Obviously, all individuals and groups who define themselves as Indigenous may be considered as affected by institutions addressing Indigenous issues at the global level.
The UN has created institutions to deal specifically with issues concerning Indigenous peoples, and now commonly understands Indigenous peoples as actors affected by its actions. Thus, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states in its preamble that “the United Nations has an important and continuing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples” (UN General Assembly 2007). However, it was by no means evident that Indigenous issues became framed as a global challenge to be dealt with in the context of the UN. This framing exercise consisted of at least two main re-interpretations of global understandings: It included the self-identification as Indigenous by groups of marginalized peoples, and meant that an issue which had previously been understood as an issue of domestic concern became considered as one of global importance (see Chapter one). In the following, I will show how affectedness of IPs is being conceptualized within the United Nations.
4.1.1 Indigenous peoples as affected actors in the UN context
Nowadays, there is a proliferate rhetoric of Indigenous peoples being affected by decisions taken at the UN level, such as in the process to enhance Indigenous participation in meetings “of relevant United Nations bodies on issues affecting them”
(UN General Assembly 2017). Building on interviews conducted with individuals from all constituencies that engage in UN Indigenous affairs, this section outlines how
affectedness is understood and conceptualized in this context. There are mainly two strains of the argument which are often brought forward together: On the one hand, Indigenous peoples are portrayed as especially vulnerable; on the other hand, the specific contributions which Indigenous peoples can make with regard to the solution of global challenges are highlighted. I have traced one or both of these lines of reasoning in 24 out of 37 interviews conducted with interview partners from all constituencies.
First, Indigenous peoples are regularly referred to as the most marginalized and disadvantaged group within states, whose living conditions are worse than those of the average population. It is highlighted that in many cases, this marginalization of Indigenous peoples is a direct result of state policies. Moreover, Indigenous peoples are victims of projects such as resource extraction activities pushed for by both states and transnational corporations, and over which Indigenous peoples often have no or only limited control. Indigenous leaders in many cases cannot address the difficult situations that Indigenous communities face on their own. Moreover, a specific urgency entails the situation of Indigenous peoples, as they are in danger to disappear as distinct peoples.72 Additionally, Indigenous peoples are portrayed as particularly affected by global challenges such as climate change. Interview partners argued that IPs are highly vulnerable in cases of environmental degradation, given that Indigenous lifestyles depend on their natural surroundings and cannot be changed easily due to the spiritual foundations of traditions. Moreover, Indigenous peoples are also often directly affected by global policies addressing these same global challenges, such as climate change mitigation, for example when they are evicted from their traditional territories for the realization of forest regeneration projects. All these arguments point to a specific marginalization of Indigenous peoples who are portrayed as victims, resulting in a special need for support and protection. In a similar vein, Lindroth (2011: 551–552) has found that within the PFII Indigenous peoples often present themselves and are defined by others as victims. She argues that this representation is a strategy to increase moral and political leverage.
Arguments highlighting the specific knowledge of which Indigenous peoples dispose were somewhat less frequent in my interviews, but still very important. Some interview
72 8 interview partners specifically highlighted the inherent danger of Indigenous peoples to disappear as distinct peoples.
partners framed specific knowledge more generically as lived experience, in the sense that Indigenous peoples possess specific knowledge about local living conditions. This local knowledge is considered to be important in the context of designing policies to improve their situation and in the context of project implementation at the local level.
More important in the interviews, however, were references to specific Indigenous knowledge of participants; in this view, Indigenous peoples are holders of invaluable ancestral knowledge. This included allusions to a specific Indigenous cosmovision or spirituality from which others can learn. Not surprisingly, the element which was mentioned most often in this context was the role of Indigenous peoples as environmental stewards, which was valued by interview partners. This knowledge is depicted as helpful in finding solutions to address global challenges such as climate change. Moreover, consistently taking into account past and future generations or dealing with problems holistically were also mentioned as elements of a specifically Indigenous perspective. Lastly, some interview partners also highlighted the resilience of Indigenous peoples which have survived hundreds of years of colonization as something from which others can learn. The following citation by Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, is illustrative of this line of argumentation:
“Indigenous people must be part of the solution to climate change. This is because you have the traditional knowledge of your ancestors. The important value of that knowledge simply cannot—
and must not—be understated. You are also essential in finding solutions today and in the future.
The Paris Climate Change Agreement recognizes this. It recognizes your role in building a world that is resilient in the face of climate impacts.”73
In short, affectedness of Indigenous actors is often conceptualized on the one hand by their specific marginalization and vulnerability, on the other by the contributions they are expected to make to the solution of global challenges. In fact, both arguments often are brought forward together. This tension between being victim and actor at the very same time is one of the paradoxes that Indigenous peoples invariably face when they engage with the UN (Lindroth 2011: 551–552).
4.1.2 Indigenous peoples as atypical affected actors
There are many groups of affected actors which are especially vulnerable and potentially can make contributions to global policy-making – ranging from rural
73 Introduction to the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform, at https://unfccc.int/10475, accessed 29.01.2019.
populations more generally or family farmers to individuals living with certain diseases such as HIV. However, Indigenous peoples argue that they have stronger moral grounds to claims participation rights than other actor groups. Thus, especially in the interviews with Indigenous activists there were frequent references to specific Indigenous rights. In turn, this line of reasoning was not used at all by interview partners from states, and by those from IOs only infrequently.74 In this regard, Indigenous peoples often present themselves as “rights-holders” rather than “stakeholders” at the international level.
Similarly, it has been argued that Indigenous participation at the UN is driven by “a sense of unquestionable and irrefutable entitlement” (Charters 2010: 221).
Specific rights for Indigenous peoples are justified with reference to their historic precedence as “first peoples” or as a way to rectify the wrongs committed against them.
Two issues were mentioned with frequency as inherent elements of these Indigenous rights: self-determination and territorial or land rights. These are considered to be the hard issues on which the realization of Indigenous rights hinges. Participation and self-representation in international forums is understood as one dimension of the more substantial claim to self-determination (Muehlebach 2003: 243, 248; Morgan 2011: 85).
In this regard, the UN is praised as a forerunner with regard to Indigenous rights, as it started to discuss about them early and, importantly, codified Indigenous rights in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The creation of specific institutions for Indigenous peoples such as the PFII and EMRIP can also be interpreted as a recognition by the UN system of the specific role and status of Indigenous peoples as compared to other affected populations.
Several interview partners also highlighted the specific status of Indigenous peoples as peoples. Their status as peoples fundamentally distinguishes Indigenous peoples from NGOs whose activism is based on themes, whereas Indigenous activism is based in peoplehood and territorial belonging. Similarly, Tramontana (2012) argues that Indigenous representative institutions have special rights to participate in contrast to NGOs, whose participation is valued functionally given the benefits they bring to the process. Some IPOs do in fact share certain similarities with governmental authorities in that they are constituted by the (elected) leadership of a community, and engage in voicing community concerns and finding solutions to them (Bergeron 2010: 114).
74 In total, references to specific Indigenous rights were found in 19 interviews.
Therefore, it has been argued that the fact that Indigenous nations are classified together with NGOs constitutes a bizarre and unjust outcome, because “if nothing else, they represent peoples, not interest-based constituencies” (Koivurova & Heinämäki 2006: 102). Some Indigenous actors therefore argue that as peoples, Indigenous groups are equal to all other peoples and, importantly, “quasi-state powers” (Charters 2010:
227) which is why they should be represented at bodies such as the General Assembly.
In the literature, the status of Indigenous peoples as peoples is also highlighted with references to treaties signed between colonizers and the original inhabitants of colonized territories, which confirm that in the early colonial context, colonizing powers considered Indigenous groups as peoples, and their own relationship with them as international (Niezen 2003: 29–30).
However, the position that Indigenous peoples are equal to states is generally not shared by governments. The debate whether Indigenous groups are peoples or not is highly contentious because international law recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination, which makes some states fear that Indigenous peoples could claim independent statehood (Niezen 2003: 25; Levi & Maybury-Lewis 2012: 104–105). While the UN now increasingly uses the term “peoples” when referring to Indigenous groups,75 this language use is regularly accompanied by safeguard provisions such as Article 46/ 1 of UNDRIP, which guarantees the territorial integrity of states.76 There seems to be significant opposition by some states to accept specific rights for Indigenous peoples in this regard. For example, in the discussions surrounding the creation of a specific status for Indigenous peoples to participate in the UN context, some states point to a “need for coherence and consistency in the treatment of non-State actors and their rights to participate in the United Nations” (UN General Assembly 2016: §15).
75 Names of relevant institutions at the UN level such as the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues avoided the term peoples. Indigenous peoples have fought for a change in language use, as they generally consider themselves as nations or peoples. As a result, the term ‘Indigenous peoples’ is now broadly used in the UN context. An example is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007.
The newly created mechanism dealing with Indigenous rights at the UN level, which met for the first time in 2008, is called Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous people was renamed, in September 2010, into Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
76 A similar example is the CBD which adopted language on “Indigenous peoples and local communities” in 2014, but at the same time states that this language does not imply any change of legal obligations or rights. See Conference of the Parties Decision XII/12F, available at
https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13375, accessed 29.01.2019.
In short, participation by IPs at the United Nations is not only framed with regard to a specific degree of marginalization, but also with regard to their status as peoples and historic precedence. However, whereas affectedness in the sense of vulnerability seems to be uncontroversial, the issue of Indigenous-specific rights to participation is not.
While Indigenous peoples highlight their specific status and difference from other affected populations, especially states are much more reluctant in conceding a specific role to IPs compared to other groups of affected actors.