From vibha.arora@linacre.oxford.ac.uk Tue Nov 16 15:58:26 2004 Received: from mxe1.u.washington.edu (mxe1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.136]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.08) with ESMTP id iAGNwPvI065880 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:25 -0800 Received: from tx2.mail.ox.ac.uk (tx2.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) by mxe1.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.09) with ESMTP id iAGNwNMh026426 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:23 -0800 Received: from scan2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.162] helo=localhost) by tx2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CUDDK-0001gZ-8R for indknow@u.washington.edu; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:22 +0000 Received: from rx2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.161]) by localhost (scan2.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.162]) (amavisd-new, port 25) with ESMTP id 06049-05 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.235]) by rx2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CUDDJ-0001gN-83; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:21 +0000 Received: from net085.linacre.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.139.85] helo=arorv0) by smtp2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1CUDDJ-0007MM-3n; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c4cc38$25ac72f0$558b01a3@linacre.ox.ac.uk> From: "Vibha Arora" To: , References: <6.1.0.6.0.20041116124301.01d48ec0@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: Chapin on Conservation NGOs Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__C230066_P1_4 0, __C230066_P2 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __HAS_X_PRIORITY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' Dear Preston, Thanks for the alert and more importantly i hope the list will comment on the issues rasied by you. A request to the list-moderator to shift my subscription to vibhaaurora@gmail.com as i have recd. my doctorate etc. and am leaving Oxford soon. Many thanks best wishes vibha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Preston Hardison" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:30 PM Subject: Chapin on Conservation NGOs > An important new article by Mac Chapin, criticizing the indigenous > policies of the conservation "Big Three" (IUCN - The World Conservation > Union, Conservation International (CI) and the World Wildlife Fund / > World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)), as well as other leading conservation > NGOs (The Nature Conservancy (TNC)) is available for free download at the > WorldWatch site: > > Chapin, Mac (2004). A challenge to conservationists. WorldWatch Magazine > (November-December): 17-31. > > www.worldwatch.org/pubs/magazine/2004/176. > > WorldWatch is inviting commentary, and I would urge list members to look > at this document carefully. > > ------------------------------------- > > The "Big Iron" conservation NGO phenomenon (AKA" Fortress Conservation, > Coercive Conservation, Colonial Conservation) goes a ways beyond > indigenous issues - and Mac's article just touches the tip of the iceberg. > An equally troublic issue comes about over the dangers the conservation > NGOs pose to democratic institutions, and related issues of accountability > and transparency. NGOs often are justified in that they perform functions > more efficiently than governments, or functions that governments are > unable or unwilling to perform. When NGOs are performing these functions, > they are in essence providing civil society services without falling under > civil service laws that relate to accountability and transparency. Coupled > with the fact that they are receiving large cash flows tied to > conservation and preservationist agendas, it can be especially troublesome > when public policy is shaped and implemented by "conservation > parastatals". > > For a disturbing look (at least from an indigenous, and I believe, a civil > society perspective) see Linden, Eugene; Lovejoy, Thomas; Phillips, J. > Daviel (2004): Seeing the forest: Conservation on a continental scale. > Foreign Affairs 83(4): 8-13 (July-August). In this article, the authors > propose that conservation areas should be opened to "conservation > markets": dividing the world into standard blocks to be put up for bidding > for conservation and development program rights - an NGO or multilateral > or bilateral aid agency that won the bids would have exclusive rights to > develop conservation planning for the region. This plan would 1. > Immediately shut out smaller, local NGOs in favor of the Big Iron > conservation organization; 2. Provide few mechanisms for oversight and > civil control over bad policy; 3. Raise serious concerns about democratic > processes. The authors mention that communities would not be forced to > accept programs - but in as system with a single provider, what choices do > they have if they choose to opt out? > > Who decides in the development of continental conservation plans? In much > of this literature, the vision is one of a stakeholder, civil society > dialogue with governments, and appeals are made to the common national > public good or the global public good (common heritage of mankind). What > these accounts leave out is that in many states, and in developing > international law indigenous peoples are not mere stakeholders, but rights > holders that have a degree of sovereignty over their lands, resources and > knowledge (see Daes, Erica-Irene A.(2004. Indigenous Peoples' Permanent > Sovereignty over Natural Resources. Final report of the Special > Rapporteur, Erica-Irene A. Daes. Commission on Human Rights, > Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, > Fifty-sixth session, Item 5 (b) of the provisional agenda. > E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/30. United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) - > Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights - Working > Group on Indigenous Populations, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: > http://www.indianlaw.org/html/un_docs.html). These accounts assume that > civil society interests can be balanced against indigenous interests, as > they are just another kind of stakeholder. Because indigenous peoples are > generally numerically much smaller than enclosing cultures, they will > almost always lose in this kind of "balancing of stakeholder interests." > But, in point of fact, in many nations and under international law, we are > not dealing with interests under which governments or NGOs or any other > member of civil society has discretion over, but indigenous rights. The > implementation of indigenous rights, which must be observed before any > "balancing of interests" begins, is not a matter of legislating morals, > but a matter of implementing, through a variety of measures and > instruments, political obligations. In the United States, for example, it > would be a wonderful thing if conservation organizations and citizens took > indigenous rights seriously because it was the right thing to do, and that > should be encouraged. But in point of fact, the Constitution, the > constitutional records of decisions, Supreme Court decisions, and numerous > other historical and legal interpretations and decisions clearly recognize > (not give) the political sovereignty of the over 570 tribes that appear in > the Federal Register. The sovereign, reserved rights of these tribes > cannot be bargained, balanced or abrogated by NGOs or civil society, and > there is a clear obligation to respect these sovereign rights over lands > and resources as the "Highest Law of the Land", a permanent obligation, or > servitude, upon the public in exchange for vast rights ceded to ancestral > indigenous lands. > > I've been at CBD meetings where the IUCN was handing out their Indigenous > Peoples and Protected Area Guidelines quietly to governments, without > passing any copies to the members of the Indigenous caucus (Indigenous > Forum on Biodiversity) so that they might comment (the guidelines are > premised on conditionality, so not surprising they wouldn't want it > critiqued by actual indigenous individuals who view the issues through an > indigenous rights lens). As you may see below, I have similar concerns > over NGO power and influence over civil society issues, and an ever > growing imbalance related to the accumulation of corporate NGO influence > and resources. In some ways (and this is a startling admission from an > Internet maven like myself), the ability to control voice and entry by > selective funding and participation is exacerbated by an abundance of > "free" information from the perspective of these large-scale NGOs > (primarily IUCN). If you look at who is running the indigenous information > portals related to conservation, biodiversity, natural resources, etc. on > the web, you can see it is dominated by the World Bank, UNESCO, IUCN, > IISD, IDRC, etc. Many of these organizations can be accused of giving with > one hand while bulldozing away with the other - IDRC, for example, has > financed studies on traditional knowledge protection, but has also > financed a number of international networks of which the intent is to > compile, reveal and disseminate large volumes of TK, which can > incidentally lead to cultural resource misappropriation. The "free" > information, is widely available and quoted by hoards of academics, NGOs > and governments who have little direct access to indigenous media, or > (sadly, I suspect this is as common, or more so) are simply uninterested > in taking the time to locate and absorb the indigenous voice that exists. > The cumulative impacts of lack of participation, lack of effective access > to conservation media and conservation information distribution networks, > inequality in ability to adopt the language of these media, the consumer > preferences of the conservation community over knowledge and information > resources all have the effect of excluding the voice of the indigenous > rights holders in conservation debates. And this reinforces scientific and > public attitudes that don't understand or are willfully ignorant of the > social and political issues involved in conservation. > > Another looming issue in relation to both civil society and indigenous > peoples is in the area of bioinformatics, biodiversity informatics, and > ethnoinformatics. In the past, much of the conservation work of NGOs was > project-oriented. However, many of the organizations are now compiling > large volumes of conservation- and biodiversity-related data (TNC Heritage > Centers, NatureServe; the CI Center for Biodiversity with a $121.2 million > startup from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation; the IUCN SSC Red List > Database and Biodiversity Commons project; the UNEP-WCMC Parks Database > and other databases). These data are used to develop public policy and > recommendations on issues of concern to civil society, without civil > society access. The historical data-sets and volumes of contemporary data > give them a great advantage over local NGOs (and particularly indigenous > NGOs and tribal governments). Government agencies, like the US NBII, and > intergovernmental organizations like the GEF, favor funding these efforts, > which acts as a self-reinforcing cycle. Many of these databases are > compiled from a wide variety of countries and information sources, > including from government scientists and agencies and using federal > dollars, which are then privatized into information largely under NGO > control. The dollars invested by NGOs in biodiversity informatics often is > larger than the national budgets devoted to biodiversity and conservation > data of many developing countries, and may in some cases be greater that > some countries' entire conservation budget. And this is even more true for > tribes, municipalities, local communities, and others that are closest to > the resources and are much more stakeholders and rights holders in > resource issues than distant water NGOs. The budgets constitute a very > strong private-interest lobby able to project its power over indigenous > and local communities. > > Indigenous peoples have access to information issues from these efforts, > but there is also a growing concern about the ability of the global > biodiversity information networks to disclose traditional knowledge that > is private and sacred or is viewed as part of an indigenous cultural > patrimony. Disclosure may violate customary law, and may put indigenous > peoples at risk to biopiracy and competition for scarce cultural > resources. For a brief example (and I have two articles covering this in > more detail, if interested) is the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Prior > Arts Database (TEK*PAD) developed by the American Association for the > Advancement of Science Division of Human Rights and funded by the Center > for the Public Domain. This database makes over 40,000 detailed > ethnobotanical records form North American (primarily US) tribes available > publicly. The claim is that this project is beneficial to indigenous > peoples because it defeats patents by demonstrating prior art (in patent > law, if there is prior art, a patent cannot be granted). However, there is > no evidence presented that this system has the patent-defeating properties > it claims, or that it is even being used by patent officers in patent > reviews. The project was implemented without any consultation with North > American tribes - the only consultants to the project listed are > non-indigenous experts from outside the United States - in other words it > is not an indigenously-driven project, but imposed by a powerful > scientific NGO. Even if the system is able to defeat patents, by solving > one kind of IPR problem, it causes problem displacement. It does not stop > non-monopolistic development and use of indigenous knowledge or indigenous > resources. In fact, it makes non-monopolistic exploitation, commercial > more likely as citizens gain access to information about medicinal plants, > non-timber forest products, and so on. Elders and other tribal members are > now complaining about sharply increased competition for customary > resources, and direct lack of access to traditional foods and medicines is > much more damaging to culture that 20 year patent monopolies. > > Similar issues are developing for the large-scale intergovernmental > networks that are developing around biodiversity and conservation issues, > such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the > Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), the Global > Taxonomy Initiative (GTI). The dialogue of many of these networks centers > on "science-based conservation policy" and "science-based biodiversity > policy." However, there has been little involvement in these networks by > social scientists, and this leads to biodiversity and conservation policy > being made in a vacuum, ignorant of the social and political realities of > implementing sustainable conservation programs. Indigenous peoples have > interests here, in access to Western information, in monitoring and > oversight to these networks for activities that violate customary law, > access and benefit sharing rights, and the right to free, prior informed > consent for access to their knowledge and resources. Indigenous peoples > also need to participate directly in the development of policy and science > from these networks in order that recommendations be framed in ways that > respect recognized rights. This is not a call to skew the science, but a > recognition that policy proposals have to be made in a context of existing > law and social norms, including national and international indigenous law. > A case in point is in the development of Secretarial Order No. 3206: > American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and > the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997). This order recognized that an > excessive conservation burden was being put on indigenous peoples, often > for troubles brewed in other peoples worlds. The order, while not > interfering with the development of science-based options, does affect the > ranking of options under the Endangered Species Act: > > 1. Raises statutory bar on regulation of tribal activities related to the > ESA > 2. Establishes principle that ESA regulation has to be taken to the > benefit of tribes > 3. Requires exhaustion of all non-tribal alternatives for endangered > species protection before tribal alternatives chosen > 4. If tribal regulation is unavoidable, requires the selection of the > alternative that is least damaging to tribal culture and economy > > In summary, conservation organizations and their funders are getting > better at presenting a rhetoric that promote indigenous rights to > resources. And we have come a long way in the last few decades on > recognizing indigenous rights on paper (although even here the > conservation literature is rife with discussions of governments and > stakeholders without mention of indigenous rights holders, even in > countries like the US where the tri-federal structure of > Federal-State-Tribal governance is well established). Parallel to this > recognition on paper, there has not been a corresponding increase in > indigenous voice and participation at all levels of environmental policy > making and decision making. Funders need to take a very close and hard > look at their programs to ensure that progress on one front does not > displace problems on other fronts, as when programs that promote the > public domain may disclose knowledge that other programs are seeking to > protect. Conservation NGOs need to start passing indigenous policy issues > to indigenous peoples, and focus their support on projects initiated by > indigenous peoples that promote self-determined needs. In this, > conservation NGOs need to support processes that allow indigenous peoples > to select their own delegates and representatives to meetings and > processes, and no substantial process that addresses indigenous issues > should ever occur without indigenous participation in all stages of > planning and implementation. NGOs need to avoid the "Workshop Mandate > Syndrome", in which mandates to deal with indigenous issues are created > with the absence or thinnest of indigenous representation. Indigenous > peoples in many cases have recognized sovereignty over their knowledge and > resources, and claim such sovereignty in many others - workshops and > declarations do not substitute for true consultation and respect for > indigenous sovereign authority. > > It's time to put indigenous peoples on center stage in the discussions, > negotiations and implementation of indigenous rights to knowledge and > resources. Conservation organizations need to gain a full appreciation for > the existing social and legal frameworks in which their activities occur, > acknowledge and respect rights, respect the subsidiarity of many > conservation concerns to indigenous and human rights, particularly when > indigenous peoples are being coerced into carrying the burdens of > conservation generated by other societies. Conservation NGOs, if they are > to take on the tasks of governmental and civil society functions, should > clearly be bound by the principles of transparency, equity and > accountability that they often promote for governments. > > Regards, > Preston Hardison > > > > .