OUTCOMES FROM THE CIVIL SOCIETY MEETING: Debrief on COP21 and reporting on activities of the Policy and the Communications Working Group

The first of the two CSO Debriefs on COP 21 organized by the Organization “Project 90 by 2030” was convened on the 8^th of March in Cape Town. The participants were representatives of a great deal of non-governmental organizations and observers of climate negotiations.  The purposes of this workshop, like its corresponding follow up in Johannesburg scheduled on the 11^th of March, are numerous:

 Report back from the ad-hoc working groups: policy and communications;

• Exchange Knowledge and viewpoints on COP 21 outcomes and implications for South Africa;
• Review of civil societies red lines for COP 21 and identify key messages for year ahead;
• Identify civil society events and actions around international and national climate change policy in 2016;
• Develop a joint press release: what a coalition of civil society is expecting from South Africa in light of the Paris agreement;

In this connection, the meeting started with the presentation by Jaco du Toit (WWF South Africa) on the outcomes of the Paris Agreement, particularly stressing the implications of the bottom-up approach endorsed by the Parties and its reflections on the text of the Agreement. As a result, it was shown that an additional effort seems to be required to attain the global goal of 2° C of temperature increase. The pledges currently submitted by the Parties are supposed to restrain the increase of global temperature by 3.5° C - whereas the absence of any action inspired by the business-as-usual approach would lead to an increase by 4.5° C.

The intervention by Happy Khambule (Policy and Research Coordinator of Project 90 by 2030 and co-organizer of the meeting) focused on a review of the Civil Society Red-Lines, striking a balance with the last meeting in November 2015. Such Red-Lines are a set of “non-negotiables” agreed by a great deal of NGOs and enshrined in a document submitted to the South African Government prior to COP21. Their purpose is to drive and influence South African policy vis-à-vis climate change, pushing for climate-smart and sustainable choices.

In the last part of the meeting, participants were encouraged to talk and discuss, finding a common positions regards South Africa’s response to climate change, both in the national and in the international arena. Consensus was reached that there are 6 main priorities to work on in order to improve the existing framework:

• Revision of South African Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs): These can be improved upon so that South Africa takes the lead in the fight against climate change, by setting and pursuing more ambitious targets;
• Civil Society Organization (CSO) strengthening: public participation in climate-related matters is to be improved, particularly by studying strategic alliances with enterprises. The proposal was raised to set up frequent climate change meetings on a regular basis;
• Stronger engagement in CODESA, a forum in which a great variety of South African stakeholders gather in order to deeply discuss climate issues.
• Avoid double counting: the Paris Agreement bans double counting on several occasions in the final draft. However, there are the gaps and the weaknesses in the enforcement of this rule, as to date no mechanism has been put in place yet. As a result – also due to the complexity of the topic – there are still many ways by which countries may circumvent this obstacle and few are the institutional mechanisms to denounce and stop such unlawful practices. Possible ways forward include the institution of a national register grouping together every single mitigation project and/or the parallel standardization of accounting rules;
• Signature of the Agreement: South Africa is encouraged to take this step before the deadline of April 2017.

Brief by Luchino Ferraris - International Fellow at Natural Justice.

Natural Justice – Cape Town Office – Skill and Information Sharing Session – March 2016.

The Cape Town Office of Natural Justice, joined by Nayana Udayashankar, from our India office, via the internet, hosted its third monthly Skill and Information Sharing Session on 3 March 2016. This time we were honoured with the presence of Dr Laura Foster, Gender Studies, Indiana University Bloomington. Dr. Foster has expertise in science and technology studies, feminist and critical race legal theory, post-colonial feminisms, and feminist research methodologies. She is a research partner on NJs ‘Empowering Indigenous Peoples and Knowledge Systems Related to Climate Change and Intellectual Property Rights’ Project.

Dr Foster shared with the team her skill of grounded theory coding which could be very helpful in processing volumes of information. She explained that coding helps in narrowing down the scope of sometimes a very wide range of knowledge that we so often have to work through, to extract main points or core themes in one’s work. Grounded theory allows one to consider issues from the ‘bottom-up’, to assist in constructing community meanings. Dr. Foster also stressed that although a variety of sources can be analysed using this methodology, e.g. interviews, publications, Parliamentary Bills, email and correspondence, indeed multiple sources are beneficial however triangulation is essential.

Developing coding, as a skill within Natural Justice will enhance our capacity to analyse the multiple sources of information we encounter during our work in a more systematic way.

We look forward to further integrating this methodology within thematic areas such as land, customary law, climate change, amongst others.

Natural Justice – Cape Town Office - Skill and Information Sharing Session February 2016

Natural Justice’s Cape Town office hosted its second monthly Skill and Information Sharing Session on 29 February 2016. We were honored with the presence of Mr. Wilberforce Laate, our Ghanaian partner from CIKOD. His discussion focused on endogenous development and traditional leadership. It is particularly of interest since Natural Justice is currently working with the National Khoi & San Council to realize the formal recognition of Khoi-San peoples’ customary leadership institutions and its communities.

This approach of endogenous development entails the idea of taking a look backward, to pick up ideas and values that were useful from the past, in developing the future. It advocates that all aspects of a community must be regarded in that community’s development, those relating to the spiritual world, material world and social world. According to this endogenous development approach, development is already active in communities all the time. It is also a combination of both indigenous and appropriate external knowledge and support.

Mr. Laate also shared the traditional authority system in Ghana; how it works and what challenges they have faced and how they have been addressing these issues since the late 1950s when their colonial system ended.

The Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill 2015 (PDF), the first to give recognition to Khoi-San leadership institutions, is currently in South African parliament and open for public consultation (see Parliament news here and here). Thus, at this time, Mr. Laate’s insight on endogenous development and his example of the place of traditional authorities in Ghana serves as a shared African experience.

Call for contributions for the forthcoming book "Indigenous Perspectives on Living with Sacred Heritage (2016)"

A forthcoming book aims to amplify Indigenous custodians voices in a publication entitled "Indigenous Perspectives on Living with Sacred Heritage (2016)".

The book will look to the notion of a sacred site as defined by its indigenous custodians. The primary interest of the volume is to provide a platform for indigenous custodians to explain how they view and treat the sacred through a written account that is available to a global audience.

The volume seeks contributions that provide examples of indigenous sacred sites governance and management, with each example treated as a separate chapter. The goal is to highlight indigenous approaches and present concerns regarding sacred natural site management. The prefereance is to encourage indigenous authors, but all voices that further the proposed goals of the book are invited.

Authors should indicate their expression of interest by 30 June 2016. Please seethe Sacred Natural Sites page here for more details.

Indigenous Fellowship Programme with OHCHR

The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner call for applications for the senior indigenous fellowship is now open. The Indigenous Fellowship Programme (IFP) is a comprehensive programme which aims to contribute to build capacity and expertise of indigenous representatives in the UN system and mechanisms dealing with human rights in general and indigenous issues in particular. The IFP is accessible in four languages, it is held annually for 4-5 weeks in Geneva usually in June/July to coincide with the annual meeting of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Please see the OHCHR IPF webpage for further information on how the programme works, who can apply, and how to apply.

The deadline for applications is 11 March 2016.

Glass Half Full? New Report Finds Development Banks Can Do More To Protect Communities' Rights

Development finance institutions (DFIs) that operate on global and regional levels play a significant role in protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. That is due in large part to the fact that DFIs finance infrastructure, extractive, and other development projects that can have major impacts on communities. Financing of development in this context can be viewed as three sides of a triangle made up of (1) the DFI that supplies the financing for a project, (2) the borrowing client that implements the project, and (3) the independent accountability mechanism (IAM) of the DFI that exists to hear complaints related to the impacts caused by the project. How well are DFIs playing their role?

'Glass Half Full?: The State of Accountability in Development Finance' is a new report written by 11 organizations, including Natural Justice, that aims to answer that question. Using the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a framework, the report finds that even though complainants are undoubtedly better off than they would be in the absence of any complaint procedure, the outcome rarely provides adequate remedy for the harm caused by development projects.

This is the result of several factors, including the DFIs themselves, who undermine the effectiveness of the IAMs by failing to require their clients to disclose the IAM's existence to project-affected people and limiting the IAMs' mandates by stopping short of allowing them to issue binding decisions. Rather, the outcome depends either on the willingness of the DFI's client to resolve the conflict through dialogue or the DFI's own willingness to address the violations found through an IAM investigation. The report concludes with two sets of recommendations. The first set seeks to improve the current system by identifying best practices that should be adopted by all IAMs and DFIs. The report determines, however, that simply adopting best practices will not be enough to ensure that complainants receive remedy for the harms that have occurred. Rather, a new accountability system must be established as a matter of urgency with mechanisms that are empowered to make binding decisions and DFIs that no longer claim immunity in national courts.

To read the complete report visit: http://grievancemechanisms.org/resources/brochures/glass-half-full

New Publication: Protecting Community Lands & Resources in Africa

In November 2013, 30 pioneering community and civil society experts from across Africa gathered together in South Africa at the first Africa Regional Symposium for Community Land and Natural Resource Protection (see our original blog here) to share experiences and practical strategies in the battle to protect community land and natural resources. 

Out of this symposium came a commitment to share these practical experiences, success stories, challenges and resources through the development of a publication by these experts and other community partners, with Natural Justice and Namati. 

At a time where threats to community lands and natural resources are peak, "Protecting Community Lands and Resources in Africa: Grassroots Advocates' Strategies and Lessons" is an exciting and innovative collection of case studies written by advocates, for advocates in Africa. Many thanks to Ford Foundation Southern Africa for its support. For a PDF version of the document, please see here

Recognizing the Rights of Communities and Knowledge Holders in Climate Change Adaptation – UNFCCC COP21 Side Event

Ms. Swiderska, Dr. Reid, Mr. Argumendo, Dr. Song, Dr. Castro, Dr. Traynor & Mr. Le Fleur
(Photo courtesy of Matt Wright/IIED)

During the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (30^th November – 12^th December), the Adaptation Committee released its 2015 Overview Report “Enhancing Coherent Action on Adaptation 2012-2015”, the publication provides information on adaptation to Parties and the broader adaptation community. Within the report the Adaptation Committee recommends that Parties underline the importance of indigenous and traditional knowledge (I&TK), and encourage their integration into National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). They suggest, one way that this integration can be supported is through enhancing the accountability and enforcing implementation of existing laws, rules and procedures dealing with I&TK and practices thus ensuring recognition of the rights of communities and holders of I&TK and practices throughout the adaptation process.

Natural Justice’s Dr. Cath Traynor’s presentation entitled “Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation: Recognition of the Rights of Communities and Knowledge Holders” spoke directly to this issue. Dr. Traynor was part of a panel on the NJ, GTA, IIED co-hosted Side Event “Supporting Poor, Vulnerable, and Indigenous Communities”, 7^th December, 2015. Dr. Traynor introduced preliminary findings of the “Empowering Indigenous Peoples and Knowledge Systems Related to Climate Change Adaptation and Intellectual Property Rights” OCSDNet project, these included reflections on the university research ethics procedures, which although they seek to ensure the protection of and consent from human subjects, at the same time secures power relations, between ‘expert’ researchers who are seen to produce knowledge and vulnerable subjects who produce mere data. Efforts towards more open and collaborative research needs to understand these complex tensions that shape, and are shaped by, knowledge production and engage critically in the ethics procedures themselves. To ensure that community rights are recognized in adaptation, community-researcher contracts have also been developed, their purpose is to ensure that community intellectual property in adaptation is controlled and protected in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and South African Policies and Laws. Mr. Reino Le Fleur, Indigenous Griqua youth representative and Community Co-Researcher on the OCSDNet project, then shared his experiences and his plans for connecting youth with I&TK of their elders, a linkage which in some communities in South Africa is being lost due to the historical dispossession of lands, and the negative impacts of colonisation, apartheid and globalisation upon traditional livelihoods.

During the Side Event, Ms. Krystyna Swiderska (IIED), Mr. Alejandro Argumento (ANDES) and Dr. Yinching Song (Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Science) discussed the importance of biocultural heritage in adaptation practices and highlighted 5 key actions and the benefits of farmer to farmer seed networks. 

Dr. Carlos Potiatra Castro (University of Brazillia/GTA) then shared experiences from the development of the Bailique Community Protocol, Brazil. The process entailed integrating customary norms and internal governance structures into the protocol, consideration of national and international legislation as it applies to the communities and public policies that they have a right to access. To date, the process has resulted in land regularisation, and empowerment of the communities to negotiate with external actors. The community protocol approach is highly relevant to landscape scale mitigation and adaptation programmes and projects and could also contribute to REDD+ as a recent Policy Brief illustrates (search for “BCPs” here).

Dr. Hannah Reid (IIED) then summarised a study that aimed to quantify the funding for local adaptation activities against ten principles intended to guide good ‘quality’ funding allocations. Projects scored well in terms of effectiveness, flexibility and sustainability but poorly on transparency, accountability and urgency.

The session drew to a close with questions from the audience, which included asking how a community is defined, and the pro’s and con’s of an I&TK database, and a wrap-up from Mr. Delfin Ganapin (UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme). Presentations and related materials can be found on the UNFCCC Side Events webpage, search for the “Natural Justice” adaptation session held at 15:00-16:30 hrs, Monday 07 December, 2015. 

Rooibos Traditional Knowledge holders meet with Industry

Rooibos industry

Mr. Cecil Le Fleur, Chairman, National KhoiSan Council

The San and Khoi are the rightful knowledge holders regards traditional knowledge related to the rooibos plant, and they are currently negotiating with the rooibos industry in terms of the South African Access and Benefit Sharing legislation. They are legally supported by Lesle Jansen from Natural Justice and Roger Chennells from Albertyn Chennells Inc.   A basic industry-wide agreement is being sought, based purely upon traditional knowledge in the light of the South African legislation, which will simplify the access and benefit sharing and permitting requirements for the rooibos industry. The traditional rooibos farming communities will be the primary beneficiaries under any agreement reached.  The agreement will have significant benefits not only for the Khoi and San traditional knowledge holders, but also for the rooibos industry.  These stakeholders met on 2nd December 2015 in Clanwilliam to further develop these negotiations.

Harvested rooibos, South Africa

Traditional rooibos farming communities from Wupperthal and surrounding areas, South Africa

Are We There Yet?: Grievance Mechanisms of DFIs Meet with Civil Society in Paris to Discuss the Grievance System

How can the rights of communities be protected in the face of global development? The answer is complex, but one part of it involves the grievance mechanisms development finance institutions (DFIs). Over 20 years ago, the World Bank created the first of these mechanisms, called the Inspection Panel, in order to provide a venue for communities impacted by Bank funded projects to assert their rights. Today , most of the major DFIs have a grievance mechanism, which are often called independent accountability mechanisms or IAMs.

The IAMs first started meeting annually as a network in 2003, and for the last three years, the meetings have included a day where civil society participates. These meetings provide a space for sharing of information and experiences, and for civil society to advocate for improvements and raise issues related to the IAMs' operations. This year, the meeting was held in Paris on 9 December 2015 on the sidelines of the UN climate conference. The agenda included three main issues. The first panel discussed the status of grievance mechanisms for emerging financing mechanisms to combat global warming, such as the Green Climate Fund. The second panel addressed the launch of a report by Human Rights Watch on reprisals against those who criticize World Bank projects. The last panel provided an opportunity to discuss a new report that several organizations, including Natural Justice, worked on to analyze the effectiveness of IAMs and their associated DFIs from a human rights perspective. This report will be launched in January 2016, and it will mark a new phase of advocacy around and collaboration with IAMs and DFIs to improve the system as a whole.

Representatives of the IAMs congratulated civil society on the report, noting that it was an effort that needed to be undertaken. They recognized the importance of transparency and learning lessons in the accountability process. While they raised some questions around how data in the report was interpreted, overall they agreed with the report's conclusions.

Although there are many critical aspects to meetings such as these, one of the most important is that they take place at all. If you spend enough time in international development conferences, you will often hear lip service paid to the need for civil society keep states and institutions in check, to articulate responsibilities, and to call attention to transgressions. At the same time, civil society is often marginalized, whether directly persecuted in certain countries or by more general efforts to limit participation. However, the meetings with the IAMs do provide an important opportunity to share information, discuss ways of collaborating, and call for overall improvements in the system. In light of the  ambitious infrastructure and other development projects planned in the coming decades, and the increasingly complex methods for financing these projects, the collaboration between the IAMs and civil society will be critical for ensuring that communities' human rights are truly integrated into sustainable development.