relevant stakeholders is encouraged, but without specific mention of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, the Agreement includes two references to the UNDRIP in relation to mitigation actions and REDD+.

 

Indigenous Peoples have continuing concerns regarding REDD+ and its potential to turn forests into commodities to be sold and purchased, particularly with multiple references to “market-based programs” throughout the Cancun Agreement. One likely scenario is that developing countries would sell offsets obtained as a result of keeping their forests intact to facilities in developed countries such as the U.S., thereby allowing them to pollute at historic levels and avoid any obligation to reduce their respective GHG emissions. If references to market-based mechanisms remain in future negotiating texts, it is imperative that safeguard language guaranteeing the traditional knowledge and rights of Indigenous Peoples be strong and mandatory. Unfortunately, the safeguard language under the Agreement is only “promoted and supported…,” providing little assurance that Indigenous Peoples would be adequately protected in the context of REDD+ projects.

The weak safeguard language pertaining to REDD+ is similar to the weak language throughout the Cancun Agreement regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Specifically, the Agreement uses words and phrases such as noting, take note, recognizes and also requests in connection with the UNDRIP, and with the need for full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in climate-related processes or actions. Stronger language such as ‘guided by the Declaration’, certainly realistic based on recent U.S. support of the UNDRIP, must be included so as to assure Indigenous Peoples obtain the greatest guarantees possible under future negotiating texts.

Strengthening the negotiating text should also be of concern to Indian tribes in the U.S., but they have had limited involvement in the UNFCCC thus far. Tribes are reminded, however, that the UNFCCC is an important forum as climate change implicates every aspect of Indigenous rights – i.e., self-determination; lands, territories, and natural resources; FPIC; traditional knowledge; and full and effective participation in all matters affecting them. The UNFCCC and its COPs therefore provide an opportunity for tribes to influence how climate change will be addressed not only at the international level but domestic as well. Tribes live with the daily and disproportionate impacts of such change. It is crucial that they become involved.