report - swedbio€¦ · do conservation and human rights con˚icts still arise?”, we need to pay...

GLOBAL DIALOUGE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Stockholm Resilience Centre

April 2018

Report

CO-PRODUCED BY:

Global Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation Eldoret, Kenya | 20 – 23 November 2017

3


Cover image: The biocultural landscape of the Ogiek. Many trees of the natural forest are maintained and provide diverse contributions to the livelihoods of the village people.There is a pressure from the government and bussiness to replace this landscape with monocultures of non-native species, (for exam-ple, with conifers) to provide monetary returns, and deplete the biodiversity that sustains the bees and much else on which the Oigek depends. Photo credit: P. Malmer

Funding: This report was funded by Sida, through SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre.Citation: Malmer, P., Chongeywo, P. K., Clarke, C., Ituarte-Lima, C., Jonas, H., Kenrick, J., Stone, N., Tugendhat, H., 2018. Global Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation Eldoret, Kenya | 20 – 23 November 2017. Workshop report. SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden.

Table of contentPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4List of acronyms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Why do conservation and human rights con�icts still arise? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 What can be done to avoid con�icts reoccurring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 How can active con�icts be resolved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation: moving towards synergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

The Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methodology: “The single biggest opportunity we have is dialogue” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overview of the dialogue process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Day 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Inauguration of the dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 De�ning the dialogue’s purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Opening Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Where are we? Re�ections on key questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Why do con�icts still arise? Initial thoughts from the participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 What can be done to avoid con�icts occurring? Initial thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 How can active con�icts be resolved? Initial thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Day 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Local-to-global dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mount Elgon experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Communities around the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Thailand: Mountain peoples & Ob Luang National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Australia: Indigenous Protected Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Uganda: The Batwa – Bwindi & Magahinga National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Democratic Republic of Congo: Batwa & Kahuzi Biéga National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Embobout experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Sengwer: Who we are and what is our experience of conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Day 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Encouraging synergies and transforming con�ict – local-to-global dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Opening session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Practical solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Part one: Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 What can be done to avoid con�icts occurring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Part two: Practical solutions – resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 How can active con�icts be resolved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Litigious Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Ogiek of Mau Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Endorois Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Non-Litigious Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 How to impact the power imbalance among actors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UN-CERD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 World Heritage Convention (WHC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples case example of the Sengwer . . . . . . . . 34 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 UN Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UN WGBHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Future ideas about opportunities for ensuring synergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Whakatane Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lessons learned from implementing the Whakatane Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Open space session and cultural evening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Day 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 The ways forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Closing of the dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Organisers´ invitation: A Way Forward in support of Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Key references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44ANNEX I: Dialogue Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45ANNEX II: List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49ANNEX III: Evaluation of dialogue by participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

In memoriam This report is dedicated to the memory of Daniel Ole Sapit, who attended the dialogue and shared his experiences and deep knowledge of defending and advancing the rights of Indigenous peoples, particularly in Africa. Dan dedicated his life to this cause and was an immensely important leader in pushing for stronger

international standards and recognition of the rights of peoples to their lands and resources. His untimely death in February 2018 has left a deep sadness among those who had the fortune to know him, and among the wider movement for Indigenous peoples’ rights. He is deeply missed.

Photo: Forest Peoples Programme.

54

GLOBAL DIALOUGE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATIONGLOBAL DIALOUGE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Executive Summary

List of acronyms

Preface

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples’ RightsADM Alternative Dispute MechanismAFRICAN CHARTER African Charter on Human and Peoples’ RightsAFRICAN COURT African Court on Human and Peoples’ RightsCAMV Center of Accompaniment for Indigenous Pygmies and

Vulnerable MinoritiesCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBMIS Community Based Monitoring and Information Systems CEDAW The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against WomenCIPDP Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples’ Development ProjectECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social CouncilFPIC Free, Prior and Informed ConsentFPP Forest Peoples ProgrammeGBO Global Biodiversity OutlookICCAs Territories and areas conserved by Indigenous Peoples and

local communities IIFB International Indigenous Forum on BiodiversityILK Indigenous and Local KnowledgeILKS Indigenous and Local Knowledge SystemsIPA Indigenous Protected Areas

The Global Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation was held on 20 – 23 November 2017 at Starbucks Hotel, Eldoret, Kenya, and was hosted by the Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples’ Development Project (CIPDP), founded by the Ogiek Indigenous community of Mt Elgon, Kenya.

The four-day dialogue included representatives from con-servation agencies, social justice and human rights advocates, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use experts, legal and human rights professionals, members of community-based organisations, government of�cials, UN-organisations and academics. The objectives of the dialogue were two-fold. First, it was designed to foster open and forward-looking discussions about actions to support the Ogiek and Sengwer Indigenous peoples of Kenya, in their struggle to keep living in and governing their ancestral lands, which are rich in bio-diversity and form the base for their livelihoods. Second, the dialogue formed part of a larger process evaluating and improving existing approaches, tools and practices that has emerged based on the conviction that human rights protection can and should be complementary to safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems.

Biological and cultural diversity are inextricably connected, as recognised by the Conceptual Framework for the Inter-governmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES-2/4) and the Joint Programme between UNESCO and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Protecting the rights of peoples who depend on their direct and long-standing relationships with their ancestral territories is a requirement of inter-national human rights law. It is also often the most strategic and effective means available to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems.

This dialogue is intended to contribute to the discourse high-lighting the synergies amongst biocultural diversity, human rights and biodiversity conservation for inclusion in global policies under the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity, and the development of its Post 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity as well as the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

It is also a response to a call to nation states from, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, to “respect, protect, and ful�l human rights, including in all actions undertaken to address environmental challenges…” and to “… adopt and implement strong laws ensuring, among other things, the rights to participation, to access to information and to justice, including to an effective remedy…”.1

The dialogue was jointly organised and designed by Swed-Bio at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) and Natural Justice. A long pre-dialogue process ensured thorough understanding of the primary interacting factors that generate tensions between conservation organisations, Indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as the overarching legal, institutional and political context and challenges. The design process also explored and facilitated the development and strengthening of the func-tionality of grievance mechanisms such as the Whakatane Mechanism. The dialogue was �nanced by support from the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) through SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre.

1 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz 29 July 2016, A/71/229,

The Global Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation was initiated to address the con�icts that have often emerged across the globe between conservation agencies and Indigenous peoples with longstanding relationships to their ancestral territories. It was hosted by the Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project and co-organised by SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Forest Peoples Programme and Natural Justice. The dialogue took the conviction that local people and conservation organisations can be strategic allies as a starting point. It was attended by conservation agencies, social justice and human rights advocates, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use experts, legal and human rights professionals, members of community-based organisations, government of�cials, UN-organisations and academics. It was designed in a global policy-setting context, while also aiming for contributing to local ways forward.

The Dialogue methodology was informed by the “multiactor dialogue seminar methodology2” for identifying inno-vative and genuine solutions for a sustainable future. Further, a ‘multiple evidence base approach’3 was applied where

2 http://swed.bio/reports/report/the-biggest-single-opportuni-ty-we-have-is-dialogue/

3 http://swed.bio/stories/a-multiple-evidence-base-approach-for- equity-across-knowledge-systems/

Indigenous, local, and scienti�c knowledge systems and practices are considered equally valid and useful. It also drew upon the Whakatane methodology.4

Throughout the dialogue, participants learned about a number of diverse experiences from communities, govern-ments, and human rights and conservation and other actors around the world. For the Ogiek of Chepkitale, Mt Elgon, Kenya, after years of harassment and evictions, a dialogue with state and non-state conservation agencies initiated 2011 through a Whakatane Assessment, led to a reduction in harassment, the reinstatement of schools that were formerly forbidden, and the recognition that they are a community like any other. The Karen of Thailand articulated how their forests are being decimated, and people evicted, and how community activists are being arrested and harassed. From Uganda and from DRC the Batwa told similar stories about being evicted from their ancestral lands, and no longer having access rights in the National Parks established on their lands. The Sengwer of Embobout Forest, Kenya, voiced their suffer-ing including constantly being faced with forced evictions, amidst newly established conservation projects.

Through the sharing of these community stories, and con-servationists’ responses, it became clear that community and

4 http://whakatane-mechanism.org

Dialogue participants and Sengwer women sharing knowledge and culture. Photo: P. McElwee

IPBES Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

IPLC Indigenous Peoples and Local CommunitiesIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureIUCN CEESP IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social

PolicyKFS Kenya Forest ServiceKNHCR Kenyan National Human Rights CommissionKWC Kenya Wildlife ServiceLBO Local Biodiversity OutlooksMENR Kenyan Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources MRG Minority Rights GroupNCP Nature’s Contributions to PeopleNHRC National Human Rights CommissionNLC National Land CommissionPES Payment for Ecosystem ServicesSRC Stockholm Resilience CentreTK Traditional KnowledgeUN United NationsUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the ChildUN DRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

76


ecological well-being are, over the long term, utterly dependent on each other. In answering the question “Why do conservation and human rights con�icts still arise?”, we need to pay more attention to those drivers of biodiversity loss, such as extractive industries, that may be far less concerned with human and ecological well-being.

There were also hopeful messages, such as that from Costa Rica where it was reported that Indigenous communities are now the largest owners of forests, and a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program is targeting Indigenous communities because they provide valuable environmental services. In Australia, Indigenous Protected Areas now make up 50 percent of the Australian National Reserve System, and most protected areas occur on Indigenous lands.

In countries where con�icts persist, ways forward can be found on the basis that the government and Indigenous peoples have the same objective – conservation of nature and land – and need to �nd win-win solution together. This became the strong unifying message of the dialogue, and the base for the vision of creating a new narrative, based on positive stories where Indigenous peoples and conservation actors in collaboration have created bene�ts for both human well-being and nature.

Successful judgements, such as the Ogiek of Mau in the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Endorois in the African Commission, are establishing important prece-dents and principles that recognise that restoring Indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands can be crucial to conserving na-ture. There is a body of international law moving towards supporting this perspective. Also, Indigenous peoples’ tradi-tional lifestyle on the land, and their connection with the for-est, are recognised as important aspects in the Ogiek judge-ments. The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights has the ability to address such collective rights, which is an-other important leap forward for recognising Indigenous peoples’ contributions to biodiversity conservation through their collective actions.

These examples illustrate that litigation can raise aware-ness and educate people and institutions, and be a catalyst for further dialogue where relationships have broken down. However, successful judgements in international courts are not suf�cient in themselves, and the implementation of these rulings is lagging behind. Development partners and funders need to live up to their responsibility to ensure accountability and the implementation of general rulings and principles as well as the implementation of speci�c cases. International mechanisms, such as the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity were highlighted as having an important supportive role.

Three underlying questions have been examined from dif-ferent angles during the dialogue: 1) why con�icts between Indigenous peoples and nature conservation interests still arise, 2) how to avoid them happening, and 3) how active con�icts might be resolved. The Dialogue process produced a

be successful, and is more likely to be sustained, in partner-ship with Indigenous peoples. There is a need to in�uence existing and draft regulations on biodiversity conservation and protected areas towards incorporating co-management agreements. When (and where) legal reforms have been es-tablished, it is important to continue to demand enforcement.

Policies and national laws should be amended to recog-nise the rights of Indigenous peoples in protected areas. Community Land Use Plans, participatory planning and co-management are tools that can be introduced and main-streamed to this end. The need was also raised for mechanisms that are accessible to communities to raise their cases and concerns. Further, Indigenous peoples should be supported in developing their own tools to protect their rights, such as mapping of territories, and strengthening community leader-ship and governance structures.

Dialogue and Negotiation. Before designing any conservation initiative, it is critical to identify local partners and ensure marginalised people are integrated from the onset to ensure meaningful participation and effective consultation. At this initial stage, mutually supportive approaches and solutions that can bene�t both nature conservation and communities’ livelihoods should be identi�ed and integrated. To avoid con�icts the principles of FPIC should always be followed.

Community visits are needed for those responsible for conservation programmes in government, particularly politicians and conservation agencies so they and others can understand how Indigenous peoples live, think and manage their territories and biodiversity, as well as the realities of life for Indigenous peoples.

It was also identi�ed that a mindshift is needed in many powerful conservation actors away from discriminatory attitudes and condescension for the resource use practices of Indigenous peoples. This could be catalysed by e.g. training

What can be done to avoid con�icts reoccurring? International policy: Among mechanisms within the UN System there are many processes ongoing that can contribute to strengthening the synergies between Indigenous peoples’ rights and biodiversity conservation. In 2018 UNPFII will give speci�c attention to territorial rights, and a report on Conservation and the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples will introduce a way forward, to which the suggestions from the Eldoret dialogue can contribute. The CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010 – 2020 is coming to an end, and the development of the Post 2020 targets for the CBD, represents an important opportunity to highlight and push for the positive synergies between biodiversity conservation and the realisation of Indigenous peoples’ rights. One suggestion is a ‘conservation industry’ certi�cation approach could be taken, similar to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil where palm oil suppliers are required to abide by certain rights and sustainability standards to receive certi�cation.

International and national advocacy. There is a need for raising awareness of international law and rights-based ap-proaches at national and international level, and a need for training in human rights and disciplinary codes for relevant governments and companies.

Education. The recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems as providing useful, credible and legitimate know-ledge contributing good practices and critical evidence for biodiversity conservation is important to mainstream in cur-ricula at all stages of education. It is important to establish and maintain services and schools in Indigenous communities to allow them to practice their cultures and ensure the new generation have local access to services, and to culturally adapted knowledges.

Legal Reform. As a foundation for all legal reforms, there is a need for governments to recognise that conservation can

bouquet of observations and suggestions to feed into on-going processes, such as the development of the Post 2020 Aichi Targets of the CBD, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues initiative regarding Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Conservation Standards and Mechanism, and the IUCN World Conservation Congress; all connected to the overarching Sustainable Development Goals and the Agenda 2030.

Why do conservation and human rights con�icts still arise? Lack of recognition of Indigenous peoples. Over time, there has been a lack of recognition and appreciation of Indigenous cultures, biocultural diversity and Indigenous peoples and local communities’ customary sustainable use of biodiversity, and thus their contribution to conservation.

Lack of recognition of Indigenous knowledge. Scienti�c knowledge is often perceived as superior, while Indigenous and local knowledge and practices are disregarded and even discriminated against. Wilderness, or land empty of people, has been viewed as the desired state for conservation. How-ever, such ideas do not take into account that Indigenous peoples living with the land and its biodiversity are contri-buting to and maintaining the land’s conservation value.

Conservation actors are not implementing their policies.

Conservation guidelines and strategies, within UN, and among international conservation actors have progressed considerably since the Durban Accord of 2003. Many con-servation agencies now of�cially recognise the importance of human rights and Indigenous peoples capacity to manage ecosystems in practice. However, for many agencies and in many places around the world, these progressive policies are yet to be implemented in practice.

Outdated laws and policies, and lack of representation.

Discriminatory forest and land laws and policies are still in place in many countries. Additionally, legal and policy processes often do not include consultation of communities. Where policies and laws are in place, the political will to implement them is often lacking.

Competition over resources. Greed and temptation for short-term economic gain abound. Local communities’ customary use is often overruled by land grabs and evictions by powerful investors. Competition over land continues, including between communities, and different groups, such as pastoralists with farmers, and land encroachment.

Poverty and Development. Despite development ambitions, economic and political inequalities persist. There is a tendency to prioritise economic interests and income generation over human rights in development projects.

Injustice and Suffering. The violation of human rights and outright dispossession of land without free, prior and in-formed consent (FPIC) is unacceptable as a means of solving resource con�icts. Discrimination is rife in many places, and communities are blamed for causing loss of biodiversity.

UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, has brought speci�c attention to the precarious situation of the Sengwer people in the Embobout forest, who are constantly faced with forced evictions, amidst newly established conservation projects. She made a key-note speech by video-link to the dialogue. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima.

98


where Indigenous peoples teach other actors about Indigenous culture and their customary sustainable use of biodiversity, as this could lead to better appreciation and recognition of diverse ways of life and values. It was agreed that a mindshift was required to see ILPCs as rights holders and experts rather than mere stakeholders.

Justice and Equity: Equitable resource sharing and redis-tribution of power is key, and multiple approaches are needed to adjust structural imbalances in power. Leadership should be shared in governance of protected areas. Indigenous communities living in protected areas should be seen as more than merely stakeholders but as rights holders and decision- makers. It is important that governments help communities with resource use planning and implementation of income- generating activities.

Women, men, youth and elders are affected in different ways by these con�icts. In dialogue initiatives, it is important that all interests and genders in the community are brought in to solution processes from the onset. In cases of harass-ments and forced evictions, the situation of women, children and the most vulnerable in the community must get speci�c attention and all voices must be heard.

Empathy, Respect and Common Ground: It is critical to build common ground amongst actors: to build common values and understanding of biocultural values that sustain biodiversity and are intertwined with territories. It is also critical to build a common understanding of the land to be conserved as a social-ecological system, made up of social and ecological elements. Listening to one another, learning and teaching each other about ecology and culture will shape a common language and understanding. The insight that the long-term objectives of Indigenous peoples and local com-munities (IPLCs) and conservation agencies are the same, may emerge from this. Solutions of mutual interest may

come from mutual respect, empathy and the full involvement of communities in all aspects of conservation, including the use of ILK in governance and monitoring of protected areas.

How can active con�icts be resolved? Litigious as well as non-litigious routes are needed to resolve con�icts between human rights and biodiversity conservation. It was suggested that litigation should happen as a last resort only. Further, corruption, lack of accountability, and tribalism within institutions are constantly needed to prevent.

In any con�ict resolution, getting parties to the same table for meaningful dialogue is critical; but if this is untenable a request for mediation between proxies can be a solution. Grievance mechanisms are also needed to facilitate discussion on disagreements and should be used as often as possible. For example, the Whakatane process, provides a context for trust building – and should take place on the land in question, where communities can demonstrate how their collective tenure and governance can be the means to achieve sustainable and effective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Having a dialogue on the land allows actors to interact on an equal footing, enabling conclusions to be drawn from peoples’ realities and their approaches to customary sustainable use.

Every action for preventing and solving con�icts between Indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation actors, and fostering instead fruitful collaborations that strengthen livelihood and nature, is part of the longer-term process of ensuring national laws, policies and practice that respect community rights and tenure, and sustainable use and the conservation of biodiversity.

“Here was my house”. Ogiek homes in Mt Elgon, Mao and elsewhere have been demolished by the Kenyan Forest Service time and again. The May 2017 ruling of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights restored hope and the rights of the Ogiek and other Indigenous peoples to live in their ancestral territories. Photo: Z. Molnár

Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, which are vital for human well-being, are rapidly being degraded and destroyed with grave and far-reaching implications for exercising a wide range of human rights, including – in the worst case scenario – human survival itself. The full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food and water, depends on the services provided by ecosystems. Exercising human rights is also key to halting the unprecedented loss of the diversity of life in lands and waters and of distinct ecosystems. Stronger action is needed for mainstreaming biodiversity and social justice, and these actions must be in accordance with human rights, as well as in line with the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Human Rights and biodiversity conservation: moving towards synergiesHuman rights protection can and should be complementary to safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, and this pro-vides a foundation for enabling local people and conserva-tion organisations to be strategic allies, rather than be set in opposition to each other. Conservation agencies – whether government agencies, NGOs or their funders – and local communities who depend on ecosystems for their livelihoods, should share the common aim of safeguarding biological and cultural diversity for present and future generations.

There have been advances in human rights-based ap-proaches to conservation, arising both from policy decisions and implementation, and from innovations in practice. For example, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), voluntary guidelines for safeguards in biodiversity �nancing mechanisms have been adopted which explicitly refer to human rights treaties, as do an increasing number of conservation organisation policies. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has adopted govern-ance categories for protected areas that explicitly recognise territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities (abbreviated to ‘ICCAs’). Experiences at local levels include the recognition of Indigenous territorial management contributing to conservation with appropriate support from conservation organisations, national support for community-based natural resource management, and piloting of the Whakatane Mechanism by FPP and IUCN to address and redress situations of injustice against Indigenous peoples in the name of biodiversity conservation.

Despite such advances, there is much more to be done to achieve win-win outcomes for communities and biodiversity conservation in complex situations. This is partly because, in many cases, communities face violence for defending their territories and rights against external biodiversity conserva-tion initiatives. Despite the evidence about the close linkages between biodiversity conservation and human rights, when

the concept of conservation of nature was �rst introduced, it was conceived and developed in a way that suggested a con�ict between humans and nature. The starting point for this dialogue has been evidence demonstrating the effects of this divide in practice. The dialogue also aimed to gain an understanding of how to move from this approach towards a balanced praxis that recognises biodiversity conservation and human rights as foundational for each other.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and envi-ronment, Professor John Knox, in his thematic report on human rights and biodiversity (2017), recommends that conservation organisations should increase their efforts to ful�l their commitments to a rights-based approach to con-servation. John Knox notes that: “While States should do more to protect biodiversity, they must act in accordance with the human rights of those who have longstanding, close relationships with their ancestral territories”.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, in her 2016 report on the rights of Indigenous peoples, appeals to nation states to “…respect, protect and ful�l human rights, including in all actions undertaken to address environmental challenges…” and to “…adopt and implement strong laws ensuring, among other things, the rights to participation, to access to informa-tion and to justice, including to an effective remedy…”.

These reports illustrate the advances in international law and policy. Nevertheless, there is much more to be done in practice to ensure synergies and positive outcomes for com-munities and biodiversity conservation in complex situations.

Introduction

Flowering Delphinium sp. at Mt. Elgon. Photo: S. Díaz

1110


The Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conserva-tion aimed to create a space for participants to collectively learn from practice and recent developments on the ground, to spark dialogue across actors, and to encourage the trans-formation of con�icts into productive relationships.

Participants were carefully selected to include a range of actors who could directly support the achievement of the above-mentioned objective and act on their experiences as biodiversity conservation agencies and social justice and human rights advocates, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use experts, legal and human rights professionals, members of community-based organisations, government of�cials, UN-organisations and academics. Unfortunately, despite initially con�rming their participation, several government of�cials informed the organisers at the last moment that they would be unable to attend.

Methodology: “The single biggest opportunity we have is dialogue”The Dialogue methodology was informed by the ‘multi-actor dialogue seminar methodology’5 developed by SwedBio and a network of colleagues based on experience gained over the past decade. This methodology builds on a diverse literature on social learning, and perspectives that view multiactor dia-

5 http://swed.bio/stories/the-role-of-multi-actor-dialogues-in-key-negoti-ation-processes/

logues as a means for both personal and systemic transfor-mation and for identifying innovative and genuine solutions for a sustainable future.

The procedures for facilitated dialogue, are encouraging participants to engage in active listening, and to understand each other’s viewpoints and �nding meaning and agreement. It is based on the assumption that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can craft a suite of solutions.” Three features differentiate a dialogue from a discussion; equality, listening with empathy, and bringing assumptions into the open.

Further, the dialogue applied a Multiple Evidence Base approach6. This means that Indigenous, local, and scienti�c knowledge systems and practices are viewed as equally valid and useful, and seen as generating complementary evidence for sustainable use and management of biodiversity. Through the dialogue process, applying a Multiple Evidence Base approach ensures that equity, reciprocity and usefulness for all actors are maintained, and that all knowledges and thoughts expressed in the dialogue are equally valid and recognised on their own terms.

The Dialogue also drew upon the Whakatane mechanism7, a mediation method developed for solving con�icts related to Indigenous territories and conservation interests. In planning,

6 http://swed.bio/stories/a-multiple-evidence-base-approach-for-equi-ty-across-knowledge-systems

7 http://whakatane-mechanism.org

The Dialogue

What can be done to avoid reoccurring con§icts? Presentation of group work. Photo: S. Díaz

it was sought to ensure that discussions happened on the ground, where problems and solutions could be understood in the context of real lived experiences – in this case, at Mount Elgon on Ogiek customary land. However, due to the World Health Organisation’s recommendations to not meet in Trans Nzoia County due to an outbreak of Marburg virus, the venue was changed to the Starbucks Hotel in Eldoret.

Mt Elgon, the Ogiek peoples ancestral land, is situated in Chepkitale in western Kenya near the border with Uganda, not far from Eldoret. They have experienced repeated forced evictions from their homes since the late 1880s, but also progress in recognition of their territories in recent years, as an outcome of a Whakatane process starting in 2011. Community members brought music and �lm to the meeting at Eldoret to allow for some experiential understanding for Dialogue participants.

The Dialogue used Chatham House rules, where partici-pants are free to use the information raised during the meet-ings, but that neither the identity nor the af�liation of partic-ipants expressing a view may be revealed. For the speakers, it was agreed that their presentations would be public. Following the Chatham House rules allows people to speak as individuals and to express views that may not be those of their organisations, and therefore encourages free discussion. Speakers are free to voice their own opinions, without con-cern for their personal reputation or their of�cial duties and af�liation.

To ensure that information from the Dialogue, in parti-cular from the participating communities, is used only with free, prior and informed consent, participants could at any moment express that they did not want particular informa-tion to be documented or shared outside of the meeting. The organisations representing the respective communities agreed to be the ‘guardians’ of the use of the knowledge and insights that came out of the dialogue. This means that any use of their community knowledge will be discussed and approved by the communities themselves. Organisers and other partici-pants from the dialogue agreed to contact the communities when they need advice on consent. The ‘guardians’ agreed to seek approval from the local communities, as required.

Overview of the Dialogue ProcessThe preparatory process of the Dialogue started almost a year before the participants met for the four days together in Eldoret. As part of this process, a Living Document8 setting the scene for the dialogue, its aims, and its approach for moving towards solutions was jointly elaborated by the co-conveners, in interaction with inputs and re�ections from participants as well as people who were invited and could not participate.

The Dialogue was structured around three guiding questions:

1) Why do conservation and human rights con�icts still arise? 2) What can be done to avoid con�icts reoccurring? 3) How can active con�icts be resolved?

Participants met on Day 1 to discuss their aspirations for the meeting, listened to the opening speeches, and considered and discussed the question, “why con�icts still arise”. The initial plan for Day 2 was to visit the Ogiek community of Mt Elgon, and re�ect over biodiversity governance and con-servation during a walking workshop through the landscape under guidance of the Ogiek. However, in the new venue, Indigenous community representatives from Kenya and other countries participating in the dialogue instead shared their experiences of conservation-related con�icts. Experiences were shared by the Ogiek and the Sengwer (Kenya), the Ka-ren (Thailand), Aboriginal peoples (Australia) and the Batwa (DRC and Uganda). Day 3 offered space for participants to further re�ect on the root causes of conservation and human rights related con�icts, before moving on to consider “what can be done to avoid con�icts occurring” and “how can active con�icts be resolved”, looking at the advantages and risks associated with litigious and non-litigious routes. Day 4 expanded on the previous day’s discussions, focussing on the way forward (see Annex I for agenda). See Annex 1 for agenda.

8 Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation, a Living Document, (last updated 14 November 2017) SwedBio (Ituarte-Lima, C., Malmer, P, Schultz, M) Forest Peoples Programme (Carino,J,. Kenrick, J., Tugendhat, Farhan-Ferrari, M), Natural Justice (Jonas, H.,), Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project (Kitelo, P.), IUCN- Theme on Governance, Equity and Rights (Springer, J).

1312


Day 1

Inauguration of the dialogue The participants of the group were welcomed to the Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation in Eldoret by a group of Sengwer women, dancing and singing Sengwer traditional dances, carrying memories and stories from their history and practices in their culture. The Sengwer dance established a positive and interactive atmosphere that char-acterised the rest of the Dialogue process.

De� ning the dialogue’s purposeFacilitated by Justin Kenrick, FPP and Claudia Ituarte- Lima, SwedBio

At the start of the four-day dialogue, participants were asked to group in pairs and introduce themselves, share their ex-pectations of the process and their personal story of becom-ing engaged in the human rights and biodiversity interface. Attention was drawn to the richness of skills, professional and geographical backgrounds of participants, all explicitly acknowledged as experts. There was a clear convergence across the group, with several themes raised repeatedly. Among the participants there was a general eagerness for sharing, exchange and learning from the experiences of others, and participants were keen to transform the exchanges into possible solutions that could help communities in their land

rights struggles. Moral support was a key aspirational out-come for those facing land rights disputes. Others in the group had more speci� c interests, including lessons on effec-tive collaboration between communities and the government; applying biodiversity and conservation knowledge to litiga-tion scenarios both nationally and regionally in Africa; and discussing how progress at the international level can have an impact in a national context. For most, there was a tangible interest in making connections with other communities and with international actors, and government of� cials. The facilitators also introduced the underlying three questions mentioned above.

Opening StatementsOpening statements were made by Peter Kitelo Chongeywo, from Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples’ Development Project (CIPDP) at Mount Elgon, Pernilla Malmer of SwedBio, Eliifuraha Laltaika from the UN Permanent Forum on Indig-enous Issues, Sandra Díaz and Zsolt Molnár from the IPBES Global Assessment, and Carlos Manuel Rodriquez, repre-senting both the Ministry of Environment of Costa Rica and Conservation International. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples gave the keynote presentation by video-link.

Peter Kitelo Chongeywo, Chepkitale Indigenous Peo-ples’ Development Project (CIPDP) Peter Kitelo introduced the situation of the Ogiek of Mount Elgon, and spoke of the three distinct times when his com-munity were forced off their land: in 1932 when they were evicted from their forest, in 1968 when the land became a national park, and in 2000 – a series of ad hoc evictions led by the Kenya Forest Service, which continues to this day. The last set of evictions, on part of the land, came in June 2016. Each time, the community returned to their land. In 2000, the Ogiek founded the Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples’ Development Project (CIPDP) – the local host for the Dialogue. As a registered organisation, they are better able to mobilise and represent their views in national fora.

He outlined the evidence that the Ogiek continue to conserve the land and the biodiversity that live on it. Eighty percent of elephants on Mount Elgon can be found where the community also has their homes. This, he explained, is because the Ogiek live harmoniously with elephants, which only attack when threatened. Never in Ogiek history, has someone been killed by an elephant. Instead, the community has its own bylaws governing interactions with elephants, and continues to practice traditional livelihoods which complement the elephants’ existence. Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) recognise that they are conserving their lands so effectively. According to KWS, elephants stay on Ogiek community land because they feel safer from poachers than they do in the national park.

Pernilla Malmer, Senior Advisor, SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience CentrePernilla Malmer speci� ed the parameters and process of the dialogue. She clari� ed that the four-day Dialogue was part of a broader process, situating this discussion in the wider context of ongoing discussions about conservation, biodiver-sity and human rights, at the international, national and local levels. In these broader discussions, the experiences of the Ogiek and Sengwer of Kenya are important examples to learn from which is why the chosen venue for the dialogue was Eldoret - close to their ancestral land.

She introduced the format of the four days (see � gure 1) and the three sets of questions guiding the discussion and the methods applied. (See page 11, overview of the Dialogue process).

Elifuraha Laltaika, Member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and a Law Lecturer at Tumaini University, Makumira, TanzaniaElifuraha Laltaika stated that the conversation about human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights and nature conservation � ts very naturally with the broader human rights discourse to which the UN has given its institutional commitment. The conversation also relates to the commitments of countries in their constitutions. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the most comprehensive elaboration of the rights of Indigenous peoples, but under-scores that if there is no implementation then these rights will just be the embodiment of ritual – they will not change lives.

Welcome by Sengwer women, dancing and singing Sengwer traditional dances, which carry memories and stories from their history and cultural practices. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

Figure 1. The outline of the four day dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation.

1514


We currently uphold these rights in part through procedural environmental acts. They are important, but not currently useful to Indigenous peoples, due to the following:

– Lack of access to information - information needs to be contextualised to take into account local situations;

– Access to justice – it is very cumbersome for communities to know where to go, and even understand the language of the court and there is a need for simpli�ed mechanisms for Indigenous peoples to access justice; and

– Advanced and high level understanding of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is not well implemented on the ground, particularly concerning Indigenous peoples’ right to deny consent.

A related problem is a dominant view on Indigenous peoples’ rights as solely a conduit or tool for achieving biodiversity conservation, and he articulated the need to extinguish such a narrative. Indigenous rights exist distinct from the conser-vation outcome. Further, it is important that Indigenous peo-ples are viewed as custodians, and not merely stakeholders. Biodiversity is the lifeline of their livelihoods. Without re-spect for Indigenous peoples’ rights, biodiversity efforts fail.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include the aim that “nobody should be left behind”, and the same should apply to land rights which are critical to the achieve-ment of the SDGs.

Sandra Díaz, Co-chair & Zsolt Molnár, Chapter 2 Coordinating Lead Author, IPBES Global Assessment Sandra Díaz and Zsolt Molnár introduced the Intergovern-mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), that is an independent intergovernmental body with 127 countries as members. IPBES through its assessments, aims at providing knowledge synthesised from diverse knowledge systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy and decision making. IPBES assessments are focused on the status, trends and future of biodiversity and ecosystems, and the positive and negative contributions of nature to peoples’ lives.

It operates under a framework where a good quality of life is de�ned as living in harmony with nature, or living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth. ‘Nature’s contri-butions to people’ (NCP) is a concept developed by IPBES9. It aims to expand the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ to also include a broader range of perspectives on the links between nature and people. NCP can therefore include, for example, the fresh drinking water and irrigation for crops offered by a clean river system, or the spiritual and reciprocal connection a community feels towards a landscape or its living creatures.

The presenters explained that IPBES are striving to create methods where Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can contribute to IPBES assessments as equally valid to science.

9 Díaz el al. 2018. https://www.ipbes.net/news/natures-contributions- people-ncp-article-ipbes-experts-science

In the long term, this will contribute to increased respect and recognition of ILK, and for people as holders of this know-ledge. The content of the Global Assessment of IPBES that is currently underway, intersects with the topics of this Dialogue in many ways e.g. the large extent of biodiversity that occurs in landscapes managed by Indigenous peoples (Chapter 2), how Indigenous peoples and local communities contribute to speci�c international goals such as the SDGs and the CBD Aichi targets (Chapter 3), how future develop-ment scenarios are likely to impact on lands inhabited by IPLCs and their biodiversity (Chapter 4), and how IPLCs have been and could be engaged in policies aimed at, for in-stance, human rights and sustainable development (Chapter 6). Participating in this Dialogue is for the IPBES team both a way of contributing and sharing knowledge about biodi-versity and NCPs, and of getting important information and evidence to feed into the IPBES Global Assessment.

Questions and Re�ectionsThere were three main areas of re�ection following the pres-entation from IPBES. The �rst focused on the interface and relation between scienti�c, local and Indigenous knowledge. The group heard that in Thailand, traditional knowledge is robust and evidence-based in its approach to govern and manage biodiversity, but despite attempts to share philoso-phies and research, the government maintained the view that Indigenous peoples are destroying the area in which they live. Arguments were made that Indigenous knowledge systems were equally valid as those seen as scienti�c, as they also developed and tested their hypotheses against experience. A pressing issue is the lack of acknowledgement of Indigenous and local knowledge, and on the limitations of science, it was argued. The efforts of IPBES to recognise and include Indigenous and local knowledge as equally valid in their as-sessments was met with much appreciation and expectations from the group.

The second area of discussion centred on the opportuni-ties and tensions surrounding the balance of human rights and biodiversity conservation. IPBES carries out scienti�c as-sessments, which are mandated to be policy relevant but not policy-prescriptive. The ability to review evidence in IPBES could be useful e.g. by mapping Indigenous peoples’ land and overlaying it on a map that shows areas of high biodiversity, and that way illustrate the Indigenous contribution to con-servation. However, as some pointed out, the risks surround-ing the mapping of Indigenous land such as e.g. private inter-ests laying claims to the land after getting indications on valuable resources through the maps, need to be taken into account. IPBES also has the potential to highlight success stories as cases to encourage governments to emulate syner-gistic modes of operating. Participants also commented on lack of emphasis of Indigenous peoples’ contributions to bio-diversity in IPBES. Others pointed out that it is also impor-tant to recognise that there are cases of Indigenous peoples destroying nature (despite awareness of the effects), and that

effort should be made to understand the motivations behind this, and how to �nd solutions.

The third main discussion point was on IPBES’ accounta-bility. Although there is no binding agreement between IPBES’ recommendations and government action, the stronger the evidence and cases in the assessments, the more useful they could be as reference for those who argue for policy changes.

Carlos Manuel Rodriquez, Vice President of Global Policy at Conservation International, and former Minister of Environment of Costa RicaCarlos Manuel Rodriquez presented a successful case of combining Indigenous communities’ rights and biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica. Beginning with an ecological his-tory of Central and South America, he showed how in Costa Rica in the 1800s, when slavery was abolished and colonisa-tion ended, Costa Rica’s political leaders divided the land within Spanish descendants to grow coffee, pushing Indigenous peoples to remote areas. However, in the 20th century Costa Rica developed many innovative policy frameworks for human development. New civil rights, heavy investments in education and health care and the abolishment of the army generated the conditions for a prosperous Costa Rica but economic growth based on agriculture and cattle increased wealth but came at a high environmental cost with most Costa Rican forest lost in this process. Between 1987 and 2002 strategic policy decisions put a halt to deforestation leading to a doubling the size of the forest.

He presented the encouraging status of Indigenous peoples and land tenure in Costa Rica, showing that the 1 percent of the population of Costa Rica that is Indigenous, own 10 per-cent of the land. While uncertainty about ownership plagued landowners in the past, today Costa Rica has a precise legisla-tion on property rights including land ownership rights as well as on the rights to natural genetic resources. Costa Rica was the �rst developing nation to de�ne a national policy on access and bene�t sharing on biodiversity resources that now most countries are developing based on the CBD Nagoya Protocol.

Also, Costa Rica, as part of the effort to restore their forest destroyed by the agricultural policies of the 60´s designed a new policy in the mid 1990´s where owners of forest and tree plantations were paid for the environmental services they provide in terms of water production, carbon offsets, biodi-versity conservation, pollination and others. This Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program targeted Indigenous com-munities because in Costa Rica they are the largest owners of forest and they provide valuable environmental services.

This meant that Indigenous peoples were able to make a living from carbon offsetting on their land by protecting the forest. In other countries, where forests, carbon and subterranean resources are owned by the government, Indigenous peoples are stripped of the opportunity to make a living by preserving the land.IPBES, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, introduced during opening panel. IPBES assessments are focused on the status,

trends and future of biodiversity and ecosystems, and the positive and negative contributions of nature to peoples’ lives. IPBES work with ILK as equally valid to science in their assessments. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

1716


Questions and Re�ectionsQuestions following the presentation focused on how in other countries the state had maintained control over the management of resources. People sought advice on how to open this discourse of dialogue and resource control with their governments. Participants also heard that in many countries there were a failure of trust between Indigenous peoples and governments. Some ideas that emerged were the need for communities to organise themselves better and be more democratic and transparent to ensure clear safeguards and compliance. A proposal raised in line with a resolution taken at the last IUCN World Conservation Congress, was that Indigenous areas (ICCAs) should be declared ‘no go’ areas for mining.

Where are we? Re�ections on key questions.Facilitated by Pernilla Malmer, SwedBio and Helen Tugendhat, FPP

Through the four days of the dialogue, an iterative process was used where topics were visited and then re-visited allow-ing for re�ection and a deeper exploration of the issues. As an introduction to the themes, the participants were asked to brie�y and privately re�ect on the three guiding questions of the Dialogue, putting their initial thoughts on Post-Its, which

were collected and showcased, effectively providing an amalgam of thoughts and ideas. Thereafter, the participants were then divided into �ve groups to consider and discuss the three questions, recording their thoughts. The emerging themes are presented here.

WHY DO CONFLICTS STILL ARISE? INITIAL THOUGHTS FROM THE PARTICIPANTSIGNORING INDIGENOUS CONTRIBUTIONS: There is a historic government and societal failure to recognise and appreciate Indigenous cultures, biocultural diversity and IPLCs’ customary sustainable use of biodiversity, and thus their contribution to conservation. Scienti�c knowledge is still perceived as superior, while Indigenous and local knowledge and practices are disregarded, mistrusted and ignored. The dominant conservation paradigm has been that land empty of people is a desired and necessary status for conservation. Such a paradigm ignores that Indigenous peoples living on the land, nurture and conserve its biodiversity and eco-systems, with their own customary laws for conservation practices.

CONSERVATION ACTORS: Powerful biodiversity and nature conservation actors often do not want to share control and management over protected land, and continue to apply outdated policies. It was noted that conservation guidelines and strategies within the UN, such as the CBD, and among internationally leading conservation actors have begun to recognise human rights and Indigenous peoples’ capacity to manage ecosystems in practice. However, these policies have yet to be implemented in practice. In many cases, international conservation agencies have still not succeeded in implementing their own policies.

INJUSTICE AND SUFFERING: Participants highlighted the clear inequalities and violation of human rights in ongoing dispossession of land, and the open question of who decides what is fair?

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT: Con�icts are generally impossible to avoid and unease and mistrust creates further divides. Participants identi�ed sources of con�icts such as different perspectives on what land is to be used for; who owns land and how should it be cared for; mischaracterisation of Indigenous people as destroying biodiversity instead of essential as guardians and actors in healthy social-ecological systems in their territories.

MONEY, POWER AND STRUGGLE FOR RESOURCES: Issues observed included greed, and the temptations of short-term economic gain, as well as land grabs and evictions by powerful investors. Competition for resources as well as disagreements on who owns the land are continual issues, amongst communities, and amongst different groups, such as pastoralists with farmers.

LAWS, POLICIES AND REPRESENTATION: There are still a number of discriminatory forest land laws and policies in place in various countries. This is because law-making processes do not involve adequate consultation of IPLCs, despite the impacts on their livelihoods and rights. Where policies and laws do exist, political will to implement is lacking, or the intentions of the laws may be misunderstood. Land use plans do not recognise multiple use patterns. Further, poor governance and unequal distribution of resources, as well as discrimination against communities is still prevalent.

POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: Despite development ambitions, economic and political inequalities persist. There is a tendency to prioritise of economic interests and income generation over human rights in development projects. Top-down approaches to development, as well as unemployment and political instability may worsen these outcomes.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO AVOID CONFLICTS OCCURRING? INITIAL THOUGHTSMEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION AND DIALOGUE: Before designing any conservation initiative, it is critical to identify local partners and ensure marginalised people are integrated from the onset to create a base for meaningful participation and effective consultation, and to build network for protection and communication. At this initial stage, the mutually supporting approaches and solutions that can bene�t both nature conservation and communities’ livelihoods should be

identi�ed and integrated. It is important to build on commu-nity recognition to ensure Indigenous peoples are respected and not ignored, and then continue to promote ongoing dialogue and discussion between all actors. It was commented that key to avoiding con�icts is the need Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS: Accountability of governments and companies in respecting and putting into practice the national and international principles on human rights is critical for avoiding con�icts. There is a need for raising awareness of international law and rights-based approaches at national and international level, and training in human rights and disciplinary codes for relevant govern-ments and companies. In particular, there is a need for gov-ernment to listen and respect court decisions and implement legal rulings in order to build trust in the justice system. Policies and national laws should be amended to recognise rights of Indigenous peoples in protected areas, and Community Land Use Plans, participatory planning and co-management are tools that can be introduced and mainstreamed. Partici-pants also raised the need for mechanisms that are accessible to communities to raise their cases and concerns. Further, Indigenous peoples should develop their own tools to protect their rights, such as mapping of territories, and strengthening community leadership and governance structures. There is also a need for improving awareness within IPLCs of laws and policies that protect them.

Why do con§icts still arise? Photo: P. Malmer

Mountain grassland areas, or glades, provide the necessary pasture resources for the livestock of the Ogiek people. According to the Ogiek, these grasslands were created by God for the well-being of the Ogiek. Photo: Z. Molnár

1918


EMPATHY, RESPECT AND COMMON GROUND: Participants identi�ed the importance of �nding common ground through e.g. building common values and senses of the place, and a common understanding of the biodiversity and the social- ecological system to be conserved. Listening to and learning and teaching each other about ecology and culture will shape a common language and understanding. The insight that long-term objectives of IPLCs and conservation agencies are the same, may emerge from this. Solutions of mutual interest may come from mutual respect, empathy and the full involvement of communities in all aspects of conservation, including the use of ILK in governance and monitoring of protected areas.

JUSTICE AND EQUITY: Participants discussed how equitable resource sharing and redistribution of power is key, and mul-tiple approaches are needed to adjust structural imbalances in power. Leadership should be shared in governance of protected areas. Participants reiterated that Indigenous com-munities living in protected areas be seen as more than stake-holders but rights holders and decision-makers. Government should help communities with resource use planning and implementation of income-generating activities. Community land title could be a solution in some areas, but should be processed carefully, as it could also create con�ict between communities. Participants also suggested that a mindshift is needed in powerful conservation actors and that this could be catalysed by e.g. training where Indigenous peoples teach other actors about Indigenous culture and customary sustainable use of biodiversity, as this could lead to better appreciation and recognition of diverse ways of life and values.

HOW CAN ACTIVE CONFLICTS BE RESOLVED? INITIAL THOUGHTS

Proactive mediationFor any con�ict solution, getting parties to the same table for meaningful dialogue is critical; but if this is untenable a request for mediation between proxies can be applied. Mechanisms are needed to facilitate discussion on disagree-ments, e.g. Whakatane mechanism. Participants identi�ed that an important action is to bring powerful actors, such as government decision makers and leaders of conservation agencies to interact with the status of conservation and liveli-hoods on the ground. Powerful actors visiting communities, and even staying with them for a while, has the power to change perspectives.

But if proactive mediation fails?Participants viewed the use of legal strategies as a remaining option if the above actions fail. The participants re�ected there are both opportunities and risks with taking cases to court. Firstly, court cases can be lost. Secondly, even if court cases are won, there is a risk that court rulings are not

respected. Therefore, it is necessary to create awareness of and prevent corruption, lack of accountability, and tribalism within institutions. Participants also re�ected deeply on how the failure to recognise and respect Indigenous peoples is also a reason why court rulings may not be respected and implemented.

Alternative dispute mechanisms at handParticipants also raised the possibility that national human rights institutions could be alerted if proactive mediation fails. Their processes are faster and cheaper and less intimi-dating than that of the courts.

While re�ecting over active con�ict, once again the need for preventive approaches was raised, reaf�rming the conclu-sions from the earlier themes, on why they occur and how they could be avoided. The vision, of a future where bio-diversity and nature conservation are seen as mutually reinforcing, was clear to the group from the onset of the dialogue.

Local-to-global dynamics The second day was initially planned to include a walking workshop together with the Ogiek Community in Mt Elgon. However, due to the change of venue, community members, music and �lm were brought to the meeting to facilitate some experiential understanding. Experiences were shared by the Ogiek and the Sengwer (Kenya), the Karen (Thailand), Aboriginal peoples (Australia) and the Batwa (DRC and Uganda). Below follows summary of presentations from communities, and the discussion they stimulated.

Mount Elgon experience Peter Kitelo Chongeywo, CIPDP and Fred Kibelio from Mount Elgon The Ogiek are an Indigenous hunter-gatherer community liv-ing in the highlands of Mount Elgon region, both in Bungoma and Trans-Nzoia counties. Other Ogiek communities live in the Mau forests. The Ogiek depend on forest resources for their livelihoods – grazing livestock, gathering honey, tradi-tional medicine, and sacred sites for spiritual welfare. Before 1895, their territory extended to the current site of Kitale, and they shared a border with the Sengwer community to the northeast.

The �rst evictions from their ancestral land took place between 1885 and 1922 as British colonists pushed the Ogiek to the highlands. People were pushed up the mountain

Day 2

The Ogiek village, Laboot blends in with the landscape. It is hardly visible from satellite images. All houses are built from natural materials. Photo: Z. Molnár

Cosmas Murunga and Peter Kitelo Chongeywo, CIPDP, in their community at Mt Elgon. Photo: Z. Molnár

“The �rst step to recognition is

recognising yourself. We have created

our own map – there is no other

map that shows our ancestral land.

If the map is rich enough, other

people have to respect it.”

2120


into the forest, and boundaries were created, cutting the communities off from the lowland areas. Between 1922 and 1932 another boundary was created, and more forced evic-tions took place, ostensibly to conserve forest areas where there were Indigenous trees. A tax was imposed on livestock.

Mount Elgon National Park was created in 1968, resulting in the violent eviction of 68 families, yet destructive exploita-tion of the forest and ecosystems (some state-sponsored) continued in the Mt Elgon area, including:

• Concessions for commercial harvesting of trees• Mass killing of elephants by Ugandan poachers• Introduction of the Forest Act 2005 that promoted the

“Shamba System” which resulted into encroachments, and loss of Indigenous forests

• Charcoal burning• Conversion of water catchment areas to farm lands

In the year 2000, the small piece of land that remained for the Ogiek was gazetted into a game reserve – the communities

were denied access but decided to resist and managed to stay on their land. In the year 2011, through a Whakatane assess-ment – a mediation method developed for solving con� icts related to Indigenous territories and conservation interests (see Day 3) – communities reached a turning point. With the help of FPP and the mediation that IUCN provided, the com-munities met with the government to discuss the situation. Government of� cials visiting the area saw that the forest land that was gazetted (where the shamba system was expanding) suffered more encroachment than compared with land that was managed by the Ogiek.

The Whakatane Assessment had led to a reduction in harassment, reestablishment of schools that were formerly forbidden, and the recognition that they are a community like any other. The Kenya Wildlife Service has been very supportive – they saw that the Ogiek were protecting the forest and the wildlife, especially the elephants.

The community documented their traditional bylaws to use available resources sustainably, in order to maintain their attachment with the forest, and to more systematically ensure the respect of these bylaws. This has translated into: reduced � re outbreaks, no charcoal burning, use of fallen trees for construction and fuel wood, controlled zoning for settlement and grazing � elds, and conservation of water sources.

Questions and re� ections Participants were interested to hear the experience of Ogiek women and how they had been involved as change-makers. Reference was made to the Sengwer case where the govern-ment established a task force to look into evictions in Ebobut forest and women were not included. The government defended this decision with reference to Sengwer culture (stating that Sengwer culture does not traditionally elevate women to that level). Participants raised the question: What can be done to make sure that women are not treated as second class citizens in processes such as related to land rights and biodiversity conservation? It was suggested that men and women’s engagements, and the way they are affected by evictions, are “The elephants are friends

with the Ogiek.”

• Removal of roadblocks leading to Ogiek communities

• Reduced harassment by Kenya Forest Service

• Committed councillors to revert the land to communities

• Opening of schools, roads, dispensary, churches, tourism

• Support by Kenya Wildlife Service to train community scouts

• Improved political space for nomination of community members as members of County Assembly.

Box 1. Outcomes of the Whakatane assessment in the Ogiek territories of Mt Elgon include:

Figure 2. The map of the Ogiek land in Mt Elgon. Since the � rst evictions from their ancestral land took place 1885, the Ogiek have been relegated to themountains, and cut off from the lowland areas. Mt Elgon National Park was created in 1968, and in the year 2000, the small piece of land that remained forthe Ogiek was gazetted as a game reserve, Chepkitale National Wildlife Reserve. However Kenya Wildlife Service have responded well to the Ogiek request for KWS training for Ogiek scouts, and the Ogiek hope to be able to register their community lands under the Community Land Act. Map from CIPDP

The Ogiek have made their own 3D map, in order to celebrate and document their ancestral territories, their biocultural diversity, and the stories intertwined with the landscape. Photo: H. Tugendhat

not the same. Evictions affect the whole community, but men go to follow up on what has happened, whereas women have to stay and take care of the family. One reason offered for these different roles was the vicious nature of the struggle (1 man was almost killed 3 times).

A woman from an Ogiek community from Mount Elgon told the group how land dispossession affects women a great deal. She mentioned the Whakatane assessment, and how after many years of con� ict with the government taking their land, as a result of the dialogue, women could present their issues, she re� ected that the situation has improved for women.

Emily Kinama of the Katiba InstituteThe Katiba Institute was formed in 2011-12 (‘katiba’ means ‘constitution’ in Kiswahili) to promote constitutionalism and for public interest litigation. One of the Katiba Institute’s cases is that of the Ogiek community in Mount Elgon. Key aspects of this case include the recognition of Indigenous community groups as ‘marginalised’ and establishing that they depend on the forest for their livelihoods.

A court case in 2014 recognised the Ogiek of Mau as a marginalised group and tried to highlight some of the chal-lenges faced by communities living in the forest. According to the court order, within a year of the judgement, the National Land Commission should have identi� ed and regis-tered members of the Ogiek community, in consultation with Ogiek elders and established a taskforce on conservation and forest, but it is not clear whether this has taken place.

Katiba Institute also have two strategic litigation cases, one with the Ogiek and the other with a Sengwer community.

2322


The �rst case, which is pending, represents the Ogiek com-munities at the frontline of eviction and was started to stop evictions and prevent them. The respondents of the case are the Kenya Forest Service, National Land Commission, the National Police, and the Kenya Wildlife Service. The Katiba Institute’s second strategic litigation case for the Sengwer community is also pending. Part of this process involves presenting the history of the relationship of the Sengwer and their land, and looking at the provisions for community forests and land in the constitution.

Shatikha Chivusia, The Kenya National Human Commission on Rights (KNCHR)Kenya’s 2010 Constitution has introduced provisions for recognition of community land, however the rules and guide-lines have not been provided yet. Most Indigenous people have a history of marginalisation and dispossession, coupled with strong ties to the land for their way of life, and there-fore, for Indigenous peoples, it is dif�cult to be separated from their land. If they are taken from the land, they lose access to livelihoods and food security.

In the Kenyan political context, people have traditionally inhabited certain geographical areas and need to continue being clustered together, it was explained. If they are scattered, then apart from family/community disintegration, it also be-comes harder for their voice to be heard as they cannot easily get representation. As a minority, they would suffer margin-alisation unless deliberate steps were taken to ensure their representation.

The KNCHR has completed an enquiry in the Northern Rift Valley region on insecurity and the violation of social and economic rights and the �ndings provide an example of what happens to communities when people are dispossessed of their ancestral land.

Questions and re�ectionsParticipants re�ected on the centrality of ‘goodwill’ in creating political change and fostering goodwill involves advocacy, dialogue and working together. The response from CIPDP

pointed to the importance of advocacy work, in ensuring that government of�cials appreciate the way of life of these Indigenous groups, and appreciate diversity: “the aim does not have to be everyone becoming farmers, people do not need to be made the same”.

Communities around the world THAILAND: MOUNTAIN PEOPLES & OB LUANG NATIONAL PARKNittaya “Mee” Earkanna. Inter-Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT), Kriengkai “Kai” Cheechuang. Karen Network for Culture and the Environment (KNCE)

There are more than four million Indigenous people in Thai-land. Ethnic groups include the Karen, Mien, Akha, Lahu, Lisu, Lua and the Dara-ang. Indigenous peoples in Thailand face huge negative bias, from the press, by whom they are portrayed as backwards and badly educated, and the state, who do not recognise them as Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are not mentioned in the Thai Constitution and are subject to discrimination and violation by state polices and the laws of the current military government - laws and policies that are passed without consultation with the state.

Op Luang National Park in northern Thailand was estab-lished in 1991 and covers 553 square kilometres. There are 8 Karen or Hmong communities living in this park. Since 2002, there has been joint management of the Park, where good understanding and cooperation has increased and con-�ict has reduced. There are tools to ensure Indigenous people can manage their land – communities are con�dent about access and management of their land and can maintain their traditional livelihoods. Natural resources are better protected and biodiversity has increased.

Yet challenges still remain in terms of strengthening Indigenous leaders and communities: young people do not understand their history, lack of awareness, of�cials lack of skill to work with Indigenous communities, changing staff and park management, and the contradiction of state policy and the constitution (the law does not make provision for co-management, and community rights are not part of the

Thai constitution). Thailand’s timber concession system – that ended 1989 – led to severe degradation of the forest. There are many ways to protect, reforest and expand forest areas, such as economic forest areas and community forests, however, the Thai government favours only one way – excluding others. In the past many forests were community forests, but now they have been replaced by more restrictive approaches, which leave no room for communities. At the same time, government has a policy of ‘special economic zones’ - three exist on Karen land. When they were declared, rules about protecting forests were suspended and therefore clearance of forests ensued. There were also concessions is-sued for mining in forest areas. Although the Thai govern-ment is not restricting rights to protect forests, they want to facilitate economic activities.

In one particular set of forced evictions, a 106-year-old man was forcibly removed from his land. These particular evictions formed the content of a court case, they were found to be illegal as no compensation was offered - although the underlying eviction order was found to be lawful.

There are many cases of people being arrested and taken into custody (including women and people with mental disorders) for resisting efforts to evictions. The disappearance of Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, a well-known Karen activist is only one example. In the most recent case, a youth was shot and injured. He was 19 years old. In response, Indigenous people have created networks and groups to support each other and offer solidarity. They are trying to use the media and have presented evidence to the UN. At the national level, Indigenous representatives have gone to Bangkok to talk with decision makers, but the military government in Thailand makes this particularly challenging.

AUSTRALIA: INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AREASMargaret Raven, Macquarie University

There are 75 Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA) in Australia. An IPA is an area of land, over which the customary owners have entered into an agreement with the government over how to care and manage their land. It is a voluntary agree-ment. The �rst IPA was established in 1998. IPAs now make up 50 percent of the Australian National Reserve System. The process of management planning (and management plans themselves) is based on a �exible approach. For example, management plans can include provisions such as burning country. Aboriginal people rely on �re to care for the country, and some plants require burning to regenerate. The management plans also include collecting and harvesting of plant products and how to manage these resources with a combination of traditional ecological knowledge and western science.

IPAs depend upon ‘native title’, whereby Indigenous com-munities have to demonstrate pre-existing connection to the land. Indigenous peoples however have often already been forcibly removed from their land through colonisation and

as a result many people cannot demonstrate their connection to the land – this means that many Indigenous peoples are not recognised as such. Where a community cannot prove its ongoing connection to the land, no native title is granted, and therefore no collective rights to land through the IPA system are granted.

Before the IPA system, there was a great cross-over between the territories of different peoples, but the native title process does not allow for any cross-overs between Indigenous territories, this has created massive con�icts, as soft boundaries are made rigid.

UGANDA: THE BATWA – BWINDI & MAGAHINGA NATIONAL PARKSPenninah Zaninka with Tumwebaze Scorah and Segitondo Elias, United Organisations for Batwa Development in Uganda (UOBDU)

The Batwa are Indigenous hunter-gatherers. They were forcibly evicted from their land for the creation of Bwindi and Magahina National Parks in 1991, with no FPIC and no compensation or access rights.

Tumwebaze Scorah, a young Batwa woman, re�ected on their situation:

“We have lost our culture.

Worship:

My grandparents had a way to pray. We have found out

that we no longer pray the way they used to pray. They had a

place in forest where they could practice their culture and

sacri�ce animals. Now I pray like an Anglican. That has

made me not understand my cultural practices. If something

happens, I won’t know how to control it.

Language:

I don’t know my language. Instead of knowing my own

language I speak others’ languages, and that has made me

lose my identity. When I say, I am Batwa, people say I’m

lying, because I don’t know my language.

“The footsteps of our ancestors are

in our forest, the milk we drank

from our mother’s breast came

from the forest. The land we’ve

been moved to has neither of these

things. It is not our land.”

Shatikha Chivusia, KNCHR. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

Tumwebaze Scorah and Penninah Zaninka from the United Organisations for Batwa Development in Uganda, UOBDU. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

2524


Health:

Because we use the herbs from the forest, we used to not

get sick, and now we get sick from malaria. When we go to

hospitals we are forced to pay money.

Education:

Our education is low, though some of us are in school.

When you go to universal primary education, the pupils are

not more than 10. They tell us this is free, but when we go

we are forced to pay. Discrimination in school.

Evictions:

Our parents were evicted from the forests to protect that

land. The same people who evict us are the ones who are

destroying the land. They are sitting on our rights.”

According to the 2014 National Census the Batwa have a population of 6,200. Less than 1 percent of the Batwa are formally employed and their rights are frequently violated: property and land rights, right to education, women’s rights (sexual abuse), rights to health, and freedom of expression, etc. It is noted, however, that through different initiatives and capacity building efforts, people are starting to speak out.

In 2013, Batwa representatives prepared a complaint to the Ugandan Human Rights Commission. This complaint was not �led, and instead the Batwa lodged a case with the Constitutional Court which has continuously faced a back-log of constitutional petitions and appeals.

The Batwa have also created a participatory map of their ancestral lands of Bwindi & Magahinga National Parks – the purpose is for future use by their children and also as evidence for their court case.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: BATWA & KAHUZI BIÉGA NATIONAL PARKPaci�que Mukumba and Nyamushi Pierre Bahati, Center of Accompaniment for Indigenous Pygmies and Vulnerable Minorities (CAMV)

“Before the evictions, when we were in the national park, we did not even cut any tree. We did not even do any kind of mining. If you were caught felling trees, you would be ex-cluded from society. During hunting, we didn’t kill any kind of wildlife, we had programmes, we didn’t hunt the totems that belonged to the community. We didn’t just hunt any-thing. When harvesting honey, we did not cut the trees down. We would climb up and harvest our honey. For medicine, we used to collect just the leaves, the bark and the roots of the trees.” (Bahati, a Batwa man)

Kahuzi-Biéga National Park, in eastern DRC, was set up by the Congolese Conservation Institute in 1970. The park itself covers 6,000 square kilometres and has been a World Heritage Site since 1980. Around 6,000 Batwa were forcibly evicted at the creation of Kahuzi-Biéga National Park. Evictions began around 1960 and lasted through to the 1970s and 80s.

There are now 9,608 displaced Batwa surrounding the Park in 101 villages. The villages are dominated by other ethnic groups (Shi and Tembo) and the dominant religion is Christianity. The communities live far away from public ser-vices. There is land around the national park but most of it is owned by the state and agroindustrial plantations – there is insuf�cient land for Indigenous people and their way of life.

The Batwa experience social exclusion. The in�uence and legitimacy of community leaders has been diminished with

the evictions. There is no participatory management of the conservation land or bene�t sharing. Measures taken, e.g. land for the displaced are non-existent. The Batwa have a very low education level and very few are registered with national authorities.

The General Management Plan of Kahuzi-Biéga for 2009-2019 recognises the existence of the con�icts in the park and recognises that the Batwa were forcibly evicted without com-pensation.

At the end of 2014, at the request of some Batwa leaders (residents around the park whose ancestors had been evicted), a direct dialogue started with the National Park authorities, through CAMV with the support of FPP. Through the Whatakane Mechanism, the community created a participatory map of their territory and started an international dialogue process. The different stakeholders came together to discuss a 3D model and to �nd a pathway between conservation and human rights. These dialogues with government resulted in a ‘road map’ for communities, which were discussed during the World Parks Congress 2014 in Sydney. The progress of this road map was evaluated in June 2017, when it was agreed that a monitoring committee will be put in place, consisting of Batwa, National Park management, civil society, provincial assembly and provincial government, in order to continue the dialogue for conservation.

However, there have been many challenges. A key negotia-tor was shot in the park by ecoguards – this case is pending in court. Recently, a young Batwa man was shot and killed while gathering traditional medicine for a sick child. As a result of the denunciation of this human rights violation by CAMV, the dialogue process has now been suspended by park managers. Paci�que, despondent about these develop-ments, commented: “Nowhere in the world is it permitted to kill for conservation.”

Questions and re�ections on casesParticipants re�ected that international alliances could address the insecurity of human rights defenders and potentially pro-vide an incentive to re-open the dialogue process. However, it was also expressed concern that forest communities, if allowed back on their land, would face a strong temptation to fell trees to improve their livelihoods, and the question was whether, given the pressures of industrialisation and modern lifestyle practices, communities would be able to maintain their traditional lifestyles within the forest. It was suggested that it will be increasingly important to �nd models to manage natural resources and to �nd a way for transitioning communities out of the forest through e.g. urbanisation pathways. Others participants disagreed how-ever and reminded that communities want both to conserve the forest and to maintain their human rights to not be force-fully evicted from their traditional territories.

Embobout ExperienceTHE SENGWER: WHO WE ARE AND WHAT IS OUR EXPERIENCE OF CONSERVATION? Milka Chepkorir, Yator Kiptum and Elias Kimaiyo

“Their homes are burned, so they have to cut a tree to

rebuild their house. A week later, it is burned again, so they

have to cut another tree. It is forced destruction. And we

get the blame. But how are we supposed to survive?”

Milka Chepkorir

According to the 2009 census, there are approximately 33,000 Sengwer, making a living from customary livelihoods such as hunting, bee-keeping and handicrafts, and with a strong focus on livestock. Encroachment on Sengwer lands began when Kenya became a British colony, with the com-munity being pushed from the �at hills into the forest, and with tenure of forest given to other groups and continued at the hands of the independent government.

Participants were shown two brief �lm clips of Embobout and the Sengwer. This was followed by a presentation from Elias Kimaiyo, a Sengwer youth leader, activist and photo-grapher, who shared the story of his recent attack at the hands of the KFS. Taking photos of burning Sengwer homes, Elias Kimaiyo was shot at by KFS guards. He ran and fell, a KFS guard then hit his right arm with the butt of this ri�e, breaking it and dislocating his shoulder. Milka Chepkorir told participants how she had to hide from KFS of�cers every day for two months. They noted that human and envi-ronmental rights defenders are becoming targets for violence.

The government still does not recognise Sengwer land tenure rights. Between 1982 and 2007, the community has suffered 22 evictions. The current Forest Act of Kenya does

The village area of the Ogiek community in Mt Elgon is intensively grazed by domestic livestock but retains many elements of the wild §ora and fauna, e.g., Erica bushes. Ogiek villages include many scattered trees amongst homesteads. These trees are highly valued and protected by communities. Photo: S. Díaz

Milka Chepkorir, a spokesperson for the Sengwer community. Photo: S. Díaz

2726


not recognise the right of Indigenous communities to reside in their ancestral land inside these protected areas. In 2011, the failure of the World Bank’s Natural Resource Management Plan to protect their rights (see Box 2) began a new round of evictions. The Sengwer have also suggested a number of proposals that would contribute to �nd good solutions on the con�icts (see box 3).

The Sengwer community is currently living in makeshift shelters. Returning after each eviction, they refuse to leave their lands. Evictions have severe implications. The Sengwer community are forced to live under trees and in caves under conditions of abject poverty, without services such as e.g. schooling. The community suffers regular break outs of dis-eases such as pneumonia and chest complications. Among youth, school drop outs, child labour and early marriages are common. In the longer term, the community risks the loss of culture, language and traditions, cultural ethnocide and extinction. Arrests, harassment and assault of community members by KFS continues. Box 2 describes the steps taken by the Sengwer to address such violations, and Box 3 describes their recommendations for resolving this con�ict.

Natural Resource Management Project (2007-13):In 2007, the World Bank’s Natural Resource Management Plan was established. Sengwer communities resisted this plan at �rst, but later agreed as the project promised to address land rights and include the Indigenous Peoples’ Planning Framework. However, in 2011 these elements of the project were dropped, giving Kenya Forest Service more power. Communities no longer had the Framework to protect them and evictions began again.

In January 2013, the Sengwer �led a complaint with the World Bank Inspection Panel. The panel’s �nal report was approved and adopted by the Bank’s board of directors in 2014, recommending a dial ogue process. After that, the World Bank supported a National Colloquium in Embobout 2015, held in Eldoret. There is still no follow up and/or implementation of the conference outcome.

In March 2013, the community �led a case in court – the court issued a conservatory order that was not respected by Kenya Forest Service.

EU WaTER Project:In 2016, the EU-funded WaTER Project was launched. This seeks to protect the ground supplies of water, which are known as water towers, in the Mount Elgon and the Cherangani Hills areas of Kenya, where government is evicting the Sengwer, referring to the need of conserving the forest.

The EU has in January 2018 suspended its funding, following UN Special Rapporteurs’ calls to the Kenyan authorities to

• Call on state institutions and partners to help with support to �nd solutions.

• Revive and support the dialogue process initiated 2013 following Sengwer complaint to World Bank Inspection Panel regarding their Natural Resource Management Project.

• Review Kenya Forest Conservation and Management Act to recognise and protect rights of forest Indigenous peoples to live in, control, own and sustainably manage their ancestral lands within forests/protected areas working closely with state agencies

• Strengthen and recognise community governance structures and by-laws

• Stop evictions and all other forms of human rights violations

• Formulate internally accepted guidelines for the dialogue that are agreed upon with the World Bank 2013 (see Box 2).

• Support some representatives from conservation state agencies, institutions, civil society and IPs to visit and learn from countries where the rights of IPs to live in, control, manage and own ancestral lands in protected areas sustainably have been recognised.

Box 2. Steps taken by the Sengwer to address violations that result from conservation-projects

Box 3: The Sengwer recommendations

urgently halt the evictions of the Sengwer, which started again during Christmas 2017. The decision was also in§uenced by international organisations reporting on the human rights violations happening in the Ebobut forest, which escalated severely and tragically involved the murder of a Sengwer community member.

IUCN Forest Landscape and livelihood restoration project (2015-16)This project was established to bene�t forest-adjacent communities, after IUCN being convinced by KFS that Sengwer Indigenous people moved voluntarily.

UN REDD+ – Project Document Preparation (readiness phase).

National Land Commission-led dialogue processThis project commenced in 2015. In July 2016, a roadmap was developed to secure land tenure rights. In August 2016, the chair of National Land Commission, Ministry of Environment, Kenya Forest Service officials and communities agreed on a cease �re. However, evictions continued. To witness the situation, the Ministry of Environment, with Kenya Forest Service helicopters, §ew representatives of the National Land Commission and World Bank, over Sengwer territory, but refused to land, saying they could not see any evidence of schools, or homes. On 15 Dec 2016, National Land Commission chair ruled that it is against the Constitution and Forest Act for communities to live inside the forest.

Questions and re�ectionsThis session provoked a lot of discussion amongst partici-pants. Participants familiar with the case emphasised the importance of site visits for government ministries and human rights bodies. The Colloquium in Embobout (see Box 2) was raised as an example of unwillingness from the state to provide transparency.

There were also re�ections on the role of the national media, which was said to have been used very effectively by KFS and politicians to spread counter-narratives on television, in�uencing public discourse (e.g. claiming that there were no burnings, contrary to the Sengwer’s claims). This links back to the call for effective site visits – people who have never been to these places are the ones writing the policies.

Participants also re�ected on the deeper drivers of such human behaviour and the powerful narratives that must be driving such behaviour (e.g. discrimination, greed). Is this ‘biodiversity conservation’-related con�ict rather a symptom of a much greater issue? Do we understand the deeper level of why these abuses continue, in spite of the evidence of Indigenous peoples’ long time of living in their lands and their attitude to care for it and conserve?An exchange also took place amongst participants challenging the views of some that urbanisation may be an important solution to the problems faced by communities, with some arguing that this narrative is directly counter to the rights of Indigenous people to live on their land and make a living from customary livelihoods, enshrined in the constitution.

Participants also raised the need to be mindful of the language employed: there is a lot of discussion about “evictions”, when these should be referred to as “forced evic-tions”, because they are illegal. By using the word “eviction”, the inhumanity and the gravity of the problem is lessened. The UN has guidelines and principles on development-led evictions, and processes for pre, during, and post evictions.

The role of government partners was also highlighted – international �nancial institutions, who are under obligation to comply with these human rights.

A concluding re�ection focused on the role of narratives – the state is very strong in building narratives: what will be our role in building counter narratives?

Tamrat Gode Bekele and Yator Kiptum. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

2928


Encouraging synergies and transforming con�ict – local-to-global dynamics

OPENING SESSIONA panel of four people, facilitated by Claudia Ituarte-Lima, SwedBio, re�ected on their impressions of the dialogue’s �rst two days. The panel consisted of Sandra Díaz of IPBES G A; Wanjiku Manyatta of the Ministry of Environment’s WaTERProject; Elaine Geyer-Allely of WWF International; and Daniel Ole Sapit of the World Bank. Key points that emerged from their comments included: the need for multiple knowledge systems to be taken into account within conservation initia-tives and for environmental assessments to include rights considerations; recognising a diversity of opinions between and within groups governmental, NGOs, as well as IPLCs allows for diverse opinions to be evaluated and as meaningful win-win situations being developed. Using correct terminology is important, such as underscoring that in the present context the Sengwer are facing ‘forced evictions’. A ’rights-gap’ exists between countries’ stated and constitutional approaches to international law, on the one hand, and local realities on the other. Inclusivity, dialogue and supportive laws and policies are required to enable just conservation.

SANDRA DÍAZ explained that the idea before IPBES was not like in the past of environmental sciences where nature was only seen as a source of services for humanity. In IPBES’

framework, you have nature producing bene�ts and decre-ments for humanity, and more than one way to understand their relationship. There are issues of access, a rich social texture in humanity.

“If we are talking about people’s quality of life and

biodiversity, we need to talk about heterogeneous knowledge

and words that traditionally don’t feature in environmental

assessments, such as access and rights.”

She said that a diversity of knowledge was badly needed to help in the human environmental crisis but power balanc-es were the key. In the short term, she said IPBES would not offer a solution to land struggles but in the long term, IPBES could contribute to change visions and make the diversity of knowledges, including Indigenous and local knowledge more visible on equal level as science in the understanding of nature and the design of policy and management practices, which would support arguments for change.

WANJIKU MANYATTA talked of a need to �nd a positive way forward to work together, and of the realisation that the government and Indigenous peoples had the same objective – conservation of the land – and needed to �nd a win-win situ-ation. She said perceptions and attitude could be drivers of con�ict between parties, as was greed, with some Indigenous people and human rights advocates, she said, genuinely wanting conservation, but others who wanted to gain some-thing for themselves. There are limited resources available,

she argued, and many people wanted to have them for them-selves. She said that while the quest for justice for the Indigenous community is understandable the advocators should not take advantage of the quest for their own person-al gains, more dialogue, and with more parties, would be key to changing viewpoints, and she mused why the Dialogue had not included more stakeholders from the government. Organising members of the dialogue clari�ed that some government institutions, such as from the Kenyan Forest Service, had been invited, but had failed to attend.

DANIEL OLE SAPIT, of the World Bank, was struck by how Indigenous peoples from many countries experienced the same violation of rights. “It is astonishing that all of these countries who are signatory to Conventions on Human Rights violate the Conventions they are party to.”

He added that Kenya’s constitution clearly stated that such international conventions signed by the Kenyan govern-ment were legally part of the constitution, but that such com-mitments are not in sync with the realities on the ground. In many countries, he explained, Indigenous peoples faced such discrimination that they are considered second-class citizens.

There is a very clear connection between Indigenous peoples and natural resources, he added. If national resources are impacted in any way, then Indigenous peoples experience the severest impact as their lives are so intertwined with these natural resources.

ELAINE GEYER-ALLELY of WWF International commented on the impact of hearing community testimonies of how Indige-nous peoples and conservation were not aligned. She stated that development policy, laws and legislations were not in place to help negotiate the different issues. In the Kenyan

Day 3

Sandra Díaz and Elifuraha Laltaika Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

Ogiek biocultural landscape, Mount Elgon Photo: P. Malmer

context, it is critical to put in place and strengthen existing processes for communities to defend their rights. Indeed, in many places where WWF works, such processes are not in place. She expressed concern that globally, diversity was being lost, and this was having an impact on health and wel-fare. She added, the dialogue had underlined the importance of inclusive conservation for WWF, and the need for more efforts to support initiatives led by Indigenous peoples.

Questions and Re�ectionsMany more re�ections were shared from participants follow-ing feedback from the four panellists. There were many com-ments about accountability and grievance mechanisms – for governments, funders, and conservation bodies, with acknowledgement that more needed to be done and that the local and national context of each situation and government capacity was relevant. A concern was raised that the issue was no longer recognition of rights but the lack of accounta-bility and the culture of impunity, and therefore, a change in the narrative is needed too. Another felt the problem was not about the divergence between human rights and biodiversity conservation, but that it was about governance and lack of implementation of principles – that governments sometimes perceived that funders might want a place, such as a forest, empty of people. A government representative added that huge strides had been made in commitments to upholding rights in Kenya in the last 15-20 years.

The competition for resources was another topic for re-�ection and the fact that so many resources are found within the lands of Indigenous peoples, led to pressure for resource extraction. It was a concern that framing e.g. forest resources as commodities, because many people appreciate a forest for other values, such as for livelihood and recreation.

3130


Practical SolutionsFacilitated by Gino Cocchiaro and Edna Odhiambo, Natural Justice

The main focus for the third day was on thematic group work, mixed with inspiring case presentations, envisioning solutions. For this purpose, participants broke into �ve thematic groups; Raising Awareness; International Advocacy; National Advocacy, Legal Reform, and Dialogue and Negotiations.

Part one: Practical solutions – preventionWHAT CAN BE DONE TO AVOID CONFLICTS OCCURRING?

During this session, the thematic groups discussed con�ict avoidance strategies, including detailing the objectives they aimed to achieve, their target audience, related challenges, and other strategies with which they could synergise to achieve favourable outcomes.

RAISING AWARENESS. The need to reshape the narrative about human rights and biodiversity conservation was highlighted. The opportunities for synergies between communities as custodians of biodiversity and conservation of nature are so clear and Indigenous peoples and conservation agencies should rather be allies. If so, this will also help negate the two most common prevailing false narratives; the �rst being that there would be a con�ict between people interested in conserving the environment and those interested in community well-being; the second false narrative is that communities who are still connected to their lands being described as ‘backward’ as a way of justifying their marginalisation and in the worst case forced eviction.

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY. A bouquet of activities was suggested under this heading, such as documenting evidence and produce impactful case studies about how upcoming con�icts between community well-being and biodiversity conservation are being converted to synergetic co-existence. Further, to undertake impact assessments and analyse poli-cies of development partners and biodiversity conservation agencies to ensure accountability. It was important to use so-cial media as well as traditional media. As an example, the Kenyan government used to do this successfully, using full page adverts in newspapers. Litigation should be used as a last resort. Targets for international interventions include: UN agencies (UNESCO, UNDP, UN Environment, CBD, UNHCR); the African Commission; development partners such as the World Bank, the EU, China Exim Bank, African Development Bank; governments; conservation organisations as well as businesses such as safari companies, agribusiness, logging and mining interests. The group further suggested that possible obstacles and challenges might include how to linking people on ground with international audiences. The

fact that not all government partners are supportive and aware of the possible synergies between community well-being and biodiversity conservation might also hinder; in reality actors may have differing priorities.

NATIONAL ADVOCACY. Identifying ongoing con�icts between Indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation projects and investigate their source, and what are the actors involved was seen as priority. Further, identify factors within the coun-try level that either help or hinder the resolution of these on-going con�icts. It was suggested to always try to resolve con-�icts at the local level �rst, and use the media to expose the issues. Targets should include: conservation agencies, minis-tries, national-level commissions, NGOs and Indigenous peo-ples and local communities. Approaches to avoid con�ict in-cluded to always apply rights-based approaches; implement and adhere to the rule of law; to develop goodwill and keep a dialogue between actors; and adopt a bottom-up approach.

LEGAL REFORM: international, regional and national. It was proposed to put forward laws recognising rights of Indigenous peoples, and to lobby for increase political participation of Indigenous peoples to in�uence future laws. Training and capacity building of stakeholders, including on the status and role of customary laws, as well as training and aware-ness-raising of communities about existing laws and how to protect or defend their rights was suggested. To promulgate laws recognising collective rights; and engage in continuous law reform was important, as well as to use systems for access to information in countries to increase accountability; and to engage accountability and grievance mechanisms for state and non-state actors. Target groups for actions should include: duty bearers; rights holders; governmental organisa-tions and conservation agencies.

DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATION. A number of relevant target audience for reaching out with stories and arguments to ensuring that biodiversity conservation and human rights are perceived and treated as mutually supportive was identi�ed: government agencies; independent commissions; human rights organisations; attorney generals; county governments; communities facing con�ict; advocacy and civil society organisations; funders; donors; and development partners. Objectives of dialogues and negotiations should include: networking and collaboration; respect for human rights; achieving compromises; creation of synergies; and building trust. For achieving this with the dialogues it was important to at �rst hand understand why the con�ict has arisen; then identify laws and policies, and also work with self-re�ection and transparency. A range of existing tools were identi�ed, such as plans and protocols that include steps and milestones of negotiation, as well as timelines. It was important to know how to deal with con�icts as they arise. Externally trained facilitators who are not involved in the con�ict play important roles. Potential challenges in the con�ict solving might

include: in�exibility; lack of commitment to the process; lack of honesty; no mandate to negotiate; and an unrealistic time-frame.

Part two: Practical solutions – resolutionHOW CAN ACTIVE CONFLICTS BE RESOLVED?

The afternoon session looked at different methods that could be employed when con�icts are occurring. Opportunities and dif�culties of using litigation routes to resolve such issues were examined, drawing on experiences from the Ogiek of Mau case and the Endorois case. After that non-litigous routes to resolution, through UN mechanisms and through IUCN’s Whakatane Mechanism was looked upon.

Lucy Claridge of Minority Rights Group, MRG. Photo: P. Malmer

Litigious RoutesTHE OGIEK OF MAU FOREST Lucy Claridge of Minority Rights Group (MRG)

Minority Rights Group saw a successful judgement on 26 May 2017 on the Ogiek of Mau case. The name ‘Ogiek’ she explained, means ‘caretaker of animals and plants’. The 30,000 Ogiek in Mau Forest, Kenya, had been marginalised both before and after independence, and routinely evicted from their homes. They had attempted to end this through various means including domestic litigation and national advocacy, but had not been successful. In 2009 they approached MRG and together they brought a case to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

The case argued that the Ogiek’s rights to equality and non-discrimination, rights to property, natural resources, culture and religion, right to life, and their right to be included in the development process under the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights had all been violated. Kenya is a

signatory to the African Charter, and references were also made to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Kenya had not signed up to.

In 2012, seeing that the process of implementing the previous judgment of the ACHPR in the Endorois ruling (see below) was not progressing well, the African Commission sent the Ogiek case to the African Court, which is the highest human rights court in Africa. It did so, she explained, on the basis that the case contained evidence of mass human rights violations.

In 2013, the African Court issued a provisional measures order, which required the government of Kenya not to take any steps that would harm the Ogiek before the court deliv-ered its �nal judgment. This order has not been complied with. In 2014, there was a hearing before the African Court. It was scheduled for March but was delayed until November at the request of the Kenyan Government. During the hearing, the Kenyan government argued that the situation of 2014 was very different to the situation in 2009 as there was a new Constitution in place that guaranteed Indigenous rights. They argued that the court should therefore leave the parties to �nd an amicable settlement to the dispute. In 2015, the case was therefore of�cially referred back to the parties for amicable settlement but this led to an unsuccessful dialogue that ultimately saw the case returning to the African Court.

Six months ago, on 26 May 2017, the African Court �nally delivered judgment, �nding seven violations of the African Charter. They found that the Ogiek were Indigenous peoples and agreed that the Ogiek’s right to property, rights to con-trol their natural resources, and their rights to culture and religion had been violated, as had their right to development, since FPIC had not been sought when the Ogiek had been evicted. The Court also found that the Ogiek had been routinely discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. The Kenyan Government had argued that the Mau Forest needed to be preserved and that conservation therefore justi�ed the treatment of the Ogiek including their eviction, but the court ruled that since the government has allowed for commercial logging of the forest, there was evidence that the land had clearly been allocated to others for reasons that were not linked to conservation. The ruling was also very clear in recognising that the Ogiek and therefore other Indigenous peoples have a role to play in conserving their an-cestrally owned natural resources. The court also declared that Kenya’s 2010 Constitution provides for the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights in theory, but they are not being protected in practice.

The court case took eight-and-a-half years to litigate, but that in reality is only the beginning of the process. It represents a very encouraging ruling which now needs to be enacted to ensure change on the ground. Lucy Claridge showed a �lm in this session depicting the judgement and showed how the case had an immediate impact on the community – building optimism, energy and solidarity.

3332


What are the opportunities of litigation?The opportunities of litigation include the value of legal precedents (i.e. a ruling can establish a principle that can be referred to in future legal disputes). Opportunities also include the promotion of the rule of law and the accompany-ing legal empowerment of communities.

In this case, the Mau Ogiek underwent paralegal training, attended court hearings, and gave witness evidence: elders, youth, women were included and empowered in the process. They were closely involved in monitoring compliance with the provisional measures order, for example, providing cru-cial evidence which could then be forwarded to the Court.

The process can also involve national and international advocacy and awareness raising. In this case, this included engagement with media (Financial Times, BBC World Service, and national media). Additionally, the process can involve educating state of�cials and regional judiciary, who are now more aware of the speci�c rights of Indigenous peoples as, for example, none of the African Court judges had ever considered an Indigenous people’s rights case before. The legal case also provided leverage to promote dialogue.

What are the disadvantages of litigation?The disadvantages include the length of time and the resources needed for building evidence, and for extensive outreach and community support. Most importantly, implementation of positive rulings is a very tough challenge that takes consider-able time. In the Ogiek of Mau case there will be a separate reparations order from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights which is hoped for 2018. This will address issues of restitution, compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition (e.g. legislative change, participatory involve-ment, apology). The Government of Kenya is also due to report back to the African Court on implementation steps within six months of judgment delivery – that is, this is overdue.

Key here is the legislative context: the 2016 Community Land Act and community-developed by-laws should in principle enable the Ogiek to return to and retain their com-munity land on conservation principles. There have also been delays in implementing the judgment so far: an intergovern-mental Ogiek Task Force has just been gazetted which pur-ports within to address these issues – but the Ogiek are not yet included within this task force. Meanwhile there is ongoing community outreach and empowerment so that the Ogiek fully understand the ruling, its implications, the next steps in the legal process (reparations) and implementation. This outreach is also aimed at ensuring that the ruling becomes a powerful tool for the Ogiek and that they do not lose faith in the process.

THE ENDOROIS CASEWilson Kipkazi, Endorois Welfare Council

This Case was raised by the Endorois, an agro-pastoralist people living around Lake Bogoria, Mochongoi Forest and Laikipia plains, in Kenya’s rift valley in the region which under the devolved system, is called Baringo County. Historically, the community had lived peacefully in the plains and the forest, but on the arrival of a colonial administrator, the community was pushed from their territories towards unproductive areas of land. The newly arrived settlers en-sured the Endorois did not come close to their settlement areas, but did not deny them access to the forests. Then, with independence, the new Kenyan leadership did not return the land to the community but instead allocated it to more powerful mainstream communities through a mass resettle-ment programme. The Endorois were excluded from the decision-making processes and their rights and obligations were not considered.

For the Endorois their land, collectively held, is the single most important source of livelihood (through livestock rear-ing, beekeeping and peasant subsistence farming) and identity, but in 1973, their territories in Bogoria were declared a game reserve and Mochongoi was gazetted as a forest conservation area. Both reserves were developed for tourism and nature conservation without FPIC from the Endorois community and no compensation was paid to them.

After the community failed to secure justice in the Kenyan courts, they brought their case to the African Commission in 2003. They argued they had lost abundant pastures and large numbers of livestock. Their traditional nomadic pastoralism was restricted, and they were excluded from the state and left illiterate, with the state failing to provide infrastructure in the areas that the Endorois occupy, and providing no health-care with the Endorois women depending only on traditional midwives due to a lack of maternity facilities.

The decision from the African Commission on February 4th 2010 was to recognise the rights of ownership of the Endorois, and that Endorois ancestral land should be restituted to them. It was further decided that the community should

Milka Chepkorir and Pam McElwee. Photo: S. Díaz

Cosmas Murunga and Kriengkai “Kai” Cheechuang. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

be guaranteed unrestricted access to Lake Bogoria and sur-rounding sites for religious and cultural rites and for grazing their cattle. Those who had used the Endorois lands should pay royalties to the Endorois from existing economic activi-ties and ensure that they bene�t from employment possibili-ties within the reserve. It was also decided that the govern-ment should engage in dialogue with the complainants from the Endorois people for the effective implementation of these recommendations. Finally, the ruling also stipulated that there should be a report from the Kenyan government on the implementation of these recommendations within three months from the date of litigation.

An evaluation of the impact of the African Commission decision concluded that the possibility for community land tenure has been introduced (through the 2016 Community Land Act). Further, the National Land Commission has been mandated to investigate such historical land injustices.

What is of general importance for the progress in realising the synergies between human rights and biodiversity con-servation is the fact that the ruling has set a precedent for other communities to use in Kenya, in Africa and beyond.

The Lake Bogoria Management Plan has been created to guide co-management between the government and the Endorois people. It has been a tool for engagement and it contains recognition of community rights, as well as makes provision for community participation in decision-making processes and co-management of resources and right to disposal (e.g. rights to own and sell resources). It also in-cludes a bene�t sharing concept for resources extracted from the area. Important advances through the plan have been the strengthening of the community structures e.g. community by-laws and governance, and the capacity building of the Endorois community to understand their rights.

There are a number of laws, policies, statements, reports and actions compatible with and backing up the African Commission’s decision regarding the Endorois people and their lands around Lake Bogoria. These includes Kenya

National Land policy; the Kenya Constitution, the Kenya National Policy for Sustainable Development of Arid and Semi-arid Lands; the rati�cation of Kenya of the CBD; the UN DRIP and the UN CERD, all of these are in line with the articulations of UN-Special rapporteur on rights of restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights.

Indeed, the Endorois case sets a vital precedent against the forced acquisition of Indigenous lands. It is thus very unfortunate to conclude that eight years on after the Endorois case was settled, it has still not been implemented.

Questions and re�ectionsSuccessful judgements regarding Indigenous people’s rights

The two presentations of the Ogiek of Mau and the Endorois cases were obvious litigation successes, yet ones where imple-mentation has still not happened. Participants subsequently re�ected on how the Mau Forest case established a principle that recognising Indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands can be crucial to conserving nature, and they note that there is a body of international law moving towards supporting this. The recognition of the conservation of biodiversity by the Ogiek was key to the judgement since they were being evicted in the name of conservation. A really crucial part of the case was its focus on the Ogiek’s traditional lifestyle on the land, and their connection with the forest. The emphasis on ‘peoples’ in the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights means it has the ability to address such collective rights.

Questionable implementation of decisionsThe issue of implementation was also discussed. Eight years on after the Endorois case was settled, it has still not been implemented. Meanwhile, the African Court gave six months for action on the Mau Forest case, and nearly six months on, in November 2017, nothing has yet occurred. There are efforts being made to ensure there is implementation beyond the judgement, and a question was posed about the role of development partners, which are also obligated to respect rights, and whether more work could be done there. This led to consideration of the role of international mechanisms, such as the World Heritage Convention and the CBD.

Others raised the point that litigation is only one strategy available, and it is important to consider which strategies are relevant in which circumstances. One perspective was that litigation should happen as a last resort only, and that it should be carried out at the same time as local, regional and international advocacy, and linked up to the media. In this way litigation can raise awareness, can educate various people, and can be a catalyst for more dialogue where relationships have broken down.

3534


Non-Litigious RoutesHOW TO IMPACT THE POWER IMBALANCE AMONG ACTORS? Helen Tugendhat and Justin Kenrick of Forest Peoples Programme

There are several international level mechanisms that have the potential to be useful in seeking to ensure actors recog-nise human rights in conservation processes. Although none of these is a full solution to the challenge of accessing justice for conservation-related violations, they can provide some leverage and support for Indigenous peoples seeking restitu-tion or compensation for their lands and resources. In this session, Helen Tugendhat and Justin Kenrick presented some of these mechanisms as well as examples where they have been used.

THE UN COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UN-CERD)UN-CERD is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its State parties.

UN-CERD has an urgent action or early warning proce-dure that allows people claiming violation of the convention to appeal for an urgent response in the face of direct threats. Indigenous peoples have used the mechanism to call for a halt to conservation related evictions in a number of examples over the years. An example is how UN-CERD was asked to provide a judgement on the case of Kaeng Krachan National Park in Thailand where Karen communities were threatened with continued forced evictions. There were reports of evic-tions, house-burning and individuals disappearing. UN-CERD asked the Thai government to report on “steps taken to cease threats, intimidations, harassment against the Karen Indigenous people living in a World Heritage Site, investigate allegations of excessive use of force and provide reparation to the Karen people for any loss.” It also asked for measures to be taken to ensure the FPIC of the Karen Indigenous people or genuine consultation in decisions affecting them.

WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION (WHC) Established in 1972, the primary mission of the WHC is to identify and protect the world’s natural and cultural heritage considered to be of “Outstanding Universal Value”. IUCN is the formal Advisory Body of WHC on natural heritage. That means IUCN is responsible for monitoring listed sites and evaluate sites nominated to the World Heritage List. IUCN supports attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples in World Heritage Sites. Since 2015, WHC recommends FPIC as good practice in its Operational Guidelines, but it is still voluntary. However, in a situation where there are human rights violations on a site, and UN-CERD has advised the WHC not to support a bid for World Heritage Site status, it is not yet clear from practice what the World Heritage Convention would recommend in each case.

World Heritage Sites are �nancially attractive to govern-ments since they increase tourism numbers, and since fund-ing is made available for the upkeep and support of the site. However, this �nancial leverage, i.e. to ensure rights are respected, is not used as much as it could be.

Governments engaged in the processes of deciding on the recognition of a site are targets for advocacy from many actors. Governments involved in making the decision should be made aware that there are Indigenous peoples and local communities living in the area that are directly affected.

In the Thai case mentioned above, UN-CERD was speaking directly to the World Heritage Convention, while OHCHR was launching investigations in Thailand, and human rights organisations made advocacy against the actions of the national government. The interplay of the four was much stronger and useful for the Karen people, than just advocacy to the national government would have been.

UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CASE EXAMPLE OF THE SENGWEROn the second day, the dialogue participants heard from the Sengwer people living in the Embobout and how they have been faced with repeated attempts of forced evictions over decades in the name of conservation. The UN Special Rap-porteur on the rights of indigenous peoples (UNSRIP) had been alerted about the case, and already wrote to the Kenyan government three times about the injustices being experi-enced by the Sengwer. The role of the UNSRIP in relation to the case of the Sengwer and their struggle to retain land ownership in the face of various conservation initiatives is illustrative of the role that this mandate can play for Indige-nous peoples around the world.

In January 2017, the UNSRIP asked the Kenyan Govern-ment to “provide information on the measures taken by the Government to secure the tenure rights of the Sengwer Indig-enous people to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used and, speci�cally to ensure the legal recognition of those rights with due respect to the customs, traditions and land

tenure systems of the Indigenous people concerned”. The UNSRIP also wrote to the Kenyan government in May 2017, when a member of the Sengwer community was shot while documenting forced evictions of the land, and in May 2016 on injustices against the Ogiek. When the letters from the UNSRIP have been written, they are publically available and can be used in advocacy.

The Sengwer case played out in interactions amongst the UN-CERD, the World Bank, UNSRIP, and the National Government. The UN-CERD sent a letter to the World Bank, which is a funder, and this led to the establishment of an inspection panel that made �ndings that strengthened the case of the Sengwer. A conclusion of this case is that the advocacy strategy in support of the affected Indigenous people, regarding the interplay between international agencies, must be made very clear from the start.

UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES (UNPFII)The UNPFII is composed of 16 mem-bers: eight government and eight Indig-enous peoples’ leaders. The Forum meets annually and has the mandate to provide advice to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), promote and coordinate UN system activities, and disseminate information on Indigenous issues. The UNPFII is the �rst dedicated and per-manent mechanism in the UN system

that works solely to advance the rights of Indigenous peoples and to convene UN resources to that end.

The Permanent Forum has been set up by Indigenous peoples and their supporters, and the mechanisms it has at its disposal can strengthen Indigenous peoples’ cases of concern. In 2017, it addressed the speci�c situation in Kenya, urging the Kenyan government to recognise and formally protect the land and resource rights of the Ogiek and Sengwer peoples. The UNPFII was also asked by the IUCN to establish a task force on conservation and human rights to look at the rights of Indigenous peoples in the context of conservation initiatives, and to promote grievance mechanisms and avenues for redress and is currently undertaking a study to examine these issues.

Carlos Manuel Rodriquez, Daniel Ole Sapit, Fred Kibelio Ngeywo and Justin Kenrick. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

The Ogiek community meeting hall planned to be inaugurated at the Dialogue meeting. Regrettably it was not possible for the dialogue group to visit Mt Elgon during the dialogue, because of WHO security measures due to a suspected virus outbreak in Uganda. A number of participants were fortunate to be able to visit the community after the dialogue, when the situation was pronounced safe again. Photo: H. Tugendhat

Welcome to Laboot, Mount Elgon. Photo: S. Díaz

3736


UN MANDATESTwo UN Special Rapporteurs have in 2016 and 2017 made reports that explicitly deal with human rights, Indigenous peoples and conservation. John Knox, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment has presented his thematic report on human rights and the environment, in which he explains that the full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food and water, depends on the services provided by ecosystems, and that exercising human rights is also key to halting the loss of the diversity of life in lands and waters and of distinct ecosystems. He has also presented guiding principles on human rights. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz – UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, has presented her thematic report on conservation and the rights of Indigenous peoples10, which contributed to the UNPFII commitment to continue to explore work in this area. She has also engaged in direct communication to governments: e.g., to Thailand and Kenya as outlined above.

UN WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (UN WGBHR)2011, the UN Human Rights Council established the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, consisting of �ve independent experts. Its mandate has since then been renewed every third year.

FUTURE IDEAS ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENSURING SYNERGIES Among mechanisms within the UN System there are a range of next steps that could be explored, to strengthen the synergies between Indigenous peoples’ rights and biodiversity conservation. These include both voluntary guidelines, and a binding framework, although the second would require a longer process to build. Consideration is still being given to whether such a framework is best housed within the UN system or elsewhere. There is also the question of whether a ‘conservation industry’ certi�cation approach could be taken, similar to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) where palm oil suppliers are required to abide by certain rights and sustainability standards to receive certi�cation.

The presenters explained that national level mechanisms are only successful if all actors are at the table, however international level mechanisms - whether legal decisions or non-litigious bodies - can seek to bring both sides to the table, and the Whakatane Mechanism, (to be explained in the following section) has had some success in this.

10 In January 2018 three UN Special Rapporteurs writing to the Kenyan Government provided the pretext for the EU to suspend its funding to the WaTER conservation project, after the Kenya Forest Service had shot and killed a Sengwer community member.

WHAKATANE MECHANISMThe Whakatane Mechanism, a mediation method developed for solving con�icts related to Indigenous territories and conservation interests, was born out of the IUCN 4th World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in 2008 and responded to its Resolution 4.052 that sought to develop a “mechanism to address and redress the effects of historic and current injustices against Indigenous peoples in the name of conser-vation of nature and natural resources.”

During the preparations for the �rst Whakatane Assess-ment that was held in Kenya in 2011, it became very clear that the Indigenous community concerned, the Ogiek of Mount Elgon, did not trust the IUCN East and Southern Africa Regional Organisation (ESARO), headquartered in Nairobi, because the eviction of the Ogiek from their last remaining lands in 2000 was on the advice of IUCN. FPP was, however, trusted by these communities, while IUCN, who had provided advice and support to government, was trusted by the government. In the preparatory negotiations, FPP acted as proxy for the community and IUCN for the government. Justin Kenrick (of FPP) explained that after some initial con�ict between FPP and IUCN, they were able to arrive at a common understanding of what was required, and were thus able to bring both parties on board. An effective dialogue requires a huge amount of preparation work in the lead up, and then requires years of follow up to be effective.

In the preparatory roundtable that brought all parties together, the common question of the dialogue that all parties arrived at, was: At Chepkitale, Mount Elgon, how best can the forest be preserved, the wildlife be protected, the Ogiek live in a way that ensures their cultural, social and livelihood needs are met, and economic revenue be generated? This is the question that then guided the assessment which took place at Mt Elgon, including participants from the Kenya Wildlife Service, the Kenya Forest Service, Mt Elgon County Council (who had initially requested the gazetting of the land), IUCN, World Bank, and partners, as well as the community.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTING THE WHAKATANE MECHANISMFirstly, a Whakatane process is fundamentally providing context and opportunity for trust building – respectful and challenging dialogue achieves results. Such a process should therefore take place on the land in question. Being on the land raises the concerns of the IPLCs whose heritage is on this land and can also serve to provide an equal platform for diverse actors to discuss and observe the realities on the ground and customary sustainable use. It depends on both parties recognising the necessity for, and interdependence between, biodiversity conservation and rights to control and manage land and resources.

Secondly, through the Whakatane process communities can demonstrate how their collective tenure can be the means to achieve sustainable effective conservation of biodi-versity and ecosystems. Thirdly, a Whakatane process is not a one-off assessment: it is a long-term process of ensuring that national laws, policies and practice respect community rights and tenure. It can create the context for global processes to support local and national level dialogue.

Ogiek community members recounted the facilitator’s role in the Whakatane Mechanism. Justin quoted what the facilitator said to those involved in the Mt Elgon Whakatane

process: “You have been in con�ict for all this time, you have never seen each other face to face. For us to continue, put down your defences and let’s come together and agree that here is a problem we need to solve.”

Open space session and cultural eveningThe day’s two sessions on strategies and approaches for problem solutions created an inspired and dynamic atmos-phere that developed into discussions in new groups and constellations for sharing new ideas, and providing in-depth inputs across borders and actors about solutions for speci�c cases. During the open space session, issues brought up during sessions that needed more time for discussion were brought up again.

In the evening the group came together for a joyful dinner in the garden where singing, dancing and storytelling from all participating cultures were shared and appreciated with much laughter and new bonds.

Feedback from break-out groups. Photo: S. Díaz

Sengwer dancing during cultural evening. Photo: Z. Molnár

3938


Day 4The ways forwardFacilitated by Helen Tugendhat and Justin Kenrick of Forest Peoples Programme

The day started with reporting back from the open-space sessions held at the end of Day 3. Discussions covered various topics, such as legal empowerment methodologies and peer-to-peer learning. Lessons were shared from Costa Rica where environmental legal reforms and active networks for lawyers had been part of solutions. The nexus of extrac-tion industries and biodiversity conservation was also dis-cussed, as an ongoing process in the agenda up to CBD COP14 in November 2018, that deals with “Mainstreaming biodiversity in sectors”.

The morning’s group-work focused on the way forward, and started with re�ections and inspiration provided by Helen Tugendhat and Justin Kenrick of FPP. They began in-viting participants to think back to the Durban Accord of 2003, adopted at the Fifth IUCN World Parks Congress. It is useful to remember that this Congress in Durban represented a signi�cant shift in the way that the conservation movement looked at and articulated the relationship between people and nature.

The pledge of the Durban Accord states:“Our strongest commitments will fail if we neglect to

maintain avenues for open dialogue. Such dialogue thrives in

a climate of humility, credibility and trust. Towards this end

we pledge to facilitate understanding and collaboration. We

pledge to engage and embrace all constituents. We pledge to

share our vision that a sustainable future for humankind

depends on a caring partnership with nature. We pledge to

bequeath protected areas, as a precious heritage, to future

generations.”

Since then two other signi�cant, and previously unimaginable, things have happened; �rstly, the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights11 was set up in January 2004, which reinforces the functions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and that also is unique in the sense that it recognises collective rights. Secondly, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was �nally adopted in

11 The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court) is a conti-nental court established by African countries to ensure the protection of human and peoples’ rights in Africa. It complements and reinforces the functions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. For more information: http://www.african-court.org/en/

September 200712, which establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well- being of the Indigenous peoples of the world. Following the same direction, there have also been several landmark legal decisions in favour of Indigenous peoples in cases that have dealt with Indigenous people’s rights to their territories in areas that have been declared as protected for nature con-servation by governments, including:

– 2007 Saramaka people v Suriname in Inter-American Court of Human Rights13

– 2014 Kaliña and Lokono v Suriname in Inter-American Court of Human Rights14

– 2017 Ogiek Judgment in African Court on Human and Peoples Rights15

Since Durban, there has also been progressive recognition of Indigenous peoples as a distinct group in several global nego-tiation fora, such as in the CBD; recognition as a formal UN ‘Major Group’; formal advisory mechanisms established by the Global Environment Facility, the UN General Assembly recognising Indigenous peoples as co-convening the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, and the last World Conservation Congress which opened up for Indigenous organisations to acquire IUCN membership. The Conservation Initiative on Human Rights16 has been established between eight of the major conservation organisations. Under this initiative, the participating organisations commits to uphold a set of human rights principles, to enhance its capacities to ensure their implementation, and put in place appropriate accountability measures. Indigenous representatives are now present in key decision making bodies, including those related to conservation.

Yet, implementation of all these important and forward looking decisions at the national and local levels where Indigenous peoples live and conservation efforts are taking place has been lacking. The misconception of biodiversity conservation as requiring huge areas to be emptied of people living there and who have tight connections to their territo-

12 Declaration is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples. It establishes a universal framework of min-imum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human rights stand-ards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to the speci�c situation of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unp�i/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

13 https://iachr.lls.edu/cases/saramaka-people-v-suriname14 http://www.ĳrcenter.org/2016/02/12/iacthr-con�rms-indigenous-peo-

ples-land-and-access-to-information-rights/15 https://ilg2.org/2017/05/28/ogiek-the-african-court-of-human-and-peo-

ples-rights-�rst-decision-on-indigenous-rights/16 https://www.iucn.org/content/iucn-and-members-form-conserva-

tion-initiative-human-rights

ries, persist. At the same time the Fourth Edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook, the �agship publication of the CBD, with the latest data on status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystems globally, summarises that the world´s biodiversity is continuing to be lost at an alarming rate.

The presenters connected to what had been said in earlier sessions: that in Australia, if a community cannot prove pre-existing connection to the land then no collective rights to land as Indigenous Aboriginal peoples is granted. Where community’s ability to practice that connectedness has been broken, these rights are unattainable. However, this connectedness can be recovered, by recognising that commu-nities as custodians and conservationists as ecologists, each have deep knowledge and strong connection to biodiversity and sustainable development. Communities and conservation bodies need to work together against those forces that exploit and marginalise both communities and the environment.

Two questions were then posed to participants to answer in groups: – What seemingly impossible thing(s) need to happen for

concrete change in your context?

– What can we do together (and what will you carry forward)?

Groups also retained their focus on a speci�c task from earlier discussions, namely: awareness-raising, national advocacy, international advocacy legal reform and dialogue and negotiation.

AWARENESS RAISING. This group highlighted the need to recognise IPLCs as custodians of land and resources. National governments and intergovernmental bodies, such as the European Union, valuing and appreciating livelihoods of Indigenous peoples and their contribution to the national economy (e.g. Maasai) and sustainability was presented as part of the means to foster positive change. This would include consultation processes from the onset of establishing

the proposal for a conserved area, recognising inherent IPLC rights of their lands. Some of the concrete changes that Batwa participants from Uganda would like to see is being allowed to go back to their land or, at the very least, the right to access and bene�t from the land. Currently the Batwa participants from Uganda felt that while they were legitimate and rightful owners of the land, the government has denied access to the land. Yet, the government allows tourists such access, and no revenue is shared with the Batwa. Some of the participants viewed the recognition of IPLC land rights at national levels as an issue that if addressed properly, would contribute to an enabling environment for many other sustainability issues to be solved.

Another key challenge to address is the double standards for living sustainably, manifested in that Indigenous peoples are required to live up to a higher standard of sustainability than the rest of the population. As part of this issue, partici-pants re�ected on how people in cities are not assessed for their contributions towards sustainability such as in address-ing climate change. A change of narrative in that human rights are inherent to all people and that we all have respon-sibility to live sustainably, was proposed. There was a call for energy to be focused on implementing UN DRIP in practice, deemed important as it recognises traditional and collective tenure rights.

NATIONAL ADVOCACY. A narrative that places Indigenous peoples and local communities’ connection with their land and resources as “backwards” was identi�ed as a key challenge to address through advocacy at the international, regional, national and local scales. The national level was identi�ed as the scale where this discriminatory narrative vis a vis Indigenous peoples and local communities’ is often manifested. This narrative clearly ignores progress made in connecting human rights and environment at the international level and regional levels which often lack enforcement at the national level. The recognition of collective land rights

Tumwebaze Scorah, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Pam McElwee. Photo: S. Díaz

4140


where local autonomy is recognised and the need of more ac-countability of international donors were also raised.

Participants also raised the idea of creating awareness among broader target groups, such as is happening in issues of climate change. People need to be aware that what is hap-pening with Indigenous peoples and the environment, is both a threat to all of us as individuals and to us as a collective. In this context, greater understanding of commonalities as human beings on the same planet, can support coordinated actions to address challenges such as climate change, as well as the rights of Indigenous peoples to live in and protect their territories. To balance the power, participants identi�ed as signi�cant the power that can be gained by the coordination between a considerable number of relatively less powerful agents. Community level organisation and mobilisation, such as a march, was mentioned as a means for Indigenous and forest people to rally support from other sectors of society.

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY. The commercial interests on Indigenous lands was identi�ed as one of the reasons why Indigenous people are dispossessed. Closing the loop holes in the implementation of existing legal instruments and guide-lines concerning Indigenous peoples and environmental declarations was also raised as a challenge.

Some of the issues to work through together, identi�ed by the group, were: to achieve unity of purpose for all actors; and the effective co-management of resources, such as in Mount Elgon. It was also deemed important by this group to raise the perception of Indigenous knowledge systems as providing useful, credible and legitimate knowledge, contri-buting critical evidence and good practices for biodiversity conservation. Caring for the environment and learning through Indigenous knowledges and practices should be included in the school curriculum. Envisioning this means safeguarding people’s heritage and mechanisms by which this heritage is bestowed upon new generations.

LEGAL REFORM. There are a number of legal initiatives that should be implemented by Governments. First of all, govern-ments need to recognise that conservation can be successful, and is more likely to be sustained through co-management with Indigenous peoples. There is a need to in�uence existing and draft regulations on conservation in this direction. Rather than investing in practices based on co-management, conservation is being used to marginalise Indigenous peoples. A “fortress conservation” narrative about wilderness empty from people as the only desired conservation status, causes marginalisation and discrimination and is linked to historical injustice. Recognition of Indigenous rights in the constitution is important. With legal reforms established, it is important to continue to demand enforcement. As an example, in Ken-ya, there is now legal recognition of community forests, and marginalised groups – but still no respect or protection in practice.

Penninah Zaninka. United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda (UOBDU). Photo: S. Díaz

Closing session: sharing messages to take home. Photo: C. Ituarte-Lima

It is important to bring services and schools to communities to allow them to practice their cultures and ensure the new generation have access to culturally adapted knowledges. An example of how this is often missing, is Mount Elgon where there is only a state school up to primary level, this means Indigenous children need to move out of communities to get secondary school education.

There is a need to support and develop curricula on how to use SDGs to advance Indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral territories and resources, and eliminate injustices.

The CBD has many references to equity and sharing of bene�ts, that also apply to landscape governance and bio-logical resources (not just genetic resources). An example is Aichi target 1117, on areas conserved globally which stresses that these areas should be “effectively and equitably managed”. The Programme of Work on Protected Area under the CBD provides many opportunities for rights-based approaches that can underpin strong actions at country-level, if implemented.

DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATION. The group re�ected over how we can create a common understanding of the reality among different actors, and about the need to �nd ways of putting aside differences to come together. It was said that changes come from within, from lessons learned and from self- re�ection. Change in attitude, including change in perspective and understanding others’ perspective, will come if we create spaces for meeting and learning. But changes can also be

17 CBD Aichi Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are con-served through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically repre-sentative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effec-tive area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. For more information: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

induced, when rights and people are recognised. Sometimes change champions are needed to bring this about.

For a successful dialogue process, it is important to have commitment on the part of all parties, including Indigenous people and government. Greed and self-interest had to be put aside. Training for all, so that all have the same skills on critical topics, was also key. In the process of change, know-ledge exchanges involving many countries and actors with different experiences, frequent open meetings and celebration when something works well is needed in order to build a new narrative. Singing and dancing together, is a way to better admire and understand each other, and the importance of conservation authorities visiting communities should never be underestimated for the power to break down stereo-types and engage with the realities of Indigenous conservation practices.

There is a need to ensure funding for this kind of processes to happen. Finally, continuous evaluation and monitoring is critical especially in dialogue and negotiation processes.

Closing of the dialogueIn the closing session, representatives from the diversity of actors shared what messages that they would bring home from the dialogue.

SHATIKHA CHIVUSIA, THE KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION

MISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (KNCHR) expressed her apprecia-tion of hearing the experiences from other countries, which had convinced her that African governments can intervene more and in better ways on Indigenous peoples‘ issues. She also commented that it is unfortunate that Indigenous peoples are so often looked upon as a nuisance when actually they are an integral part of society. She emphasised the necessity of moving away from such thinking. She further said that government is the duty bearer in this regard and has the balance of power on its side, and therefore govern-ment is in the best position enact the proper initiatives for the good of all. Shatikha Chivusia stated that based on her interaction at the dialogue, she was of the view that KNCHR was well placed to take on a bigger more effective role.

Re�ecting on the role of Indigenous peoples, and their long history of land management, Shatikha Chivusia felt that Kenyans should be saying “thank you for conserving our land for so long” as opposed to wrongfully attributing blame to Indigenous groups. To look at the issues from a wider perspective – this is the message that KNCHR as an inde-pendent government agency would be taking home with them. In terms of the way forward, she noted that there are many challenges that people serving in government can actu-ally address, but goodwill is foundational in moving matters forward (as opposed to the current approach that does not effectively consider Indigenous peoples’ perspectives and tends to move in circles).

PAM MCELWEE, IPBES GLOBAL ASSESSMENT stressed the impor-tance of taking these con�icts seriously as they do not bene�t Indigenous peoples nor biodiversity. She re�ected that conservation is often used as an excuse for actions that are not conservation-oriented. In the Sengwer case, people are evicted, but charcoal makers, eucalyptus and tea plantations are permitted on the land. Our job as biodiversity actors is to push back and communicate these evictions should not be justi�ed in the name of conservation.

She re�ected on what sorts of governance systems can help prevent con�ict. It is clear that, we have a lot of global tools at our disposal, such as those developed under the CBD, but these are not enough because they do not �lter down to speci�c governance systems of speci�c countries. Additionally, she asked – how can we collect data on con�icts? Currently, this is mostly done by NGOs. But she suggested that an of�cial global system for collecting the data we need for making progress in solving these con�icts, could be created. Finally, she stated that there are a lot of intangible bene�ts from recognition of Indigenous peoples and their land rights, referring to the �lm showed e.g. the scenes when the Ogiek Mau case won in the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights – referring speci�cally to the celebration, the joy people have at recognition of their rights and in passing on their knowledge, solidarity and culture.

YATOR KIPTUM, SENGWER COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE, said that all over the world there appears to be con�icts between Indigenous peoples, state agencies and other actors. He spoke of the need for sustained, meaningful and fruitful dialogue processes. There is a need for the recognition of Indigenous peoples to achieve sustainable development. He reminded the group that communities are not homogenous, but that there are different interests within communities that need to be considered. For example, some people may want access and bene�t sharing, and others want to own their land. He left participants with the challenge of how to move this dialogue into action, while ensuring the interests of all actors are taken care of.

4342


CARLOS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL revisited his initial re�ections, and examined them in the light of the outcome of the dialogue. If we do not achieve our climate target, humanity will be in a very tough situation, he said. “This is not going to be solved by governments, or by the UN System, it’s going to be solved by us: civil society, leaders of communities, practitioners.” From that, he made the following recommendations:– The CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010 – 2020 is

coming to an end, and we are now about to develop the Post 2020 targets for the CBD. There is a positive overlap between nature conservation and the realisation of Indigenous peoples’ rights. We will have the opportunity to bring this into discussions for the Post 2020 bio-diversity targets.

– Directly addressing the leaders of Indigenous peoples, communities and Indigenous rights organisations, the forests, he said, your lands, those ecosystems that you are governing are extremely important. He advised that these groups be wise in how they can bargain for a bigger chunk of the investments and the opportunities, and use this to solve and avoid problems and con�icts. In a few years, we will have 2 billion more people living in the world and they need to be part of the solution.

TUMWEBAZE SCORAH, THE BATWA COMMUNITY, UGANDA re�ected on the dialogue as her �rst experience attending an international workshop. One of the things she will take away is to be persistent: she said she will return home and tell her people that they must come together as one and �ght for their rights. Hearing of other communities facing challenges similar to the Batwa has strengthened her belief in the power of dialogue. She resolved that the Batwa must �nd a way to articulate their views and present these to the government so that when they make a mistake, the Batwa can correct them. Scorah concluded that she had learnt a lot, and had much to share with her community.

PERNILLA MALMER, SWEDBIO, on behalf of all the organisers, expressed sincere thanks to the Ogiek of Mount Elgon and the Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project as the local hosts. Despite not being able to visit the Ogiek in their traditional territories, so much of their spirit and culture was brought to Eldoret, and that was also very much thanks to all the Indigenous brothers and sisters who have generously been sharing their experiences and cultures during the days here at the Dialogue. She also thanked all other Indigenous communities from Kenya, Uganda, DRC and Thailand that came to the dialogue and generously shared their knowledge, experiences and stories; and the contributions from all other actors gathered governments, scientists, civil society organisations such as Human Rights organisations and bio-diversity conservation organisations, and UN representatives.

ELIFUHARA LALTAIKA, UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS

ISSUES concluded: “We agree more than disagree. We have to change the emergent dominant discourse. Human rights are inherent, no matter where you live, colour of your skin, we are all human beings”.

His �nal re�ection can be seen as the essence of the way forward from the dialogue: it is a very promising sign that participants in the dialogue were all ready to learn and respect Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge. As dialogue participants, our task onward will be to continue the journey and create a new positive narrative about human rights, Indigenous rights and biodiversity conservation as mutually supportive in fostering a good life for people and nature together.

Elifuraha Laltaika. Photo: S. Díaz

Dialogue participants and Sengwer women sharing knowledge and culture. Photo: Sandra Díaz

Organisers’ invitation: A Way Forward in support of Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation. The Eldoret Dialogue produced a bouquet of observations and suggestions to feed into ongoing local, national and global processes. The most pertinent to the nexus between conservation and human rights, are summarised here.

CBD POST 2020 TARGETS18 are being developed over the next two years while the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010–2020 is coming to an end. This provides a momentous opportunity to promote strong linkages between biodiversity governance and human rights at the heart of the Convention for the coming decade.

THE UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES has initiated a forward-looking process regarding biodiversity conservation and Indigenous peoples, where actors within the UN system and others, such as IUCN CEESP, are wel-come to engage. This may eventually lead to the �nalisation of a set of global Conservation Standards linked to the Whakatane Mechanism.

THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS

AND THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE

ENVIRONMENT continue within their mandates to bring atten-tion to human rights and biodiversity conservation nexus all over the world. Their initiatives will continuously need our support at all levels - from local to global. IPBES is exploring tools and methods to ensure equity across Indigenous, local and scienti�c knowledge systems, and to include ILK in all IPBES assessments, at an equal level to science. This way IPBES can contribute to enhancing the respect and recognition of ILK, creating opportunities for

18 https://www.cbd.int/post2020/doc/Approaches-Post2020Biodiversity.pdf

active use of ILK in practice by knowledge holders, to the bene�t of customary sustainable use valuable for conservation as well as for their own culture and livelihoods.

SwedBio at SRC, FPP, Natural Justice and CIPDP as organis-ers of The Eldoret Dialogue, are committed to contributing our insights from the dialogue to these and many other local -to-global processes. We endeavour to continue to work in dialogue with participants and their organisations, as well as with new allies. We will also continue to shape new related initiatives in 2018, such as the Peer-to-Peer Dialogue with legal practitioners on SDG 1619, human rights and biodiversity law, organised by SwedBio and partners. In the same spirit, Natural Justice, IUCN and partners are working to put into practice the ‘Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures’20 (OECMs) and FPP is leading the next compila-tion of the Local Biodiversity Outlooks21 under the CBD that will highlight IPLCs contribution to achieving all the CBD Aichi Targets. CIPDP together with many other community- based organisations will continue their persistent networking and advocacy at local to global levels for recognition as rights-holders and custodians of their land and resources, and their contribution to conservation of biological and cultural diversity.

These actions, as well as many others not mentioned here, are inter-connected and are undertaken as a contribution to ensuring Indigenous peoples’ rights, knowledges, innovations and practices are recognised and that Indigenous peoples are able to proudly contribute to the overarching Sustainable Development Goals and the Agenda 2030.

19 On peace, justice and strong institutions. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16

20 https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/wcpa/what-we-do/oecms21 http://localbiodiversityoutlooks.net

4544


ANNEX I: Dialogue Agenda1

1 This agenda re§ects the initial plan, before moving the venue to Eldoret, and with presenters as initially planned for.

Key referencesForest Peoples Programme, the International Indigenous Forum

on Biodiversity and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2016. Local Biodiversity Outlooks. Indige-nous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Contributions to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. A complement to the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Moreton-in-Marsh, England. http:// localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/

Forest Peoples Programme Whakatane Mechanism http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/environmental -governance/international-processes/whakatane-mechanism or http://www.whakatane-mechanism.org/

Ituarte-Lima, C., Schultz, M., Hahn, T., McDermott, C., and Cornell, S. 2014. ‘Biodiversity �nancing and safeguards: lessons learned and proposed guidelines’, Stockholm: SwedBio/Stock-holm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Information Document UNEP/CBD/COP/12/INF/27 for the 12th Confer-ence of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Pyeongchang Korea. ISBN 92-9225-562-2.

Ituarte-Lima, C. 2017. Transformative biodiversity law and 2030 Agenda: mainstreaming biodiversity and justice through human rights in Butter, B.(ed). Risk, Resilience, Inequality and Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Publishing

IUCN WCPA. 2017. Draft Guidelines for Recognising and Report-ing Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. IUCN, Switzerland. Version 1. https://www.iucn.org/theme/protect-ed-areas/wcpa/what-we-do/oecms

Jonas, H., Roe, D., and Makagon, J. 2014. Human Rights Standards for Conservation: An Analysis of Responsibilities, Rights and Redress for Just Conservation. IIED Issue Paper. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/14644IIED/

Jonas, H., Makagon, J. and Roe, D. 2016. Conservation standards: from rights to responsibilities. IIED Discussion Paper, IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/14666IIED/

Kenrick, J. (forthcoming) ‘Burning a home that doesn’t exist, ar-resting people who aren’t there: the Sengwer in Embobut’, in Scales of governance and Indigenous Peoples’ rights in a glo-balized world: New rights or same old wrongs? Jennifer Hays and Irène Bellier (eds). London: Routledge

Knox, J. 2015. Report of the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Compilation of good practices, A/HRC/28/61.

Knox, J. 2017. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/HRC/34/49.

Knox, J 2018. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/HRC/37/59

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Report on the sixteenth session (24 April-5 May 2017) Economic and Social Council Official Records, 2017 Supplement No. 23. https://undocs.org/en/E/2017/43

Schultz, M., Hahn, T., Hällström, N., Ituarte-Lima, C., 2016, The biggest single opportunity we have is dialogue - Dialogue seminars as a methodology for transformative social learning and con§ict resolution in international environment negotiations, SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://swed.bio/reports/report/the-biggest-single- opportunity-we-have-is-dialogue/

Springer, J., and Almeida, F. 2014. Protected Areas and the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Current Issues and Future Agenda. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC.

Springer, J., and Campese, J. 2011. Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Contexts. Scoping Paper for the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights.

Tauli-Corpuz, V. 2016. Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples, A/71/229, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.as-p?symbol=A/71/229

Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43:579-591.

Day 1 – Where we are (Monday 20 November)

Explanatory notes

10.00 am Arrival/ Registration of participants

11.00 am Welcoming session • Opening ceremony and welcome remarks by host community

representatives and coordinating team• Explanation about purpose, rules and objectives of the dialogue

workshop

Facilitators: Peter Kitelo, CIPDP and Pernilla Malmer, SwedBio

12.00 – 1.00 pm Lunch

1.00 – 3.00 pm Introductions – Participants and the Questions • Introductions by participants and their expectations • The Dialogues underlying three questions

1) “Why do con§icts still arise?” 2) “What can be done to avoid con§icts occurring?”3) “How can active con§icts be resolved?”

Facilitators: Claudia Ituarte-Lima, SwedBio and Justin Kenrick, FPP

3.00 – 3.30 pm Break (tea/ Coffee)

3.30 – 5.00 pm Opening session • Keynote: UN Special Rapporteur Review of state of the art related

to Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation. Challenges and opportunities Vicky Tauli Corpuz, UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples Rights (15 mins)

• Right of people to sustainable use. The SDGs and the UN Declaration on Indige-nous Peoples Rights Elifuraha Laltaika, Member of UN Perma-nent Forum, and USAIDs adviser for Indig-enous people’s issues (10 mins)

• Biodiversity and Communities: IPBES – Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity Services Zsolt Molnár, IPBES Global Assessment Chapter Lead Author and MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Hungaria (10 mins)

• Biodiversity and Communities: Convention on Biological Diversity Carlos Manuel Rodriquez, Vice President, Global Policy, Conservation International, and Former Minister of Energy and Environment, Costa Rica (10 mins)

Facilitators: Pernilla Malmer, SwedBio and Helen Tugendhat, FPP

Questions and responses invited after each of the presentations. Plenary discussion with the panel after presentations.

6.00 pm Dinner

7.00 pm Free time

4746


Day 2 – Local Global Dynamics (Tuesday 21 November)

Explanatory notes

8.30 to 9.00 am Opening of the day Pernilla Malmer on Dialogue, Justin Kenrick on the Day

9.00 to 11.00 am Local/global nexus scene setting:Part One – Mt Elgon experience:1. Two brief �lm clips of Mt Elgon2. Ogiek community members:

who we are and what is our experience of conservation?3. KWS (Kenya Wildlife Services), KNCHR (Kenya National

Commission on Human Rights, Katiba Institute and NLC (National Land Commission)

4. Discussion – Questions, answers and discussion

Facilitators: Peter Kitelo, CIPDP and Kibelio from Mt Elgon Community.

Kipkeu (KWS), Chivusia (KNCHR), Emily (Katiba) Swazuri (NLC)

11.00 to 11.30 am Break (tea/ coffee)

11.30 am to 1.00 pm Local/global nexus scene setting:Part Two – Communities from around the world 1. Thailand – Mountain Peoples & Ob Luang Nat Park2. Australia – Indigenous Protected Areas3. Uganda – Batwa & Bwindi & Magahinga NP4. DRC – Batwa

Thailand, IMPECT,Australia: Margaret Raven, Macquarie Uni, Uganda: Penninah Zaninka wtih Ms. Tumwebaze Scorah, Mr Segitondo Elias, DRC: Bahati, with Paci�que Mukumbwa)

1.00 to 2.00 pm Lunch

2.00 to 4.00 pm Local/global nexus scene setting:Part Three – Embobut experience1. Two brief ªlm clips of Embobut and the Sengwer2. Sengwer community members experience: who we are and

what is our experience of conservation?3. Discussion – Questions, answers and discussion

Facilitators: Milka Chepkorir, Yator Kiptum and Elias Kimaiyo

4.00 to 4.30 pm Break (tea/ coffee)

4.30 to 6.00 pm Open space session Small group discussion of issues that have emerged during the Dialogue and been ‘parked’. These may be exciting new ideas, difficult diver-gences, or strong perspectives that need airing

Method: We can “park” speci�c issues during the Dialogue and return to them in these open sessions.

6.30 pm Dinner

7.30 pm Free time (including Film showing)

Day 3 – Encouraging Synergies and Transforming Con�ict (Wednesday 22nd November)

Explanatory notes

8.30 – 9.15 am Opening and Re§ections on Previous Day: Today and tomorrow is about what we can learn from Day 2 and from our previous relevant experiences

A few re§ections by different actorsFacilitators: Pernilla Malmer (SwedBio), Peter Kitelo (CIPDP)

9.15 – 10.30 am Underlying question: 1) “Why do these con¬icts still arise?”

To propose solution to any issue, the �rst step is to develop a clear understanding of the factors and dynamics that contrib-ute to it. This session is an opportunity for participants to de-scribe why – despite the clarity of international human rights law and conservation science – conservation-related injustices continue to occur, and conservation misses the opportunity to bene�t from communities committed to sustaining their lands. Are the root causes related to: (1) Lack of knowledge about the applicable human rights standards, including misunderstanding when and how they might be applied?

(2) Funding ¬ows for initiatives that do not focus on potential human rights impacts of the activities?

(3) Inability/ unwillingness to recognise communities’ contribution to conservation? or

(4) Different factors acting in isolation or in combination with others?

(1) Short facilitated intro using dia-grams

(2) Small group discussion based on leading ques-tions

(3) Leading to dia-grammatic repre-sentations

(4) Plenary

Facilitators:Claudia Ituarte-Lima (SwedBio), Justin Kenrick (FPP), Edna Odhiambo (Natural Justice)

10.30 – 11.00 am Break (tea/ coffee)

11.00 am – 1.00 pm 2) “What can be done to avoid con¬icts occurring?” What approaches and tools for avoiding con§ict, celebrating synergies and generating sustainability exist? Questions will include:

(1) Do we need better understanding and implementation of existing human rights, or new tools such as Conservation Standards, to guide conservation practice?

(2) Would communities bene�t from legal empowerment and training to be able to better affirm their rights and responsibilities effectively?

(3) What is the role of regional and international actors, including such organisations and funders?

(1) Framing presentation (“In light of how we understand these problems arise”)

(2) Small groups on speci�c issues (3) Plenary discussion

Facilitators: Gino Cocchiaro andEdna Odhiambo (Natural Justice)

1.00 – 2.00 pm Lunch

2.00 – 5.00 pm(incl break)

3) “How can active con¬icts be resolved?” What range of approaches, examples and tools for transforming con§icts when they arise, and what are their strengths and weaknesses? Including:(1) The pros and cons of Legal pathways – e.g. strategic litigation

(including Endorois and Mau Ogiek cases) and implementation (2) The pros and cons of Dialogue tools – e.g. Whakatane

(including at Mt Elgon, Thailand and DRC)

(1) 2 Presentations on pros and cons of litigious routes (Lucy Claridge/ Kipkazi) and on non-litigious routes (Justin/Helen /Kitelo)

(2) Groups – what else needs to support these

Facilitators: Justin Kenrick, Helen Tugendhat, FPP

5.00 – 5.15 pm Break (tea/ coffee)

5.15 – 6.45 pm Open space session Small group discussion of issues that have emerged during the Dialogue and been ‘parked’. These may be exciting new ideas, difficult divergences, or strong perspectives that need airing.

Including a session about IPBES Global Assessment. People can join any discussion

7.00 pm Dinner

7.30 pm Culture sharing evening: all participants are invited to bring and share their cultures (whether songs, dances, plays, stories, struggles, celebrations or whatever we choose to bring).

We are encouraged to bring, show and invite others to enjoy our cultures

4948


Day 4 – The Way Ahead (Thursday 23 November 2017)

Explanatory notes

8.30 – 9.00 am Opening of day 4 (Where are we? Feedback from the Tools sessions and the Open space sessions)

9.00 – 10.30 am Can we empower synergistic change? How can we better work with each other (e.g. government, UN, donors, Indigenous peoples, local communities)? Do we have a shared understanding? How to implement existing joint approaches better or pursue new ideas?

Small groups then Plenary discussions on ‘Opportunities and challenges for collaboration’

10.30 – 11.00 am Break (tea/ coffee)

11.00 am – 1.00 pm Priorities /Actions to be decided during Dialogue: • (1) What collaboration is working?• (2) What further collaboration has this Dialogue made possible? • (3) What is needed to enable collaboration?

Justin Kenrick (FPP) and Pernilla Malmer (SwedBio)

1.00 – 2.00 pm Lunch

2.00 – 3.00 pm Wrap up – Evaluation and Closing ceremony Organising team and host community

3.00 – 3.30 pm Coffee / tea, and then travel back to Nairobi

ANNEX II: List of participantsParticipant Organisation Country

1 Mr Elifuraha Laltaika UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Tanzania2 Mr Chris Chapman Amnesty International UK3 Ms Naomi Barasa Amnesty International Kenya4 Ms Lucy Claridge Minority Rights Group UK5 Mr Philip Franks IIED UK6 Ms Elaine Geyer-Allely WWF International Kenya7 Ms Sandra Díaz IPBES Global Assessment Co-Chair Argentina8 Mr Zsolt Molnar IPBES Global Assessment Chapter Author Hungary9 Mr Tamrat Gode Bekele IPBES Global Assessment Chapter Author Ethiopia10 Ms Pam McElwee IPBES Global Assessment Chapter Author USA11 Mr Peter Bates UNESCO ILK Technical Support Unit UK12 Mr Dan Ole Sapit World Bank/MPIDO Kenya13 Commissioner Shatikha S. Chivusia KNCHR Kenya14 Ms Akademia Wandibba OHCHR Kenya15 Ms Wanjiku Manyatta Woambui Min. of Environment, EU WaTER Project Kenya16 Mr Joseph Onjala Government Advisor, EU WaTER Project Kenya17 Mr Cosmas Murunga Ogiek, Mount Elgon Kenya18 Ms Linette Chongeywo Ogiek, Mount Elgon Kenya19 Ms Brenda Chepkorir Sengwer IPP Kenya20 Mr Yator Kiptum Sengwer IPP Kenya21 Mr Elias Kimaiyo Sengwer IPP Kenya22 Ms Milka Chepkorir Sengwer IPP Kenya23 Mr Wilson Kipkazi Endorois Welfare Council Kenya24 Mr Joseph Sang from OPDP Ogiek, Mau Kenya25 Ms Emily Kinama Katiba Institute Kenya 26 Mr Paci�que Mukumba Center of Accompaniment for Indigenous Pygmies and DRC Vulnerable Minorities (CAMV), Kahuzi-Biega 27 Mr Nyamushi Pierre Bahati CAMV, Kahuzi-Biega DRC28 Ms Penninah Zaninka United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda (UOBDU) Uganda29 Ms Tumwebaze Scorah UOBDU, Batwa Uganda30 Mr Segitondo Elias UOBDU, Batwa Uganda31 Ms Nittaya Earkanna (Mee) IMPECT Thailand32 Mr Kriengkrai Cheechuang (Kai) IMPECT Thailand33 Ms Margaret Raven Macquerie University Australia34 Mr Carlos Manuel Rodriquez Conservation International Costa Rica

Organisers

35 Ms Pernilla Malmer SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre Sweden36 Ms Claudia Ituarte-Lima SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre Mexico/ Sweden37 Ms Helen Tugendhat Forest Peoples Programme UK38 Mr Justin Kenrick Forest Peoples Programme Scotland39 Ms Nadia Stone Forest Peoples Programme UK40 Ms Catherine Clarke Forest Peoples Programme Cameroon41 Ms Louise Henson Forest Peoples Programme UK42 Mr Gino Cocchiaro Natural Justice, Nairobi Kenya43 Ms Edna Odhiambo Natural Justice, Nairobi Kenya 44 Mr Peter Kitelo Chongeywo Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project, Kenya (CIPDP) Mount Elgon 45 Mr Fred Kibelio Ngeywo CIPDP, Mount Elgon Kenya

50


ANNEX III: Evaluation of the Dialogue by the Participants

1. What was positive about the dialogue?

The mix of actors, with representatives from different interests, and interaction between different perspectives and sectors were appreciated by almost all participants, as this quote illustrates: “The interaction was very healthy and frank and the spirit & collective goal-setting was tremendously positive”.

The opportunity to share experiences from different parts of the world, was emphasised by many, and particularly by the Indigenous participants. The recognition of Indigenous rights and the value of their knowledge and practices for conservation, and their explicit recognition during the dialogue was also highly appreciated. Speci�c positive experiences where governments and Indigenous peoples had been collaborating in conservation of Indigenous lands were mentioned by participants. Participants also greatly appreciated the learning across different sectors and scales, for example, ecologists learning about human rights aspects of con§icts. One participant particularly commented:

“I have a better understanding of the necessary mechanisms at every level, international, national, and local, and so feel capable of introducing them and adjusting them for use and dissemination”

2. What could we do better?

Despite recognition of the diversity of actors gathered, some re§ected that there could have been even more representatives from governments and the conservation sector. Many were regretful that a group of government representatives backed out of attending, the week before the dialogue. Many also missed the opportunity to spend one day of the dialogue in Mt Elgon, (as had been planned for, but had to be changed at the last minute, due to a WHO announcement of an outbreak of Margburg virus on the Ugandan side of the area).

Some commented that the agenda was very busy and that they would have liked to have had more space for free discussions. However, there were also re§ections that even though the program was intense, there were so many positive outcomes that can be expected to be taken forward and that will have impact on different levels.

As one participant described it: “The dialogue might have been packed in terms of the program but we achieved our goal. Thank you!”

Summary The evaluation questionnaire was completed by 29 participants.

SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE – 106 91 Stockholm, SwedenVisiting address: Kräftriket 2bTelephone: +46 8 674 70 70Email: [email protected], www.stockholmresilience.su.se

About the report This report presents the outcomes of a Global Dialogue on Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation, in Eldoret, Kenya in November 2017. It was initiated to address the con�icts that have emerged across the globe between conservation agencies and Indigenous peoples with longstanding relationships with their ancestral territories. The dialogue was co-organised by SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Forest Peoples Programme, and Natural Justice. The Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project was the local host in Kenya. The dialogue took the conviction that local people and conservation organisations can be strategic allies as a starting point. It was attended by conservation agencies, social justice and human rights advocates, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use experts, legal and human rights professionals, members of community- based organisations, government of�cials, and UN -organisations and academics. The dialogue was designed in a global policy-setting context, while also aiming to contribute to local solutions.

SwedBiois a knowledge interface at Stockholm Resilience Centre contributing to poverty alleviation, equity, sustainable livelihoods and social-ecological systems rich in bio-diversity that persist, adapt and transform under global change such as climate change. SwedBio enables know ledge generation, dialogue and exchange between practitioners, policy makers and scientists for development and implementation of policies and methods at multiple scales.

Chepkitale Indigenous People Development Project (CIPDP) is the organisation that represents the community of the Ogiek people of Mt Elgon. CIPDP connects the community with external actors and promote the Ogieks rights and development.

Forest Peoples Programme(FPP) was founded in 1990 in response to the forest crisis, speci�cally to support Indigenous forest peoples’ struggles to defend their lands and livelihoods. FPP supports the rights of peoples who live in forests and depend on them for their livelihoods, working to create political space for forest peoples to secure their rights, control their lands and decide their own futures.

Natural Justice – Lawyers for Communities and the Environment specialises in human rights and environmental law in Africa in pursuit of social and environmental justice. Natural Justice conducts comprehensive research on environmental and human rights law, supporting Indigenous peoples and local communities and their supporting organisations, providing technical advice to governments and intergovernmental organisations, and engaging in key international processes.

SwedBio is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

report - swedbio€¦ · do conservation and human rights con˚icts still arise?”, we need to pay...

Documents