Space for Change in Climate Change_V3

8/6/2019 Space for Change in Climate Change_V3

1/11

Opening Spaces for Change:The role of indigenous peoples in the global climate change negotiations

We, Indigenous Peoples, have addressed our concerns to the UNFCCC COP since SBSTA 13 in 2000.However, despite years of experience and efforts to participate in this process, and despite also the

resounding support and approval this year of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, we are profoundly disappointed that, even as the United Nations Second International Decade of

Indigenous Peoples begins, Member Parties are still ignoring our demands and contributions to theprocess1

Introduction

Participation was originally conceived as part of a counter-hegemonic approach toradical social transformation. Paradoxically, throughout the 1980s and 1990s this termentered the official development industry practices and lost sense of its origins as aparadigm for the transformation of the cultural, political and economic structures thatreproduce poverty and marginalisation (Leal 2010, 89-91, my italics).

Gaventa 2006, 23The use of terms such as partnership and shared ownership by large, powerful actorsinvite engagement on a level playing field but obscures inequalities of resources andpower.

Rapid processes of globalisation challenge ideas of community and the nation-state,reconfiguring the spatial dynamics of power, and changing the assumptions about heentry points for citizen action.

However environmental Issues remain a decision for space due to the big corporateinterests and the tragedy of the commons. Global spaces closed

New spaces and opportunities are emerging for citizen engagement in policy processes,from local to global levels. Despite the widespread rhetorical acceptance, it is becomingclear that simply creating new institutional arrangements will not necessarily result ingreater inclusion or pro-poor policy change. Much depends on the nature of the powerrelations which surround and imbue these new, potentially democratic, spaces. Gaventa2006, 23

States have different combinations of internal economic and political forces thatinfluence their policies toward environmental issues. In reality, all sectors of theinternational community have been involved in addressing global environmental issues

(Chasek et.al. 2006, 13) leaving few space for action to local/minority groups demands.

Climate change is the prototype of the global commons issue since all nations areaffected by global warming. Negotiations have been complicated due to difficult political

1 Statement of the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change at the High LevelSegment of the 13th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the

3rdCOP/MOP December 14, 2007


2/11

questions of who should bear the immediate costs. The way in which ky participantshave defined their interests has been closely correlated with their perception of the costsof the regime than their perceptions of vulnerability (Chasek et.al. 2006, 115-117)

As Hiraldo and Tanner (2010, 48) recognise, despite donors support for the rights of IPand other marginalised groups, there is no agreement at the UNFCCC that support theirrights. In this sense, climate change can be characterised as a closed space at theglobal level where power is visibly in the hands of the nation-states. This hasimplications of these narrow and constrained spaces for participation for minorities indevelopment

Agency in the realm of earth system (i.e. environmental) governance can only be fullyconsidered in a multilevel governance context; when a problem is global, it will manifestnationally, regionally and locally (Schroeder 2010, 5)Climate change acts as a multiplier of existing vulnerabilities and threatens to roll back

the hard-earned gains in poverty reduction and progress towards achieving the MDGs(UNDP 2007 in Mearns and Norton 2010, 2)

Not only how climate change contributes to vulnerability, but also how climate policy andresponse may magnify the effects of existing drivers of vulnerability (i.e. mitigationpolicies can have a bigger impact in the vulnerability of the poorest) (Mearns and Norton2010, 3)

Tsosie 2007, 1676The dialogue on climate change is currently focused on a strategy of adaptation thatincludes the projected removal of entire communities, if necessary. Such actions may

proof genocidal for many groups of indigenous peoples.

To dismiss these ancient cultures as doomed in the face of industrial development is tocontinue the colonial rhetoric about the fate of indigenous peoples.The states are moving toward a consensus that protects values of global justice, butthey have not yet achieved that goal. What constitutes justice is the subject of activedebate.

Concerns with global governance are producing new extra-national fora in which citizensmight be seeking to engage. Moreover, rather than being separate spheres, the local,national and global are increasingly interrelated.

Local actors may use global forums as arenas for action (e.g. Narmada Dam; Chiapas)just as effectively or more effectively- than they can appeal to institutions of localgovernance. Conversely, expressions of global civil society may simply be vacuouswithout meaningful links to local actor and local knowledge. Gaventa 2006, 28

Parker (in Tsosie, 1676) has emphasized that Native peoples throughout the world arebeing impacted in their ability to sustain a way of life that is essential to their survival,thus they must exercise a collective voice and insist upon representation before allnational and international bodies of climate change.


3/11

Tsosie 2007, 1660-61The negotiated consent model for nation-states to deal with climate change byvoluntarily complying with adaptation and mitigation strategies has seriousshortcomings.

Scholars advocate for international human rights law as a mechanism to mitigate climatejustice issues.

Tsosie 2007, 1626The lines between federal, state, and tribal sovereignty over environmental conditionsare still ambiguous.

Nation states have the governmental responsibility and authority to make environmentalpolicy, but they must first reach agreement through treaties and conventions andconsent to be bound by such structures.Centralized decision-making is impossible at the international level, promoting a lack of

coordinated policy efforts and an inability to locate legal responsibility for the negativeglobal impacts of particular national practices and policies. This is evident particularly inthe debate about climate change.

Tsosie 2007, 1663Ideally, nation-states should only be allowed to express a national environmental policy ifit is respectful of the needs, interests, and rights of the indigenous nations within theirborders.

Tsosie 2007, 1635The International Climate Justice Network noted that local communities, including

indigenous, are not part of the global process to address climate change even thoughthey are the most affected; also, asserted that they should have a central role indeveloping potential solutions to the problems (Bali Principles of Climate Justice 2002 inTsosie)

Transformative, fundamental change happens when social movements or actors areable to work effectively across each of the dimensions simultaneously. When they areable to link the demand for opening previously closed spaces with peoples action intheir own spaces; to span a cross local and global action, and or challenge visible,hidden and invisible power simultaneously. (Gaventa 2006, 30)

As Shroeder notes it (2010, 2) it should be noted here that there is no uniform definitionof what constitutes indigenous peoples.

Theoretical framework: The power cube

If we want to change power relationships, e.g. to make them more inclusive, just or propoor, we must understand more about where and how to engage. Gaventa 2006, 23


4/11

The dynamics of power depend very much on the type of space in which it is found, thelevel at which it operates and the form it takes (Gaventa 2006, 30)

Gaventa 2006, 25

Examine the interrelationships of the forms of power, which we were encountering indifferent political spaces and settings. Understanding the spaces, levels and forms ofpower, as separate but interrelated dimensions, we could begin to assess thepossibilities of transformative action in various political spaces.

The notion of space is widely used across the literatures on power, policy, democracyand citizen action. We will use Gaventas definition of spaces, which are seen asopportunities, moments and channels where citizens can act to potentially affect policies,discourses, decisions and relationships that affect their lives and interests.Gaventa2006, 26

Participation as freedom is not only the right to participate effectively in a given space,but the right to define and to shape that space. Gaventa 2006, 26


5/11

The norms of participation will, as the structure, frame the ability of the various actors toexercise agency. The specific norms prevalent in a specific context would give certainactors authority that they would not have in their absence (Schroeder 2010, 4)

Proposes a continuum of spaces which include (Table 1.)

Critical thought is to be given to who creates the space those who create it are morelikely to have power within it, and those who have power in one, may not have so muchin another.

These spaces are constantly opening and closing through struggles for legitimacy andresistance, co-optation and transformation. Closed spaces may seek to restorelegitimacy by creating invited spaces; similarly, invited spaces may be created from theother direction, as more autonomous peoples movements attempt to use their own for afor engagement with the state.

Power gained in one space, through new skills, capacity and experiences, can be usedto enter and affect other spaces. Creation of new institutional designs of participatoryspaces which serve to provide and sustain countervailing power, might simply becaptured by the already empowered elite.

Civil society organisations must have the staying power (Pearce and Vela) to move inand out of them over time, or the capacity to build effective horizontal alliances that linkstrategies across the various spaces for change.

Spaces for participation intersect with debates on the places, or levels where criticalsocial, political and economic power resides. Some argue that participatory practicemust begin locally; there are others who argue that power is shifting to more globalisedactors, and struggles for participation must engage at that level. In between, there aredebates on the role of the nation-state.

Disconnections between those who are speaking at the global level and those who areexperiencing problems of poverty or economic injustice at the local level. Gaventa 2006,

28

Global climate change negotiations: closed and invited spaces

The state-centric, top-down architecture of the climate regime is more responsive to thevulnerability of entire states than to particular groups within states. Consequently, indigenous


6/11

peoples are not mentioned anywhere in the climate convention or in the Kyoto Protocol(Schroeder 2010, 10)

By focusing on equity and social justice, a rights-based approach offers both acompelling moral and ethical argument for action and a more authoritative basis foradvocacy (Mearns and Norton 2010, 12)

Despite having traditional ecological knowledge, IP have often been excluded fromdiscussion and debate around the science and impacts of climate change. Certainmitigation measures have the potential to undermine customary rights and lifestyles,contributing to their vulnerability and social exclusion. This injustice can be addressedonly through the recognition of IPs rights and through their incusion as key partners anddecision makers in the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptationinterventions at global, national and local levels (Mearns and Norton 2010, 18-19).

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), which focuses onindigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, theenvironment, education, health and human rights. It constitutes an important arena for

international cooperation and dialogue on indigenous peoples' issues.

UN Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples' Issues (IASG) established in2002: The United Nations Development Group approved Guidelines on IndigenousPeoples' Issues on 1 February 2008. The Guidelines are designed to assist UN CountryTeams integrate indigenous peoples' issues into country policies and programmes.

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesSpecial Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

It may see incongruous to categorize indigenous peoples interests in participating in

environmental decision-making as claims for rights. Rights are, after all, a distinctivelyWestern concept and may not really reflect the interests of these groups (Holmes 1993in Tsosie 2007, 1652). However, the

Tsosie 2007, 1665Various provisions of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adoptedin 2007, offer a starting place for IPs right to environmental self-determination, since itarticulates a basis for recognizing the relationship between IP and their traditional landsfor cultural and moral reasons.

Tsosie 2007, 1666

The ILO Convention of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, recognizes IPs collective rightsto self-development, cultural and institutional integrity, territory, and environmentalsecurity (Barsh 1994 in)

The prevailing norms and practices of participation for IP vary across multilateralenvironmental agreements, shaping the varied channels of influence at their disposal.For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity and UN Convention to CombatDesertification allow IP participation, at the discretion of the chair when issues related to
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdfhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdfhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdfhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdf


7/11

them are discussed, while this is not currently the case in the climate change convention(Griffiths and Martone 2009 in Schroeder 2010: 4)

IP networks have gained success in what authors name as forum shopping choosingthe most beneficial level of governance and sector- in order to maximize power andinfluence. These groups have gained international recognition through organizing

transnationally. However, the forums under which climate change discussions will takeplace and under which the newest trends, such as deforestation, will be governed doesnot give agency to actors other than national governments (Schroeder 2010, 6)

Under the UNFCCC, civil society delegates are generally allowed into formal sessions ofthe COP meetings and its subsidiary bodies, but are excluded from making interventionsother than when specifically are invited to do so (Schroeder and Lovell 2009 in Shroeder2010, 8). One important way of engaging in the climate convention process is throughconstituencies2. During COP 7, IPs organisations formed their own constituency, theIndigenous Peoples Organisation. Participation in constituencies is unofficial andvoluntary; its an invited space in which people exchange views and information ordevelop strategies for exerting influence (Shroeder 2010, 8)

In the COP 15 meeting, of 200 scheduled side events 6 dealt with indigenous peoples; incomparison, more than double dealing with business/industry issues.

Tsosie 2007, 1667The Rio Summit agenda adopted in 1992 advocates a full partnership with indigenouscommunities and their empowerment by various means, protecting them from activitiesthat would degrade the environment of their lands, amongst others (Rio Report 1992.

(Castro-Diaz, 3)All existing policies and mechanisms and any future developments within the UNFCCCmust provide for the engagement of Indigenous Peoples at all levels and in all processes

where the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and climatechange mitigation is being discussed and negotiated. Indigenous Peoples views havenot been taken into account in discussions where their livelihoods will be directly orindirectly affected. This lack of engagement also leads to the violation of IndigenousPeoples economic, social and cultural rights.

The programme of action for the Second International Decade of the Worlds IndigenousPeoples highlights the importance of ensuring the effective participation of indigenouspeoples in decision-making always taking into consideration the principle of free, priorand informed consent (United Nations 2010)

As we have seen from all previous examples, IP groups have positioned themselves as

actors in the global rights forum; even recently the Climate Change negotiations.However, following Shroeders argument (2010, 4), they are not agents. An agent is anactor who possesses the ability to prescribe behaviour and to obtain the consent of thegoverned; is an actor with authority.

2Constituencies are loose groups that have been formed by like-minded organisations, somewhat similar in

nature to the negotiating coalitions that have been formed by countries (Depledge 2005 in Schroeder 2010,8)


8/11

Domestic stakeholders tend to have unequal influence in the national position formingprocess, depending on their agency at the national level. Large business lobbies havemore agency than indigenous communities (Schroeder 2010, 8)

Another way of participating in the negotiations is by being part of the nationaldelegation. For COP 15 there was only one representative for Guyana and one from

Tebtebba Foundation of the Phillipines (UNFCCC 2009 in Schroeder 2010, 9)

Claiming spaces in the Global Climate Change negotiations

Tsosie 2007, 1664In the international arena, IP are not able to exercise sovereignty because they lackstanding as nation-states and are represented in international human rights dialoguesthrough NGOs.

The exclusion of IP from domestic and international decision-making processes hasdriven their engagement through transnational advocacy coalitions. IP representativeshave had more success organizing themselves transitionally and speaking to

international and civil society audiences than lobbying their national governments(Dombrowski 2010 in Schroeder 2010: 5)

Need for more proactivity from national governments and local Civil Society groups tofoster participation in the formal/closed spaces

Gaventa 2006, 30Some groups through advocacy challenge the visible forms of power in visible arenas,mainly through public debate and campaigning. Others focus on collective actionstrategies, which work to challenge barriers which prevent certain actors from entering

the public arenas. Others may focus on changing the invisible, internalised forms ofpower, through awareness and consciousness-building campaigns.

Tsosie 2007, 1627Environmental justice has been used to highlight the distributional impacts of thedominant actors environmental decision-making process on disadvantagedcommunities, including the poor and racial minorities.Tsosie 2007, 1634The Environmental Justice Movement came to focus on the impacts of climate changeon vulnerable communities.

Tsosie (2007, 1654) asserts that IP claims regarding the environment can becategorized in two. First, the issue of government control and governance overindigenous lands. Second, the claims for participatory control over national orinternational environmental decision-making that impacts indigenous peoples. This latterclaim is the focal point of the climate justice debate.

Tsosie 2007, 1643In 2005, the Inuit peoples filed a human rights case in front of the Inter AmericanCommission on Human Rights, asking for its assistance in obtaining relief from the


9/11

impact of global warming. The petitioners claimed that the US contribution to globalwarming should be considered a human rights violation.

Tsosie 2007, 1644They are powerless over the choices of nation-states to engage in activities thatgenerate harmful consequences for vulnerable people.

Issue of reallocation: geographical location is essential to indigenous identity. Removalof indigenous communities from their traditional lands, resources, and lifestyles results inimmeasurable harm.

Recent studies show that areas governed by IP are less prone to deforestation. Thisgrowing international recognition was fought for by IPs organizations and advocates,who claim their rights to land on resources based on the beneficial effect of indigenouspractices in support of biodiversity. Therefore, it is important to be thinking in these rightswhen designing and negotiating the new mitigation instruments post-2012 (Kronik andVerner 2008, 161)

While focusing on the more privileged category of IP given their special status underinternational law, this may exclude a plethora of minorities and poor peopledisenfranchised from the big NGOs and indigenous networks (Schroeder 2010, 2)

In COP 16 one of the parallel events was an Indigenous Peoples Day where issues suchas human rights and the climate convention, tensions between traditional knowledgeversus Western science, and local adaptation and mitigation strategies were discussed(Schroeder 2010, 9)

IP are requesting access to the Adaptation Fund, calling for the creation of an Expertgroup on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change under the COP, the creation of avoluntary fund for enabling IP to participate in official negotiations. (Schroeder 2010, 12)

In Latin America and the Caribbean it is difficult to imagine that there can be muchsuccess with REDD without IPs participation simply because they control (and oftenown) large tracts of dense forest (Kronik and Verner, 163). As well, deforestationendangers reliance on forests as safety nets. This is a compelling reason why designingREDD should not be a top-down endavour with limited involvement of forest andindigenous communities (Schroeder 2010, 3)

Final Considerations

Because IP are often marginalized domestically, they have cultivated practices of

bypassing their national government, building advocacy and demanding participation toensure their rights are safeguarded (Schroeder 2010, 13).

Advocacy and change strategies must often build alliances across local, national andglobal levels to make sure that changes are meaningful at each level. Those seeking tochange power relations fundamentally must also build awareness of those who areexcluded. Gaventa 2006, 30


10/11

Gaventa 2006, 31Those seeking to challenge power in all of its spaces, levels and forms need to buildmultiple, linked strategies and in different sequences

It is imperative that the international community, including but not limited to MemberParties and international agencies recognize the free prior and informed consent of

Indigenous Peoples. In recognizing such consent, Indigenous Peoples will be able toexercise their self-determination and their continual responsibility to protect their lands,territories and resources. (Castro-Diaz, 7)

Agency refers to the ability of actors to prescribe behaviour and to substantivelyparticipate in and/or set their own rules related to the interactions between humans andtheir natural environment (Schroeder 2010, 1)

Current discussions about REDD are placing a greater focus in IPs rights than otherclimate mitigation options have done in the past. However, it still remains an invitedspace with considerable limitations.

Establishing national regulation and institutional architecture that recognises andengages local communities and enables benefit streams to reach them will be crucial(Hiraldo and Tanner 2011, 49)

Generally, IP are seeking the recognition and action by the COP to reduce adverseimpacts on them from climate change and that decision-makers exercise mindfulnessregarding adverse effects from mitigation and adaptation actions (such as carbontrading, agro fuels and REDD) on their livelihoods (IFIPCC 2007 and Mihlar 2008 inSchroeder 2010, 12).

(Tanner and Allouche 2011, 2)Climate change has been mainly problematised and tackled as a global issue,resulting in globally-led governance approaches, which may not providesufficient flexibility for specific national or sub-national conditions.

There are significant differences in ideological worldviews regarding respondingto climate change that affect decisions as to how it should be tackled.

(Tanner and Allouche 2011, 6)Responses to climate change need to be understood through a political economyframework that takes into account ideas and ideology at different scales

(Tanner and Allouche 2011, 8-9)The sense of urgency to plan, develop and implement initiatives provides adisincentive to more complex and inclusive processes of dialogue andnegotiation and just focus in easily demonstrate short-term impact.

The existing channels for accountability are issue sector, when climate changeimpacts are multi-sector

The predominant vision of tackling climate change through internationalinstitutions and national governments limits the opportunity for broaderengagement.


11/11

(Tanner and Allouche 2011, 11)Important to understand to what extent policy practices will be effectivedepending on the congruence between ideas and ideologies and powerconfigurations.

Indigenous organisations are often seen as a homogenous group, but their viewsvary depending on the organisation, country or region (Hiraldo and Tanner 2011,47)

International Expert Group Meeting onIndigenous Peoples and Climate ChangeDarwin, Australia2 4 April 2008Climate Change, Forest Conservation and Indigenous Peoples RightsDiscussion paper prepared by Estebancio Castro Diaz1

In general this paper is a way to claim space for indigenous peoples participation

in the global political negotiations around climate change.

Documents

Space for Change in Climate Change_V3