Double click image to enlarge.December 13, 2008
December 12, 2008
Judge sets temporary stipulation for gold mining on Mount Tenabo
STIPULATION SETS UP PARAMETERS FOR WORK ON BARRICK CORTEZ HILLS PROJECT UNTIL HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
By Lisa J. Wolf
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
December 11, 2008
Click map to enlarge
Roger Flynn, attorney for the Western Shoshone and allies seeking to stop Barrick’s Cortez Hills Project, reported at 5:50 p.m. Thursday, December 11th that minutes earlier a Joint Stipulation “between the parties” was “filed with the court,” before Judge Larry R. Hicks and Magistrate Judge Robert A. McCaid of the U.S. District Court for Nevada, regarding “what work can and cannot be done in this interim period before the court issues its decision on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.” Flynn advised, “The hearing will be sometime during the week of January 20th.”
Flynn noted, “The Stipulation allows some site preparation work to begin, but none of the major mine facilities such as the Cortez Hills Pit, the waste dumps, and cyanide heap leaching facility. The Stipulation recognizes the ability of Western Shoshone plaintiffs to continue to access and use the lands for religious and cultural purposes, as long as people do not interfere with Cortez's operations allowed in the Stipulation.”
While the suit initially named the U.S. Department of the Interior and the BLM as plaintiffs, Barrick Cortez intervened and joined the suit as a defendant, represented by Michael R. McCarthy, Jim B. Butler, Francis M. Wikstrom, and Michael L. Larsen of Parsons Behle & Latimer.
According to the Stipulation, “Cortez may relocate the power transmission lines” on the “upper pediment area (to remove the existing line from its current location) and lower down the hill (to install the new power line).” In addition, Cortez may “relocate the existing county road to the new location” so long as “public motorized travel on County Road 222 between Crescent Valley and Grass Valley shall remain open, subject to reasonable construction and maintenance delays, not to exceed 20 minutes” and can “extend the haul road to connect the crusher pad with the existing haul road.”
Cortez may also “perform site preparation and construction activities at the site of the crusher facility,” the “truck shop” and “conveyor” and can “continue archaeological clearance work throughout the Project area.” Cortez is also being permitted to “perform underground mining operations generally, including as previously permitted under Cortez’s separate permit and exploration plan of operations as well as the BLM’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Record of Decision (“ROD”) at issue in this case.”
However, Cortez must “remove the water lines, tanks, and trucks presently located for dust
suppression purposes north of the boundary of the heap leach facility” during “the term of this Stipulation.”
Cortez can continue to “access any and all areas within the Cortez Hills Project area and perform
any and all work previously permitted and authorized separate and apart from the FEIS and ROD at issue in this case. In other words, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the work and activities of the Barrick entities which is authorized under pre-existing permits and approvals. Cortez has received permits and approvals, other than the FEIS and ROD plaintiffs are presently challenging in this case, for exploration and other activities for the Cortez Hills Project. For example, Cortez has received permits and approvals to install instrumented drill holes and storm water control features under a separate permit and exploration plan of operations. Thus, such previously permitted work will be permitted to continue and not be affected by this Stipulation.”
The Stipulation also provides that “Cortez will temporarily suspend the following activities permitted by the FEIS and ROD in this case” and will “not cut trees, begin mining, or conduct further activities permitted by the ROD in this case, in the approximately 835 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project pit area.”
The Stipulation specifies, “Cortez, however, will be allowed to disturb the pit area to the extent required to move the power transmission line, construct the haul road, or perform previously permitted work,” but “will not perform site preparation, construction work, or conduct further activities permitted by the ROD in this case, in the approximately 1,936 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project waste rock dumps” or “on the approximately 328 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project leach pad;” and “will not perform any work or other activities within a radius of 200 yards of the water monitoring well PD-03 that is located just north of the C area and will not impede plaintiffs’ access to and use of this area.”
This includes the site of the Western Shoshone sweat lodge and fire pit, which had been blocked and disturbed by Barrick Cortez shortly after Thanksgiving.
The document further states that “the parties agree that in light of this Stipulation, plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order” is “moot.”
The Stipulation specifies that “Plaintiffs are not required to post a bond before the Preliminary Injunction hearing, however, Cortez reserves the right to seek a bond if the Court should enter a preliminary injunction, and this Stipulation and/or any resulting Order from the Court shall not prejudice Cortez’s rights to seek such a bond, nor prejudice plaintiffs’ rights to seek a zero or nominal bond.”
Further, the document specifies, “The conditions and restrictions of this Stipulation will remain in full force and effect until 3 calendar days after the close of the preliminary injunction hearing, or January 23, 2009, whichever is earlier.”
The Stipulation provides that “neither plaintiffs, nor any members of plaintiffs’ organizations shall impair, impede, or otherwise interfere with the work permitted under this Stipulation. Except for work expressly authorized by this Stipulation, Cortez shall not impair, impede, or otherwise interfere with plaintiffs’ and their members’ access to and use of public land.”
The Stipulation’s “terms and conditions are without prejudice to the parties’ respective claims, defenses, positions, and arguments relative to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the merits of this case.”
Flynn noted that Western Shoshone working on an arbor at the ceremonial site on Mt. Tenabo should “not interfere with Cortez’ operations in any way” and “anyone wanting to do a protest” should “stay by the arbor and the sweat lodge” otherwise “it would break the agreement.” Flynn emphasized that Shoshone supporters must not interfere with Cortez equipment or personnel; and while they can take pictures should not approach Cortez equipment.
By Lisa J. Wolf
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
December 11, 2008
Click map to enlarge
Roger Flynn, attorney for the Western Shoshone and allies seeking to stop Barrick’s Cortez Hills Project, reported at 5:50 p.m. Thursday, December 11th that minutes earlier a Joint Stipulation “between the parties” was “filed with the court,” before Judge Larry R. Hicks and Magistrate Judge Robert A. McCaid of the U.S. District Court for Nevada, regarding “what work can and cannot be done in this interim period before the court issues its decision on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.” Flynn advised, “The hearing will be sometime during the week of January 20th.”
Flynn noted, “The Stipulation allows some site preparation work to begin, but none of the major mine facilities such as the Cortez Hills Pit, the waste dumps, and cyanide heap leaching facility. The Stipulation recognizes the ability of Western Shoshone plaintiffs to continue to access and use the lands for religious and cultural purposes, as long as people do not interfere with Cortez's operations allowed in the Stipulation.”
While the suit initially named the U.S. Department of the Interior and the BLM as plaintiffs, Barrick Cortez intervened and joined the suit as a defendant, represented by Michael R. McCarthy, Jim B. Butler, Francis M. Wikstrom, and Michael L. Larsen of Parsons Behle & Latimer.
According to the Stipulation, “Cortez may relocate the power transmission lines” on the “upper pediment area (to remove the existing line from its current location) and lower down the hill (to install the new power line).” In addition, Cortez may “relocate the existing county road to the new location” so long as “public motorized travel on County Road 222 between Crescent Valley and Grass Valley shall remain open, subject to reasonable construction and maintenance delays, not to exceed 20 minutes” and can “extend the haul road to connect the crusher pad with the existing haul road.”
Cortez may also “perform site preparation and construction activities at the site of the crusher facility,” the “truck shop” and “conveyor” and can “continue archaeological clearance work throughout the Project area.” Cortez is also being permitted to “perform underground mining operations generally, including as previously permitted under Cortez’s separate permit and exploration plan of operations as well as the BLM’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Record of Decision (“ROD”) at issue in this case.”
However, Cortez must “remove the water lines, tanks, and trucks presently located for dust
suppression purposes north of the boundary of the heap leach facility” during “the term of this Stipulation.”
Cortez can continue to “access any and all areas within the Cortez Hills Project area and perform
any and all work previously permitted and authorized separate and apart from the FEIS and ROD at issue in this case. In other words, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the work and activities of the Barrick entities which is authorized under pre-existing permits and approvals. Cortez has received permits and approvals, other than the FEIS and ROD plaintiffs are presently challenging in this case, for exploration and other activities for the Cortez Hills Project. For example, Cortez has received permits and approvals to install instrumented drill holes and storm water control features under a separate permit and exploration plan of operations. Thus, such previously permitted work will be permitted to continue and not be affected by this Stipulation.”
The Stipulation also provides that “Cortez will temporarily suspend the following activities permitted by the FEIS and ROD in this case” and will “not cut trees, begin mining, or conduct further activities permitted by the ROD in this case, in the approximately 835 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project pit area.”
The Stipulation specifies, “Cortez, however, will be allowed to disturb the pit area to the extent required to move the power transmission line, construct the haul road, or perform previously permitted work,” but “will not perform site preparation, construction work, or conduct further activities permitted by the ROD in this case, in the approximately 1,936 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project waste rock dumps” or “on the approximately 328 acres comprising the Cortez Hills Project leach pad;” and “will not perform any work or other activities within a radius of 200 yards of the water monitoring well PD-03 that is located just north of the C area and will not impede plaintiffs’ access to and use of this area.”
This includes the site of the Western Shoshone sweat lodge and fire pit, which had been blocked and disturbed by Barrick Cortez shortly after Thanksgiving.
The document further states that “the parties agree that in light of this Stipulation, plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order” is “moot.”
The Stipulation specifies that “Plaintiffs are not required to post a bond before the Preliminary Injunction hearing, however, Cortez reserves the right to seek a bond if the Court should enter a preliminary injunction, and this Stipulation and/or any resulting Order from the Court shall not prejudice Cortez’s rights to seek such a bond, nor prejudice plaintiffs’ rights to seek a zero or nominal bond.”
Further, the document specifies, “The conditions and restrictions of this Stipulation will remain in full force and effect until 3 calendar days after the close of the preliminary injunction hearing, or January 23, 2009, whichever is earlier.”
The Stipulation provides that “neither plaintiffs, nor any members of plaintiffs’ organizations shall impair, impede, or otherwise interfere with the work permitted under this Stipulation. Except for work expressly authorized by this Stipulation, Cortez shall not impair, impede, or otherwise interfere with plaintiffs’ and their members’ access to and use of public land.”
The Stipulation’s “terms and conditions are without prejudice to the parties’ respective claims, defenses, positions, and arguments relative to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the merits of this case.”
Flynn noted that Western Shoshone working on an arbor at the ceremonial site on Mt. Tenabo should “not interfere with Cortez’ operations in any way” and “anyone wanting to do a protest” should “stay by the arbor and the sweat lodge” otherwise “it would break the agreement.” Flynn emphasized that Shoshone supporters must not interfere with Cortez equipment or personnel; and while they can take pictures should not approach Cortez equipment.
December 11, 2008
Indigenous Peoples Censored at UN Climate Conference
By Brenda Norrell 
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
Dec. 10, 2008
POZNAN, Poland -- Indigenous People trying to speak at the UN Climate Conference were slamdunked by proponents of the global carbon market scam, designed to enrich the World Bank and chosen corporations by way of the sale of fictitious carbon credits. The following video shows statements by two non-governmental organizations, before Indigenous Peoples were denied a voice. The Indigenous Peoples' censored statement, which was not read, follows the video.
Indigenous Peoples lands and forest are at risk in the carbon market schemes, which allows the world's polluters to continue polluting. In the censored statement, Indigenous Peoples point out that four countries -- the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- refused to vote in favor of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration, adopted by the UN, states that Indigenous Peoples have the right to "free, prior and informed consent," a right which is currently being denied to Indigenous Peoples in UN climate summits.
The censored statement points out that Indigenous Peoples denounce the "outdated colonial structures" of these four countries.
The carbon market scam is the latest corporate profiteering scheme, promoted by a duped media, which seeks to seize Indigenous Peoples land and forests around the world. The censorship of Indigenous Peoples at the previous UN Climate Summit in Bali in 2007 was one of Project Censored's most censored stories of the year.
The group of Indigenous Peoples are among the delegates attending the UN climate change gathering in Poznan. The forum is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Video from: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
Watch video by Rebecca Sommer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsqUgbBHu0
The following statement was NOT read:
Statement of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change
SBSTA
December 10, 2008
Chair,
We acknowledge the efforts of some Parties who have supported and worked with us to reflect our rights and our full and effective participation in this COP14. However, we DENOUNCE those Parties, including Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia who continue to exercise, outmoded, outdated colonial power structures that the rest of the world left behind decades ago.
We remind the parties that UNFCCC is NOT a consensus document AND perhaps a time has come for a simple majority vote that lets these four nations know how isolated their position is.
On the 60th Anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights IT IS APPALLING that any UNITED NATIONS BODY is still denies extending the Rights enshrined in this document to the Indigenous Peoples of the planet. It is a abrogation of BOTH the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Reference to the draft text ON SBSTA 29 agenda item 5, on REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action]. In the annex of this document, 1 (c ), we are profoundly disappointed that the Indigenous Peoples fundamental rights, INCLUDING the UNDRIP and other existing Human Rights instruments (Convention ILO169) are not included in the operative paragraphs of the latest document of SBSTA29 .
We, are just not ONE SINGLE indigenous people, as the document states. WE ARE a multitude of indigenous Peoples from multiple countries, with multiple languages, diverse cultures and background and experiences. TO REDUCE all this, to the concept of a singular unitary experience IS A DENIAL OF THE RICHNESS OF DIVERSITY THAT EXIST WITHIN, the framework of indigenous peoples as a collective of individual nations.
For this reason, WE, appeal to the UNFCCC and Parties take affirmative action to reaffirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples as codified in UNDRIP and other relevant Human Rights instruments (EG. Convention ILO 169). Any decision or measure that will be adopted at this COP, in particular the REDD process, must reaffirm the principle of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples AND OUR RIGHT of the Indigenous Peoples TO SAY NO,. In that regard, Indigenous Peoples must be included as parties to official decisions, should be centrally involved in and benefit from, all climate change and forest programs and policies at all levels to ensure that they deliver justice and equity and contribute to sustainable development, biodiversity protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
We, demand an IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of all REDD initiatives and carbon market schemes in Indigenous Peoples territories UNTIL Indigenous Peoples Rights are fully RECOGNIZED, PROTECTED AND PROMOTED.
Thank you.
Currently, the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is underway in Poznan, December 1 - 12. It is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impromptu protest by indigenous peoples to oppose draft REDD text
Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion
Wed, 10 Dec 2008
A PACNEWS SPECIAL REPORT
By Makereta Komai
POZNAN, POLAND --Local and international indigenous peoples groups staged an impromptu protest this evening (Tuesday), an hour before a contact group was to discuss the proposed new carbon trading mechanism, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion to protest against four Annex 1 countries attempt to remove their rights from the legal text of REDD.
PNG’s Ken Mondiai said they are ‘outraged’ by the actions of United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s ‘opposition to including the recognition of indigenous people’s and local communities in a decision drafted today.’
The 45 minutes contact group session scheduled from 4.30pm was cancelled without an explanation.
Both Australian and New Zealand delegates refused to comment on the claims of the indigenous people’s groups.
“These four countries want to include REDD in the future climate change agreement, but they oppose protecting the rights of indigenous and forest peoples who will be directly affected by REDD measures, said Mr Mondiai.
The NGO’s claim that during discussions this morning, the four countries insisted that the word ‘rights’ and references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be struck from the text.
“This is totally unacceptable for indigenous peoples, local communities as the forests being targeted for REDD are those which have sustained and protected them for thousands of years.
“Any REDD mechanism that does not respect and protect the rights if indigenous people’s and local communities will fail.
“We, therefore demand that an unequivocal reference to rights and to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People’s be reinserted into the draft COP14 decision text on REDD,” the group said.
---
**Ms Makereta Komai is part of the Pacific Communications Team covering this event in Poznan, Poland
This event is officially known as the "14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 01 – 12 December 2008 Poznan, Poland."
PACNEWS coverage is made possible with funding from the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDD may harm forest people
Rhett A. Butler, http://www.mongabay.com/
December 2, 2008
A new report finds that the World Bank is not doing enough to protect indigenous rights under its mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).
REDD is a proposed mechanism to compensate developing countries for protecting their forests. The report — titled "Cutting Corners: World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples" — was issued by the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN) and the Forest Peoples Program (FPP) at the start of UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland. "Cutting Corners" alleges that the Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) — which provides seed funding for REDD projects — has rushed its review process and is failing to follow its own rules set to protect indigenous people and forest communities.
Such groups fear that without a proper framework, REDD could be used by governments and carbon traders to force forest people off their lands. "In this flawed process forest communities have not been properly consulted. As a result, donors could be complicit in a new global drive reinforcing old top-down policies that will only lead to more forest destruction," said Saskia Ozinga, Coordinator of FERN. "We have seen from the EU's FLEGT process, which aims to control illegal logging, that a proper consultation process will take years, but trying to shortcut consultations will just lead to long-term failure."
"If measures to respect the rights of forest peoples are at the heart of efforts to combat deforestation, then forest and climate policies could do some good," added Tom Griffiths, Coordinator of the Forest Peoples Program's Responsible Finance Program.
"It is alarming that the early government plans, approved by the World Bank, are simply business as usual. None of these REDD plans deal with the critical issues of governance, human rights, land tenure reforms and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. "To attain sustainable forest and climate initiatives, forest peoples must be fully consulted about their design. International donors must also ensure that human rights and forest sector reforms are guaranteed before any international funding is released to developing countries for their national actions on forest and climate issues."
"Cutting Corners" comes shortly after Friends of the Earth International (FOE), an environmental activist group, announced its opposition to REDD via a report titled "REDD Myths". At the UNFCCC talks in Poznan, FOE says it will oppose attempts to include forests in carbon markets. "During the climate talks, we will be demanding that forests are kept out of carbon markets, that plantations are entirely excluded and land rights are enforced as the basis of any forest policy," said Joseph Zacune, Climate and Energy Coordinator with FOE.
"If governments are serious about tackling climate change, deforestation must be stopped once and for all. To do this we need to tackle the consumption of agrofuels, meat and timber products which is driving deforestation and support good governance of forest resources."
Other analysts say REDD — in a form that recognizes rural peoples' rights — offers the best hope for preserving forests in the future while simultaneously fighting global warming. "REDD can benefit biodiversity conservation as well as indigenous and rural peoples," wrote Daniel Nepstad, Stephan Schwartzman, and Paulo Moutinho in a report published last year. "To succeed, national REDD programs must be consistent with UNFCCC and other UN principles, be transparent and have the active involvement of indigenous peoples and forest communities."
"Rejecting REDD will not defend indigenous rights. Substituting official aid from developed countries for carbon market funding will not be a better, less risky alternative for reducing deforestation. Indigenous rights abuses, often caused by the same activities that drive deforestation, must be addressed directly."
References
Kate Dooley, Tom Griffiths, Helen Leake, Saskia Ozinga. Cutting Corners - World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples. FERN. November 2008.
Kate Dooley. An overview of selected REDD proposals. FERN. November 2008.
Ronnie Hall. REDD myths: a critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries. Friends of the Earth. December 2008.
Stephan Schwartzman, Daniel Nepstad, and Paulo Moutinho. GETTING REDD RIGHT - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Environmental Defense / The Woods Hole Research Center / Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM). December 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking news
Repairing our reputation on human rights
ABC Online, Australia - By Elizabeth Evatt The language of the declaration is inspiring, starting with article 1: "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Australian gov't intends to endorse indigenous rights declaration
Xinhua, China - Dec 9, 2008 CANBERRA, Dec. (Xinhua) -- The Australian government has indicated it still intends to endorse a United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous ...
PMA: Indigenous Rights Petition to Parliament
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand - The first signatures on the national petition calling on the government to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be presented ...
Canada's opposition to the human rights of Indigenous People at UN ...
Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - OTTAWA, Dec. 10 /CNW Telbec/ - This International Day for Human Rights on December 10 marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of ...
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
Dec. 10, 2008
POZNAN, Poland -- Indigenous People trying to speak at the UN Climate Conference were slamdunked by proponents of the global carbon market scam, designed to enrich the World Bank and chosen corporations by way of the sale of fictitious carbon credits. The following video shows statements by two non-governmental organizations, before Indigenous Peoples were denied a voice. The Indigenous Peoples' censored statement, which was not read, follows the video.
Indigenous Peoples lands and forest are at risk in the carbon market schemes, which allows the world's polluters to continue polluting. In the censored statement, Indigenous Peoples point out that four countries -- the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- refused to vote in favor of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration, adopted by the UN, states that Indigenous Peoples have the right to "free, prior and informed consent," a right which is currently being denied to Indigenous Peoples in UN climate summits.
The censored statement points out that Indigenous Peoples denounce the "outdated colonial structures" of these four countries.
The carbon market scam is the latest corporate profiteering scheme, promoted by a duped media, which seeks to seize Indigenous Peoples land and forests around the world. The censorship of Indigenous Peoples at the previous UN Climate Summit in Bali in 2007 was one of Project Censored's most censored stories of the year.
The group of Indigenous Peoples are among the delegates attending the UN climate change gathering in Poznan. The forum is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Video from: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)Watch video by Rebecca Sommer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsqUgbBHu0
The following statement was NOT read:
Statement of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change
SBSTA
December 10, 2008
Chair,
We acknowledge the efforts of some Parties who have supported and worked with us to reflect our rights and our full and effective participation in this COP14. However, we DENOUNCE those Parties, including Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia who continue to exercise, outmoded, outdated colonial power structures that the rest of the world left behind decades ago.
We remind the parties that UNFCCC is NOT a consensus document AND perhaps a time has come for a simple majority vote that lets these four nations know how isolated their position is.
On the 60th Anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights IT IS APPALLING that any UNITED NATIONS BODY is still denies extending the Rights enshrined in this document to the Indigenous Peoples of the planet. It is a abrogation of BOTH the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Reference to the draft text ON SBSTA 29 agenda item 5, on REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action]. In the annex of this document, 1 (c ), we are profoundly disappointed that the Indigenous Peoples fundamental rights, INCLUDING the UNDRIP and other existing Human Rights instruments (Convention ILO169) are not included in the operative paragraphs of the latest document of SBSTA29 .
We, are just not ONE SINGLE indigenous people, as the document states. WE ARE a multitude of indigenous Peoples from multiple countries, with multiple languages, diverse cultures and background and experiences. TO REDUCE all this, to the concept of a singular unitary experience IS A DENIAL OF THE RICHNESS OF DIVERSITY THAT EXIST WITHIN, the framework of indigenous peoples as a collective of individual nations.
For this reason, WE, appeal to the UNFCCC and Parties take affirmative action to reaffirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples as codified in UNDRIP and other relevant Human Rights instruments (EG. Convention ILO 169). Any decision or measure that will be adopted at this COP, in particular the REDD process, must reaffirm the principle of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples AND OUR RIGHT of the Indigenous Peoples TO SAY NO,. In that regard, Indigenous Peoples must be included as parties to official decisions, should be centrally involved in and benefit from, all climate change and forest programs and policies at all levels to ensure that they deliver justice and equity and contribute to sustainable development, biodiversity protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
We, demand an IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of all REDD initiatives and carbon market schemes in Indigenous Peoples territories UNTIL Indigenous Peoples Rights are fully RECOGNIZED, PROTECTED AND PROMOTED.
Thank you.
Currently, the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is underway in Poznan, December 1 - 12. It is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impromptu protest by indigenous peoples to oppose draft REDD text
Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion
Wed, 10 Dec 2008
A PACNEWS SPECIAL REPORT
By Makereta Komai
POZNAN, POLAND --Local and international indigenous peoples groups staged an impromptu protest this evening (Tuesday), an hour before a contact group was to discuss the proposed new carbon trading mechanism, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion to protest against four Annex 1 countries attempt to remove their rights from the legal text of REDD.
PNG’s Ken Mondiai said they are ‘outraged’ by the actions of United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s ‘opposition to including the recognition of indigenous people’s and local communities in a decision drafted today.’
The 45 minutes contact group session scheduled from 4.30pm was cancelled without an explanation.
Both Australian and New Zealand delegates refused to comment on the claims of the indigenous people’s groups.
“These four countries want to include REDD in the future climate change agreement, but they oppose protecting the rights of indigenous and forest peoples who will be directly affected by REDD measures, said Mr Mondiai.
The NGO’s claim that during discussions this morning, the four countries insisted that the word ‘rights’ and references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be struck from the text.
“This is totally unacceptable for indigenous peoples, local communities as the forests being targeted for REDD are those which have sustained and protected them for thousands of years.
“Any REDD mechanism that does not respect and protect the rights if indigenous people’s and local communities will fail.
“We, therefore demand that an unequivocal reference to rights and to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People’s be reinserted into the draft COP14 decision text on REDD,” the group said.
---
**Ms Makereta Komai is part of the Pacific Communications Team covering this event in Poznan, Poland
This event is officially known as the "14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 01 – 12 December 2008 Poznan, Poland."
PACNEWS coverage is made possible with funding from the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDD may harm forest people
Rhett A. Butler, http://www.mongabay.com/
December 2, 2008
A new report finds that the World Bank is not doing enough to protect indigenous rights under its mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).
REDD is a proposed mechanism to compensate developing countries for protecting their forests. The report — titled "Cutting Corners: World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples" — was issued by the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN) and the Forest Peoples Program (FPP) at the start of UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland. "Cutting Corners" alleges that the Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) — which provides seed funding for REDD projects — has rushed its review process and is failing to follow its own rules set to protect indigenous people and forest communities.
Such groups fear that without a proper framework, REDD could be used by governments and carbon traders to force forest people off their lands. "In this flawed process forest communities have not been properly consulted. As a result, donors could be complicit in a new global drive reinforcing old top-down policies that will only lead to more forest destruction," said Saskia Ozinga, Coordinator of FERN. "We have seen from the EU's FLEGT process, which aims to control illegal logging, that a proper consultation process will take years, but trying to shortcut consultations will just lead to long-term failure."
"If measures to respect the rights of forest peoples are at the heart of efforts to combat deforestation, then forest and climate policies could do some good," added Tom Griffiths, Coordinator of the Forest Peoples Program's Responsible Finance Program.
"It is alarming that the early government plans, approved by the World Bank, are simply business as usual. None of these REDD plans deal with the critical issues of governance, human rights, land tenure reforms and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. "To attain sustainable forest and climate initiatives, forest peoples must be fully consulted about their design. International donors must also ensure that human rights and forest sector reforms are guaranteed before any international funding is released to developing countries for their national actions on forest and climate issues."
"Cutting Corners" comes shortly after Friends of the Earth International (FOE), an environmental activist group, announced its opposition to REDD via a report titled "REDD Myths". At the UNFCCC talks in Poznan, FOE says it will oppose attempts to include forests in carbon markets. "During the climate talks, we will be demanding that forests are kept out of carbon markets, that plantations are entirely excluded and land rights are enforced as the basis of any forest policy," said Joseph Zacune, Climate and Energy Coordinator with FOE.
"If governments are serious about tackling climate change, deforestation must be stopped once and for all. To do this we need to tackle the consumption of agrofuels, meat and timber products which is driving deforestation and support good governance of forest resources."
Other analysts say REDD — in a form that recognizes rural peoples' rights — offers the best hope for preserving forests in the future while simultaneously fighting global warming. "REDD can benefit biodiversity conservation as well as indigenous and rural peoples," wrote Daniel Nepstad, Stephan Schwartzman, and Paulo Moutinho in a report published last year. "To succeed, national REDD programs must be consistent with UNFCCC and other UN principles, be transparent and have the active involvement of indigenous peoples and forest communities."
"Rejecting REDD will not defend indigenous rights. Substituting official aid from developed countries for carbon market funding will not be a better, less risky alternative for reducing deforestation. Indigenous rights abuses, often caused by the same activities that drive deforestation, must be addressed directly."
References
Kate Dooley, Tom Griffiths, Helen Leake, Saskia Ozinga. Cutting Corners - World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples. FERN. November 2008.
Kate Dooley. An overview of selected REDD proposals. FERN. November 2008.
Ronnie Hall. REDD myths: a critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries. Friends of the Earth. December 2008.
Stephan Schwartzman, Daniel Nepstad, and Paulo Moutinho. GETTING REDD RIGHT - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Environmental Defense / The Woods Hole Research Center / Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM). December 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking news
Repairing our reputation on human rights
ABC Online, Australia - By Elizabeth Evatt The language of the declaration is inspiring, starting with article 1: "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Australian gov't intends to endorse indigenous rights declaration
Xinhua, China - Dec 9, 2008 CANBERRA, Dec. (Xinhua) -- The Australian government has indicated it still intends to endorse a United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous ...
PMA: Indigenous Rights Petition to Parliament
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand - The first signatures on the national petition calling on the government to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be presented ...
Canada's opposition to the human rights of Indigenous People at UN ...
Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - OTTAWA, Dec. 10 /CNW Telbec/ - This International Day for Human Rights on December 10 marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of ...
December 10, 2008
International Human Rights Day: Sad Day for Indigenous Peoples
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 2008: A SAD DAY FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Executive Director, TEBTEBBA (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education)
Chair, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
December 10, 2008
It is with great sadness that today, the 60th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, some States have denied indigenous peoples of their rights at the 14th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC.
This morning indigenous peoples were shocked to see the final version of the Draft Conclusions on Agenda Item 5: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). This Document (FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23) removed any references to rights of indigenous peoples and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This move was spearheaded by the same States (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA) which voted against the adoption of the UNDRIP by the UN General Assembly last 13 Sept. 2008.
Furthermore, these same states used the phrase “indigenous people” instead of “indigenous peoples” with an “s” which is the internationally accepted language. The international human rights instrument on indigenous peoples' rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by 144 member-states of the UN, uses Indigenous Peoples. This was a battle fought by indigenous peoples for more than 30 years within the United Nations. The “s” in peoples means that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination (Article 3, UNDRIP) and have collective rights. The UNDRIP is an interpretation of how the existing Human Rights Covenants apply to indigenous peoples considering the historical and present injustices they are suffering from.
Witnessing the way indigenous peoples rights are undermined by the very States who took the lead in formulating and adopting the UN Declaration on Human Rights, 60 years ago, is a tragic thing.. These States are very keen to include REDD as part of the agreement on mitigation which will be agreed upon during the 15th Conference of Parties in Copenhagen which will be held in 2009. However, they obstinately refuse to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest peoples, who are the ones who sacrificed life and limb to keep the world's remaining tropical and sub-tropical rainforests.
I call upon these States to reconsider their positions and move towards recognizing indigenous peoples' rights, as contained in the UNDRIP, as a framework for the design and implementation of REDD I earnestly wish to see States and the UN system implement effectively the UNDRIP as stated in Article 42. The Declaration has to be implemented in all arenas, whether at the local and national level and at the global level, including by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its protocols.
I congratulate the Parties who insisted that the language of rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples remain in the draft conclusions. I know they fought hard for these and I certainly hope they will continue to do this in the future negotiations. Indigenous peoples will continue to oppose the REDD mechanisms if their rights are not recognized by States and the UN, including the UNFCCC and the World Bank. They are very vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, but they are also providing the solutions to climate change. Their traditional knowledge on forests and biodiversity is crucial for the methodological issues being tackled under REDD. Their participation in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating REDD policies and proposals has to be ensured. Their free, prior and informed consent has to be obtained before any REDD mechanism is put into place in their territories. It is their right to decide whether to accept REDD or not.
I welcome paragraph 6 of the Draft Decision which calls for an Expert meeting on REDD before the 30th SBSTA session. This Expert meeting should be used to go more deeply into the methodological issues relevant for indigenous peoples. However, it should also be linked with the policy issues which will be discussed under the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). Enhanced policies and measures for REDD should be linked with methodologies proposed by the SBSTA. Indigenous peoples participation in this Expert Group meeting was acknowledged in the Draft Decision and it is my hope that this is implemented.
I call on the Ministers who will be speaking before the High-Level Ministerial Segment to reiterate the importance of recognizing and implementing the UNDRIP in REDD decisions and mechanisms. I call on the Ministers to pledge more financial and technical support for indigenous peoples to be able to contribute more substantially to mitigation efforts.
I urge indigenous peoples to continue being vigilant and active in influencing and monitoring the climate change negotiations, policies and programmes at the national and global levels. We have to use the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an instrument which will ensure our survival and dignity especially in the face of the multiple crisis the world faces. The climate change crisis, the economic downturn and the destruction of biodiversity and cultural diversity are serious threats to our continuing existence. But if we strongly unite amongst ourselves, with other civil society organizations, with States who are willing to do all they can to genuinely address these, then there is hope for the earth and the future generations.
There is no choice left for us but to continue contributing what we can to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen our values and systems which are respectful of nature, to assert our rights contained in the UNDRIP and to be in solidarity with the most vulnerable sections of society. We should continue practicing our low-carbon and sustainable traditional livelihoods. At the same time we should demand that resources be made available for us to adapt to climate change.
I reiterate the imperative for the Annex 1 countries to carry the heavier burden of mitigating climate change. As these are the countries which have mainly caused climate change, it is just fair that they be the ones to lead the way. Meeting their legally binding targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emission is the main path towards mitigation. REDD, if properly designed and implemented can still contribute to mitigation. However, I believe that forests should not be used as carbon offsets for Annex 1 countries. Thus, emissions trading of forest carbon may not be the right approach. Rewards, both monetary and non-monetary, to indigenous peoples and other forest peoples for protecting the forests may be a better track to take.
Let it not be said that the richest and most powerful reneged on their duty to save this world and to respect the rights of those who have contributed the most to mitigating climate change.
Thank you.
Contact: Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, email: vicky@tebtebba.org
mobile: +63-9175317811
www.tebtebba.org
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Executive Director, TEBTEBBA (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education)
Chair, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
December 10, 2008
It is with great sadness that today, the 60th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, some States have denied indigenous peoples of their rights at the 14th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC.
This morning indigenous peoples were shocked to see the final version of the Draft Conclusions on Agenda Item 5: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). This Document (FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23) removed any references to rights of indigenous peoples and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This move was spearheaded by the same States (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA) which voted against the adoption of the UNDRIP by the UN General Assembly last 13 Sept. 2008.
Furthermore, these same states used the phrase “indigenous people” instead of “indigenous peoples” with an “s” which is the internationally accepted language. The international human rights instrument on indigenous peoples' rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by 144 member-states of the UN, uses Indigenous Peoples. This was a battle fought by indigenous peoples for more than 30 years within the United Nations. The “s” in peoples means that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination (Article 3, UNDRIP) and have collective rights. The UNDRIP is an interpretation of how the existing Human Rights Covenants apply to indigenous peoples considering the historical and present injustices they are suffering from.
Witnessing the way indigenous peoples rights are undermined by the very States who took the lead in formulating and adopting the UN Declaration on Human Rights, 60 years ago, is a tragic thing.. These States are very keen to include REDD as part of the agreement on mitigation which will be agreed upon during the 15th Conference of Parties in Copenhagen which will be held in 2009. However, they obstinately refuse to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest peoples, who are the ones who sacrificed life and limb to keep the world's remaining tropical and sub-tropical rainforests.
I call upon these States to reconsider their positions and move towards recognizing indigenous peoples' rights, as contained in the UNDRIP, as a framework for the design and implementation of REDD I earnestly wish to see States and the UN system implement effectively the UNDRIP as stated in Article 42. The Declaration has to be implemented in all arenas, whether at the local and national level and at the global level, including by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its protocols.
I congratulate the Parties who insisted that the language of rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples remain in the draft conclusions. I know they fought hard for these and I certainly hope they will continue to do this in the future negotiations. Indigenous peoples will continue to oppose the REDD mechanisms if their rights are not recognized by States and the UN, including the UNFCCC and the World Bank. They are very vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, but they are also providing the solutions to climate change. Their traditional knowledge on forests and biodiversity is crucial for the methodological issues being tackled under REDD. Their participation in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating REDD policies and proposals has to be ensured. Their free, prior and informed consent has to be obtained before any REDD mechanism is put into place in their territories. It is their right to decide whether to accept REDD or not.
I welcome paragraph 6 of the Draft Decision which calls for an Expert meeting on REDD before the 30th SBSTA session. This Expert meeting should be used to go more deeply into the methodological issues relevant for indigenous peoples. However, it should also be linked with the policy issues which will be discussed under the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). Enhanced policies and measures for REDD should be linked with methodologies proposed by the SBSTA. Indigenous peoples participation in this Expert Group meeting was acknowledged in the Draft Decision and it is my hope that this is implemented.
I call on the Ministers who will be speaking before the High-Level Ministerial Segment to reiterate the importance of recognizing and implementing the UNDRIP in REDD decisions and mechanisms. I call on the Ministers to pledge more financial and technical support for indigenous peoples to be able to contribute more substantially to mitigation efforts.
I urge indigenous peoples to continue being vigilant and active in influencing and monitoring the climate change negotiations, policies and programmes at the national and global levels. We have to use the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an instrument which will ensure our survival and dignity especially in the face of the multiple crisis the world faces. The climate change crisis, the economic downturn and the destruction of biodiversity and cultural diversity are serious threats to our continuing existence. But if we strongly unite amongst ourselves, with other civil society organizations, with States who are willing to do all they can to genuinely address these, then there is hope for the earth and the future generations.
There is no choice left for us but to continue contributing what we can to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen our values and systems which are respectful of nature, to assert our rights contained in the UNDRIP and to be in solidarity with the most vulnerable sections of society. We should continue practicing our low-carbon and sustainable traditional livelihoods. At the same time we should demand that resources be made available for us to adapt to climate change.
I reiterate the imperative for the Annex 1 countries to carry the heavier burden of mitigating climate change. As these are the countries which have mainly caused climate change, it is just fair that they be the ones to lead the way. Meeting their legally binding targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emission is the main path towards mitigation. REDD, if properly designed and implemented can still contribute to mitigation. However, I believe that forests should not be used as carbon offsets for Annex 1 countries. Thus, emissions trading of forest carbon may not be the right approach. Rewards, both monetary and non-monetary, to indigenous peoples and other forest peoples for protecting the forests may be a better track to take.
Let it not be said that the richest and most powerful reneged on their duty to save this world and to respect the rights of those who have contributed the most to mitigating climate change.
Thank you.
Contact: Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, email: vicky@tebtebba.org
mobile: +63-9175317811
www.tebtebba.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)