Placing the reconstituted NBWL in the Regulatory Framework

There has been a hue and cry over the newly reconstituted National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) as the same has inadequate representation from NGOs, eminent conservationists/ecologists/environmentalists and States from what is stipulated in the law. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Section 5A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) mandates that 10 States (by rotation), 10 ecologists/conservationists/environmentalists and 5 NGOs need to be present in the 47 member body of the NBWL whereas the newly constituted NBWL has representatives only from 5 States, 2 ecologists/conservationists/environmentalists and  1 NGO.  

It is pertinent to note that the role played by the NBWL and the Standing Committee to the NBWL in regulating developmental and other activities in and around protected areas is crucial with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter the WLPA) vesting regulatory, recommendatory, advisory and consultative powers with the NBWL and the Standing Committee to the NBWL. The  Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 19^th December 2012 on taking up non-forestry activities in wildlife habitats (hereinafter the Guidelines) states that to undertake any non-forestry activities in any wild habitats, the project proponents requires Environmental Clearance, Forest Clearance and NBWL Clearance, making NBWL clearance another clearance process.   

Submission on Indigenous and Local Knowledge to IPBES

On 15 April, Natural Justice made a submission to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on an information document entitled 'Consideration of initial elements: recognizing indigenous and local knowledge and building synergies with science'. The submission suggested community protocols as an effective tool in building synergies between traditional knowledge and science and as a framework that ensures that the approaches adopted in different sources of information used for understanding traditional knowledge is in compliance with Indigenous peoples' and communities' customary and ethical protocols. The submission focused on the following broad themes:

• To allow for the effective inclusion of community protocols in the process of building synergies with science, which includes study, documentation, and approaches and methodologies relevant to indigenous and local knowledge, specifically through the IPBES work programme;
• To ensure that the principles and protocols considered of relevance to indigenous and local knowledge adopts a holistic approach with the incorporation of relevant principles and protocols emerging from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), UN Convention to Combat Desertification  (1992), and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001), in addition to those already listed from the Convention on Biological Diversity; and
• To suggest changes that facilitate adequate representation of Indigenous peoples and local communities and their interests in this process.

The IPBES submission and other submissions made by Natural Justice and partners are available here.

Submission to UN Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises

On 1 March 2013, Natural Justice with the Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development (CIKOD) made a further submission to the United Nations Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises regarding indigenous peoples, business and human rights.

The submission was in response to a concept and discussion note prepared by the Working Group, given its decision to submit a thematic report to the 68th session of the General Assembly that will focus on the situation of indigenous peoples with regard to the prevention of negative impacts of business activities on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Public consultations were held on 14 February 2013 in Geneva and these, and other, submissions addressed the following focus questions:

1. Focus: What specific issues and challenges should the Working Group take into account in drafting this report? 
2. Existing guidance and standards: What existing standards and documents should the Working Group take into account in drafting this report? 
3. Existing practices and initiatives: What existing practices and initiatives should the Working Group take into account in drafting this report?
4. What focused insight can the Working Group bring to the issue of business impacts on indigenous peoples, given the role and thematic scope of other UN bodies on the rights of indigenous peoples? 
5. The submissions included case studies on gold mining in Tanchara, Ghana and Lamu, Kenya. 

This, and other submissions, are available here.

EMRIP Submission on Indigenous Peoples and Access to Justice

Orang asli (Indigenous peoples) of Malaysia celebrate a

successful High Court judgment in 2012. Photo via The Star.

On 11 February, Natural Justice made two submissions to a Human Rights Council-mandated study by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) on access to justice in the protection and promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples. The draft study will be presented at the sixth session of EMRIP in July.

The first submission had a global focus and consisted of two parts. Part I included inputs and experiences from several countries in Asia, Africa, and North and South America, with particular emphasis on the protection and stewardship of Indigenous peoples’ customary territories and resources. These were primarily drawn from a series of legal reviews coordinated in 2012 by Natural Justice and Kalpavriksh on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCA) Consortium.  It focused on the following themes before setting out key recommendations from the legal reviews:

1. The relationship between access to justice and a range of other Indigenous peoples’ rights;
2. Systemic and structural threats to Indigenous peoples’ rights and their territories and resources;
3. Judicial systems themselves as a barrier to justice;
4. Landmark judgments;
5. Landmark legislation; and
6. Continuing challenges with implementation and compliance.

L’accès à la Justice des Autochtones Pygmées en Province du Nord Kivu

Mission de médiation foncière entre les populations

autochtones pygmées et non pygmées dans 4 localités

du Groupement Ufamandu 1er, en territoire de Masisi.

Photo de PIDP-Kivu.

En date du 11 février 2013, Natural Justice, en collaboration avec le Programme d’Intégration et de Développement du Peuple Pygmée au Kivu (PIDP-Kivu) a soumis une étude conjointe sur l’accès à la justice des autochtones pygmées dans la province du Nord Kivu, au Mécanisme d’Expert des Nations Unies sur les Droits des Peuples Autochtones.

Cette étude décrit les difficultés auxquelles sont confrontés les autochtones pygmées en province du Nord Kivu pour accéder à la justice. Ces difficultés sont liées essentiellement à la marginalisation croissante des pygmées au sein de la société congolaise, l’analphabétisme, ainsi que le manque d’information concernant les lois et le système judiciaire en général.

Two Opportunities for EMRIP Submissions

Via www.ohchr.org

Two significant opportunities are available to contribute to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (EMRIP) work to develop and monitor the implementation of law and policy around Indigenous people’s rights. The first is a survey for Indigenous peoples on strategies for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The survey can be completed online here and should be submitted by 18 February, 2013. 

The second is an opening for contributions by Indigenous peoples, academia, national human rights institutions, civil society and other interested groups and persons  on EMRIP's study on access to justice in the promotion and protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights. There is no prescribed form for submissions, and contributions should submitted via email to expertmechanism@ohchr.org by 11 Febrary, 2013.