The Indigenous caucus

Given the heterogeneity of Indigenous organizations, one might imagine that it is not always easy for the Indigenous movement to come to common positions and speak with one voice. In fact, many interview partners highlighted that while there are general patterns common to the struggles of Indigenous peoples throughout the world, the particularity of concerns should not be underestimated.¹⁷⁰ This sometimes results in divergent and even contradictory positions.¹⁷¹ Under these circumstances, it is easy to imagine that creating a common agenda can be a challenge. The main mechanism through which IPOs address this heterogeneity is through the caucus. The caucus is an informal body¹⁷² which is used by the Indigenous participants present at a certain UN meeting to strategize and develop common positions. It functions as a parallel structure to official meetings at any given UN event with Indigenous participation. A thorough and comprehensive account of the caucus and its working methods has been made by Dahl (2012: 105–127). Here, I want to highlight the centrality of the Indigenous caucus for Indigenous activism at the UN and make the point that the caucus to some degree

170 This was highlighted by eleven interview partners.

171 This was highlighted by six interview partners.

172 Its informality goes so far that there is no standard procedure for its organization; instead, it takes place on the initiative of several dedicated individuals (Dahl 2012: 116–117).

reinforces the dominance of experienced activists which can be observed with regard to Indigenous participation in the UN system more broadly.

Given the heterogeneity of Indigenous self-representation at the UN, the Indigenous caucus is central as a unifying space. Dahl (2012: 112) argues that the caucus has two functions: internally, it works as a space for Indigenous peoples to discuss controversial issues and create common positions (which might be the most important reason for its existence); externally it is a medium for “representing” the Indigenous point of view vis-à-vis governments or the UN system. Thus, eight of my Indigenous interview partners specifically highlighted that the caucus is important, works effectively, and that coming to common positions strengthens the Indigenous voice at the UN. The caucus’s importance is also recognized by the UN, shown by the preferential treatment of caucus statements during sessions: they often are presented at the beginning of the respective agenda items, and they are given more speaking time. Indigenous participants themselves are very much aware of the fact that their leverage at the UN hinges on their ability to come to common positions (Dahl 2012: 126).

Given this importance of the caucus, it is especially interesting to look at its composition and working methods. Participation in the caucus is generally open to anybody who wishes to participate.¹⁷³ Meeting room and hour are openly announced, so that anybody can join these extra meetings. In other words, the caucus is not an elected or appointed body formally representing Indigenous participants, but a voluntary gathering of Indigenous activists who are present at a given UN meeting. As caucus statements are taken as the position of Indigenous peoples, this openness of the caucus is “essential to its legitimacy as representing all indigenous peoples” (Dahl 2012: 109). However, whereas the caucus theoretically consists of all Indigenous participants, its size normally varies from only a handful to over a hundred participants. Thus, a huge majority of Indigenous participants present at a given session do not participate in caucus meetings, and participation is rather unstable and volatile, as participants change from day to day (ibid.: 112).

173 Apart from Indigenous participants, participation in the caucus generally includes staff from support groups, researchers, and other non-Indigenous observers. The author has participated in several caucus meetings herself.

There is a caucus meeting during the weekend prior to the session of PFII and EMRIP.

This preparatory meeting is special in so far that it always includes a training course for newcomers, and provides an introduction into the session.¹⁷⁴ Thus, many newcomers attend who later on will not show up again at caucus meetings (Dahl 2012: 110). This meeting generally also serves to discuss a common statement responding to the important issues which the session will address. At later caucus sessions, generally a smaller number of activists – mostly well-known and experienced individuals – participate. For example, during a caucus session taking place in the mid of the EMRIP session (which i. a. discussed whether the caucus would make a recommendation regarding the next topic for a study by EMRIP), the up to 30 participants included the Special Rapporteur Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, a Permanent Forum member, a speaker of the youth caucus and several other long-time participants of the Indigenous movement such as Andrea Carmen, Kenneth Deer, and Jannie Lasimbang. While participation spanned most regions, African and Russian IPs were largely absent.¹⁷⁵ Similarly, other scholars have observed that a core of activists that attend most international conferences, mostly funded by support groups, are usually present at caucus meetings (Muehlebach 2003:

244, Dahl 2012: 105-106).

With regard to working methods of the caucus, experienced activists usually chair the meetings. Dahl (2012: 116) has pointed out that this experience is much needed, as chairing the caucus is a difficult task: the caucus chair must be able to reconcile differences and to talk to both IPs and governments; additionally, the chair also needs to be trusted as being impartial to the interests of his or her own group. Formally, all participants are equal at the caucus, independent of their experience or background.

Everyone is allowed to speak, and speakers are never cut off or denied the microphone, even when they do not stick to the agenda (ibid.: 111–112). Nevertheless, the proceedings are often dominated by more experienced, better prepared participants (Dahl 2012: 122–123). For example, they often bring text suggestions to caucus meetings as a starting point for deliberations (ibid.: 110). It is easy to imagine that in such a complex environment as the Indigenous caucus those with experience necessarily need to take on leadership roles. Moreover, there is also a language aspect to power

174 For an example of an agenda of such a preparatory caucus meeting, see

https://www.docip.org/fileadmin/documents/Autochtones/GLOBAL_INDIGENOUS_PEOPLES_CAUCUS___

CONSULTATION_MEETING_2018_EN.pdf, accessed 08.05.2018.

175 Notes from my research diary, July 2017.

inequalities in the caucus. Dahl (2012: 113–115) describes how Spanish-speaking groups often take a less proactive stance with regard to preparation for the caucus and sometimes show a feeling of marginalization and inferiority vis-à-vis English-speaking groups, given the dominance of English language during caucus meetings. However, at least with regard to the new generation of younger Latin American Indigenous participants active within the youth caucus, this line of conflict seems to become less important.¹⁷⁶

When is started to become increasingly difficult to develop common positions between all Indigenous participants, regional caucuses were created. From 2003 onwards, statements by regional caucuses became frequent, as shown by their regular appearance in the docip archives. Apart from delivering statements, some regional caucuses organize meetings with UN mandate holders or staff of UN agencies. However, they differ a lot with regard to degree of activity. The most active caucus is certainly the Asian Indigenous peoples’ caucus. It is active both in the context of EMRIP and PFII and generally delivers several statements. Similarly, the Arctic caucus also delivers statements at most sessions of EMRIP and PFII. Both Arctic and Asian IPs highlighted in interviews that comparatively few individuals from their regions participate at sessions, which contributes to the effectiveness of the respective caucuses. In turn, the Pacific caucus is a regular speaker at the PFII only. The caucuses of Latin America, North America, and Africa have been less active in recent years in terms of making statements.

In 2014, following a conflict within the North American region about whether to participate at the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples or boycott it, the North American caucus was even accused to have been hijacked by “NGOs funded by Wall Street Foundations”¹⁷⁷. The caucus seems to not have recovered from this division, and has not delivered statements since then.

176 Notes from my research diary, July 2017.

177 Cf. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/north-american-indigenous-peoples-caucus-naipc/, accessed 02.02.2019. In 2015, the report of the preparatory meeting of the North American Caucus (at http://unpfip.blogspot.de/2015/04/north-american-indigenous-peoples.html, accessed 02.02.2019) mentions that far less individuals than usual participated at the meeting, and specifically notes the absence of the Forum member Ed John and PFII Secretariat staff; moreover, in contrast to earlier years, the report was not published officially at the PFII’s website. This suggests that at the PFII there were significant doubts about the representativeness of the preparatory caucus meeting.

Generally, the regional caucuses seem to be used with greater frequency for statements within the PFII than at EMRIP.¹⁷⁸ At the same time, some of the regional caucuses also have adopted important functions in between sessions for the coordination of regional participation. Via e-mail, they maintain communication between participants in between sessions. While again the Asian caucus in this regard is an example for other regional groups, several interview partners highlighted that this kind of outreach to the regions was very much needed to strengthen Indigenous participation. Some regional caucuses have also organized preparatory meetings to discuss upcoming issues and generate recommendations for UN meetings. This allows Indigenous groups unable to travel to UN meetings to give their input to the process (Davis 2005). However, here again, interview partners suggested that it is often the most sophisticated groups which participate in this kind of activities. During the last years some thematic caucuses have gained importance, and have probably even gained more visibility than most of the regional caucuses. The most active caucuses in this regard have been the Indigenous women’s caucus, the youth caucus, and recently the disability caucus. While the global caucus meeting that takes place at the weekend before the session still plays an important role, during sessions the regional and thematic caucuses nowadays are often more visible.

While I have highlighted the role of lead actors within the Indigenous caucus, this is not to negate the important functions it also offers for less experienced participants. On the one hand, it helps to enhance their effectiveness by offering capacity-building or providing support in the preparation of statements. On the other hand, the caucus strengthens the participation by grassroots participants by providing a safe space to make participants feel comfortable. Cheyns (2014) has argued that grassroots participants need a specific setting and format for their participation, as global institutions tend to devalue the specific contributions of grassroots; thus, providing a secure space for these participants in which they feel at ease and are supported before, during and after statements in the official sessions can be of paramount importance.¹⁷⁹ The caucus offers such space by treating all participants as equal and listening to everyone independent of any time limit. One particular eye-catching example in this

178 This might be due to the fact that given the higher number of participants, speaking time at the PFII is scarce, resulting in a greater need for coordinated statements.

179 In the case analyzed by Cheyns (2014) - the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil - these functions were provided by a local NGO with strong connections to grassroots participants.

regard is the Indigenous youth caucus. Whenever the youth caucus delivers a statement, all its participants gather around the speaker to demonstrate their support.

In short, Indigenous self-representation at the UN is broad and diverse: Different types of IPOs from very diverse geographical backgrounds are part of the movement.

However, I have also shown that significant inequalities within the movement persist, and that there are a number of more vocal IPOs and activists with more experience and continued engagement who are more visible during sessions. To some degree, this is mirrored and replicated in the caucus as the main mechanism by which IPOs coordinate their participation. Therefore, in the following I will explore those factors which shape and delimit Indigenous participation within the UN. In this regard, it is important to understand that even when access opportunities are deep and broad, not any IPO may be able to participate at UN events.