Resources and capacities of IPOs

Many of the differences in voice and visibility of IPOs can be explained by differences in resources, especially with regard to expert knowledge, bureaucratic skills, and financial means. My argument is that IPOs struggle with systematic resource constraints when participating at the UN, and that by tendency these are most difficult to overcome for grassroots organizations. In fact, current research indicates that local grassroots

180 An earlier and abridged version of this section has been published in Hasenclever & Narr (2019).

participants generally face serious challenges when attempting to make their voices heard in global settings (Brem-Wilson 2017: 320–322). The rules and rhythms of the UN setting structurally privilege participation by bigger, professionalized IPOs as compared to engagement by grassroots organizations. However, the capacity to make an impact when participating in the UN system can increase over time. References to (lacking) power resources of IPOs were very frequent in the interviews; in virtually all interviews participation barriers for IPs were mentioned, most strongly in those conducted with Indigenous persons.

Effective participation at the UN requires a high degree of professionalization and expert knowledge, which is a challenge for many IPOs. In the most basic sense, expert knowledge concerns a need to be informed about the issues which are being discussed, about possible ways by which these issues may affect local constituencies, as well as about possible policy alternatives (Brem-Wilson 2015: 86). Given that the topics which are negotiated are often complex, there is a need to specialize and focus on certain issue areas to be able to make an impact. Often, legal knowledge is needed to understand the meaning of certain expressions in an international law context (Dahl 2012: 73).

Moreover, many UN agencies and programs continue to prefer “scientific” knowledge over the traditional knowledge by local community representatives (McKeon & Kalafatic 2009: 10). While there are growing numbers of Indigenous participants with university backgrounds, and some Indigenous participants have undoubtedly acquired expert knowledge over the years or even initiated a veritable “UN career” (Sapignoli 2017: 85), a considerable number of IPs reportedly do not even understand the mandate of a body such as the PFII.¹⁸¹ Moreover, grassroots representatives mostly only have temporary mandates, turning it difficult for them to obtain the knowledge necessary to effectively participate in UN sessions and shape the outcome (Rößler 2008: 143). As a result, grassroots representatives mostly have not been able to make constructive inputs (Dahl 2012: 157–159). Moreover, there seems to be, at least to some degree, a geographic unevenness whereby certain regions with higher numbers of experienced and knowledgeable individuals such as the Arctic are more visible within the Indigenous movement. Several interview partners also highlighted that there still is a general lack of knowledge about the UN and existing participation opportunities at the level of local

181 This was a common concern in interviews conducted with experienced Indigenous observers.

communities. Especially in Asia and Africa many groups who could potentially identify as Indigenous peoples given their general characteristics until today do not even know about the concept of Indigeneity.

Closely linked to expert knowledge is the question of bureaucratic skills. The continuing lack of bureaucratic capacities of some Indigenous participants was a frequent concern in interviews.¹⁸² In this regard, the capacity to fulfill the requirements of accreditation constitutes the first participation barrier in this context (Sapignoli 2017: 89). Especially for Indigenous individuals from remote communities, booking a hotel in New York or getting to the airport is a challenge, and even more so formulating one’s concern in a three-minute statement. Participants also need to know where and when to line up to register for a statement; which UN organization a specific recommendation should be directed to, and which language to use to enhance the chance that a recommendation will be picked up. Unexperienced participants regularly read out their statements rapidly in order to fit it into the three-minute timeframe, making it difficult to follow (and translate) their presentation (Dahl 2012: 68). In this regard, Indigenous peoples face the general challenge that they come from traditions enhancing the role of oral communication, while within the UN context, they have to cope with a system based on Western legal traditions. By tendency, groups from Europe and North America have more experience in writing, which puts them at an advantage vis-à-vis other Indigenous participants (ibid.: 114).

Moreover, unexperienced participants tend to report and complain about specific local circumstances and individual struggles, which are serious and pressing to them.¹⁸³ While some experienced activists and diplomats express understanding for the urgency that these local community participants feel to tell their stories, there is a tendency to devalue these inputs and consider them as off topic or unconstructive. In fact, grassroots participants seem to be regularly denied self-expression on their own terms in global settings (Cheyns 2014: 447; Brem-Wilson 2017: 323). Instead, IPOs are encouraged to formulate their concerns in more general terms and to bring forward recommendations

182 13 Interview partners mentioned a lack of bureaucratic skills.

183 The fact that many IPOs air complaints especially in the PFII context was mentioned by most Indigenous and government interview partners as well as by members of PFII and EMRIP.

or suggestions on how to move forward.¹⁸⁴ That this is challenging for local community representatives goes without question. Additionally, a study on Indigenous women’s participation in Kenya finds that poor leadership skills often come in combination with low self-esteem due to experiences of racial discrimination, poverty and low general education levels, posing further barriers to participation (Sena 2012: 10). In a similar vein, it has been highlighted that a lack of confidence in one’s right to speak and being intimidated by other participants can constitute barriers to the effective participation of representatives of affected populations (Brem-Wilson 2015: 86).

Moreover, there is a need for Indigenous participants to demonstrate that they master participation standards and adapt their discourse accordingly to be accepted by other participants and be taken into account (Brugnach et al. 2017: 29). For example, one interview partner from a UN specialized agency highlighted how some IPOs deviated from what he expected as appropriate behavior in the UN context (due to what he interprets as lack of organization), and contrasted this with a growing group of more professional IPOs:

“The problem is that Indigenous organizations are sometimes a bit not too well organized themselves. […] because they have a tradition of militancy, they have a tradition of free speech, and there is I would say a generation of peoples within the [Indigenous, H.N.] NGOs who are really well aware about that fact. And who are really profiling themselves as experts, and also really specialists in procedures, I mean negotiations. And this is, we are now in the transition. And I'm quite sure that the Permanent Forum will be more and more efficient because of this new generation of NGO militants which are really very much keen to be focused, organized, also to ensure continuity in their action, et cetera. And it's amazing how the NGOs are doing now. Some NGOs are really behaving like... official organizations. They really, they're really impressive in their work. So that we are in a transition there.”¹⁸⁵

Accordingly, some Indigenous interview partners feel that they only will be taken seriously when they behave according to the rules and procedures of the UN setting, and that they need to demonstrate their ability to engage effectively.

More advanced strategical capacities for effective participation also include organizing a caucus statement (as these are given preference during sessions), hosting a side-event, or lobbying members of the PFII to get one’s concerns into the session’s report. It is easy to imagine that this can be an overwhelming experience for anybody who comes to the United Nations for the first time. Moreover, considerable numbers of Indigenous peoples

184 Similar observations have been made by Cheyns (2014) with regard to the participation of local community representatives in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, arguing that transnational settings require participants to convey their stories in a detached, non-emotional manner.

185 IO6, 23.

are not able to communicate in one of the six UN languages.¹⁸⁶ This generally puts speakers with an Indigenous language as mother tongue at a disadvantage, and especially those from states where none of the UN languages is spoken. Additionally, outside the official meetings, language use is further reduced to English (and to some degree to Spanish) as the dominant language during side-events, caucus meetings etc.

(for a similar concern in a different context see Brem-Wilson 2015: 85). There was also a concern by some Indigenous participants (in this case from Asia and Latin America) that their voice would not be heard because IPOs from the North generally or individual strong organizations within their region were more vocal. Similarly, McKeon and Kalafatic (2009: 15) report about fears that some powerful IPOs or strong individuals might disproportionally benefit from involvement with the UN system given their comparatively stronger capacities, whereas a vast majority of Indigenous peoples is being left behind.

In this regard, Indigenous participants themselves engage in training and mentoring Indigenous newcomers to the UN. As highlighted above, during the weekend before PFII and EMRIP sessions start there is a caucus session explicitly oriented at capacity-building. During this meeting, experienced Indigenous activists also support newcomers in the development of their statements. Moreover, a UN Indigenous Fellowship Program of the OHCHR provides Indigenous individuals with the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge about the UN system.¹⁸⁷

In this context, one also has to take into consideration the role of ECOSOC status. While obtaining ECOSOC status is not necessary for participation at the PFII or EMRIP, it opens up additional arenas of engagement for IPOs, such as at the HRC; at the same time, ECOSOC status is used by IPOs to attract potential donors and supporters.¹⁸⁸ However, obtaining consultative status remains especially difficult for community and grassroots organizations which often lack the formal structures and level of organization necessary for ECOSOC accreditation (Morgan 2011: 75). Thus, ECOSOC status at least potentially

186 This was especially highlighted by Indigenous interview partners from Asia.

187 For further information, see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/IFP.aspx, accessed 02.02.2019.

188 For example, IITC highlights on its website that it “was the first to be upgraded to General Consultation Status in recognition of its active participation in a wide range of international bodies and processes”, see https://www.iitc.org/about-iitc/, accessed 02.02.2019.

attributes to widening the gap between strong Indigenous NGOs and local grassroots organizations.

A lack of material resources of many IPOs was the most virulent concern in interviews.¹⁸⁹ Generally, most IPOs are very small and have limited resources, turning it into a challenge to mobilize the resources necessary to attend sessions of the PFII or EMRIP.¹⁹⁰ While there are funding opportunities such as by the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples and supportive NGOs, applying for travel grants already requires some degree of bureaucratic skills. Moreover, resources not only determine whether an individual can assist at all, but also impact on capacities: only through regular participation (requiring regular funding), other power resources such as bureaucratic skills and expert knowledge might be enhanced. What is more, only wealthier Indigenous organizations are able to pay for staff members, ensuring higher degrees of professionalization and continued engagement. Therefore, certain IPOs are much more visible during UN sessions than others. In other words, limited resources correlate with lower degrees of bureaucratic skills and formalization (Morgan 2011: 79).

While the lack of resources was an issue for most Indigenous interview partners, it most strongly hits IPs from developing countries. This sometimes results in situations in which one Indigenous group speaks for the entire Indigenous population of a country, because no other could finance the journey to New York or Geneva. The geographical unevenness is reinforced by the fact that meetings of the PFII take place in New York, making attendance comparatively cheaper for North American groups. However, as for IPOs from richer countries less funding is available, from these countries generally only the wealthier IPOs or individuals with own resources can afford to participate (Dahl 2012: 60), creating additional disparities within regions. Due to a scarcity of resources, IPOs engaging at the UN level often have to take decisions regarding which forum to engage with. Thus, participating at the PFII (or EMRIP) for some IPOs means that they will not be able to engage in other UN processes (McKeon & Kalafatic 2009: 22).

Moreover, several interview partners suggested that dependence on external funding

189 17 interview partners mentioned this, and a total of 38 interview passages related to the issue were coded.

190 This issue appeared again and again in interviews with Indigenous participants. In many cases it also means that Indigenous participants cannot afford to stay during the entire session, but only assist for a reduced number of days.

can also impact on the content of UN activism,¹⁹¹ as it results in IPOs advancing less radical positions.

Some IPOs, mostly from Western countries, have also established their own sources of funding. This includes those IPOs which are supported by a strong diaspora such as the KKF and CMA. Additionally, a number of IPOs have emerged which are organized in the form of funds and act as donors themselves. For example, the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples provides financial resources, technical assistance and training to Indigenous communities.¹⁹² Inequalities in resources, however, sometimes lead to tensions within the Indigenous movement. For example, there have been suspicions that pertaining to an Indigenous organization which distributes funds to Indigenous communities can be helpful to gain support by regional IPOs for nominations to PFII membership.

This short discussion of IPO resources shows that IPOs – probably similar to other representatives of affected communities – face specific challenges when engaging at the UN level. By tendency, these resource constraints are stronger for IPOs than for NGOs, due to a higher level of informality of many IPOs. However, considerable inequalities also prevail within the Indigenous movement with regard to resources, and some IPOs can access the UN with less effort than others. In this regard, the dominance of ‘western’

voices for which the NGO sector is being criticized is to some degree replicated (Charters 2010: 239). The discussion also shows that access to different types of resources – i.e.

money, knowledge, and bureaucratic skills – often is connected and interdependent, meaning that it gets easier to obtain each of these resources for an IPO that already possesses another resource. This additionally reinforces the trend towards unequal distribution of capacities and resources. Thus, for some IPOs it has been easier to adapt to the rhythms of global level meetings and negotiations than for others. As shown by the analysis of vocal voices within the Indigenous movement in 2017, resource constraints do not only determine access, but also affect who is being heard and able to make an impact within the Indigenous movement.

191 The possibility of a cut in financial support was not only mentioned as an abstract possibility: One interview partner highlighted that Australia cut contributions to the now defunct IPO World Council of Indigenous Peoples when it became too troublesome.

192 See http://www.7genfund.org/about-us, accessed 09.05.2018.