The Pactes Locaux are a collective of actors, founded in 1998.  In 2005 they became an officially registered NGO. Between 2007 and 2009, they worked on the approach of open capitalisation based on the broad theme of “Democratic participation and territorial anchorage”. This was the preparation for the International Forum of Lux’09, the IVth Meeting for the Globalisation of Solidarity of RIPESS  (workshop 7), organised in Luxemburg by INEES, the European Institute for Solidarity Economy.

The Pactes Locaux mobilised on a voluntary basis, over and above the members’ own individual activities to reach a specific objective. Their contribution to both French and European discussions has been original, and is based on their significant territorial achievements in dealing with key issues of today’s society. They held five regional meetings supported by a European working Platform. Expert practitioners presented their work at territorial level: work and employment issues in Poitou-Charentes, responsible tourism in Auvergne, local development and solidarity economy in Luxemburg, social cohesion and well-being in the urban environment of Fontenay-sous-Bois, rural/urban solidarity and the associated economy in the metroposiation of Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

This contribution has now been duly recognised. It is an element that allows the members to propose the “learning journey” approach as a tool for learning from each other in a variety of contexts. It is a horizontal practice that helps build bridges between generations and develop an understanding of stakes as well as constructing responsible territorial actions. The meeting that was held on December 1st in Poitiers (France) ended the Lux’09 cycle. It also helped to confirm that our projects resonate with other territories.

This process jointly served the following ends:

-    The Lux’09 Forum (cross-cutting and internationalisation of Workshop 7)

-    The FPH (dissemination / discussion of a new approach to œconomy, territories as actors, institutional connections)

- Of the members and associate partners

- The people responsible for developing the dynamics of Asia 2013 have adopted the territorial anchoring of solidarity economy; they now consider us as partners.

The positive evaluation of Lux’09 provides a lever for the future. The Pactes Locaux are a small, open collective. They are not party-political affiliated or members of any institutional organisation. Their recognition reaches beyond what they represent in terms of membership. They remain a small dedicated team, united by what they have learned and their determination as civil society, to  take on reposnibility and change the system..

The Pactes Locaux intend continuing their work on European territorial cohesion. They hope to work on themes and in areas where their members and associate partners and those interested in taking part in the future, can work together. They hope to do this by demonstrating how reality and the expertise gained from practical know-how can help to illustrate, discuss and propose new ways of organising solidarity that can have a considerable impact and help open doors to solutions to the current crisis.

8.5 million jobs have been lost in Europe since 2008. In France, 1 million people will lose their job-seekers allowances in 2010. Exclusion is becoming the rule rather than the exception. The institutions are not supporting those actors involved in hands-on work. Things are becoming increasingly difficult. The Pactes Locaux will not succeed on their own. The question is how to preserve our individual freedom, while supporting each other and serving the interest of all? Learning to work as partners involves a legitimate confrontation of ideas and genuinely working together.

This means being realistic and taking stock, the better to position the collective. The members of the collective have decided to:

- Continue the commitment to work in those territories and networks that make sense to them, and where they are already present

-    Provide each other with mutual support in their respective activities, with priority support for the in-depth projects

- Promote the “Learning Journey” approach as an awareness-raising framework for learning, co-operating and bringing together local actors

- Jointly work on developing means of paid work

- Specifically aim to contact elected local representatives: future local councillors, intercommunal elected representatives, members of collective approaches such as Districts, Agenda 21s, social networks…. The current context favours a return to things local, which is fundamentally important to sustainable development, employment, peace etc… It also shows what a huge deficit exists in the ability to accompany progress and pull together as a system, rather than pulling strings from above or the outside. This is true in all fields: economic, political or alternative approaches. This missing link, the interface between branches and different levels has yet to be created if we are to reach a better understanding and effectively implement an operational approach to restructuring our territories

- Become and remain, active partners in FPH, RIPESS Europe and in French and European territorial networks,  activities and events

- Continue working on consensual aspects of Workshop 7 “Democratic Participation and territorial anchorage” (Forum Lux’09, April 2009) in Europe, and prepare for the Asian Solidarity Economy Forum in Kuala Lumpur in 2011 and “The Road to Manila 2013” (the Vth International RIPESS Meeting).

Contacts.

-    President : France Joubert: +33 (0)6 70 001 467; francejoubert@wanadoo.fr

-    General Secretary: Martine Theveniaut: + 33 (0)4 686 99 288; martine.theveniaut4@orange.fr. Extended in-depth projects: project leaders.

-    France Joubert: +33 (0)6 70 001 467; francejoubert@wanadoo.fr. Employment and activities, social territorial dialogue: what alliances in/between territories?

- Alain Laurent:   +33 (0)5 61 624 68 ; beira.cfp@wanadoo.fr. Tourism and responsible territories: How can they converge?

- Bruno Racine: +33 (0)6 70 160 489; brunoracine@free.fr. What governance for developing territorial cohesion?

Martine Theveniaut: + 33 (0)4 686 99 288 martine.theveniaut4@orange.fr. «The road to Manilla 2013»: solidarity and territory, an international process.

- Peter Wollny: +33 (0)4 68 318 729; pw@base-sur-audois.fr. ICTs – a vector of democracy and initiatives for collective territoiral  projects

Headquarters: 5 rue de Cadène F – 11580 Alet les

By Jorge Soriano Bugnion (voluntary professional interpreter and activist. Original article in Spanish http://www.fao.org/wsfs/; http://peoplesforum2009.foodsovereignty.org/

The World Summit for Food Security was recently held in Rome (16th – 18th November) under the auspices of the FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation), headquartered in this city. The timing could not have been more appropriate, as the pretentious title of the meeting suggests: “Imagine. Achieving food security in times of crisis”. This notion of food security is aimed at food for all, even at the height of current global financial turbulence, with over one billion people in the world suffering from hunger. The aim of the first Millennium Development Goal – to halve the number of people suffering from hunger by 2015 compared with the figures for 1990 – is far from today’s reality. If we add the uncertain impacts of climate change on agriculture, the profit-driven interests of agribusiness and predatory attitudes of governments, the outlook for the most vulnerable is indeed pessimistic.

A parallel meeting: People’s Forum on Food Sovereignty

Civil society rose to the occasion, and organised their own space for discussion in the People’s Food Sovereignty Forum that was also held at the same dates in Rome, parallel to the FAO Summit. I had the privilege of being a member of the volunteer interpreting team that was responsible for supporting the communication between over 400 delegates who had come from all over the world. The objective was to promote the right of rural communities to define their own agricultural model that respects their ecological, social, economic and cultural traditions. Food sovereignty prioritises local consumption, access of small farmers to natural resources, to land, seeds and agricultural biodiversity. It condemns the use of food production as either a trade or a political weapon. A great number of civil society organisations participated in the Forum. The International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty represented them in their discussions with the “United Nations system”, mainly the FAO and IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development).

The final declaration text from the People’s Forum, from which I have extracted a few key points, mentions the importance of considering the Food Security Committee of the FAO as the privileged body for developing international policies on food and agriculture, especially as the recent reform that has been approved confers a greater role on the representatives of civil society. The declaration also discusses the appropriate financial support provided by members of the FAO to enable the Committee to carry out its work in an adequate manner, guided by the human right to food. Financial resources have been proposed by the World Bank and other international financial institutions, whose past mechanisms of governance have shown a lack of democracy and transparency; this means there is a risk of the same mistakes being made as in the past. “As long as institutions such as the WTO continue to privilege commercial interests over the globally marginalised and malnourished, hunger will continue to stalk the world”.

The text also defends the need to respect ecological supply chains, and condemns the aggressive mercantile approach to nature and knowledge. It requests a global moratorium on GMOs and invites all States to take immediate adequate action to protect and regulate national food markets by managing supplies to guarantee the availability of food, decent pay and fair prices. States should guarantee joint control of land through integrated agrarian reform that respects both individual and collective access to land, and control over territories.

Concerning the control of resources for food production, the Declaration condemns the alarming land- and water-grabbing currently practiced by certain countries and multinationals. In less than one year, 40 million hectares of fertile land in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe have been usurped through agreements that favour this practice and displace local food production in favour of export crops. The Declaration also opposes intellectual property rights aimed at protecting living resources such as seeds, plants and animals.

Finally, the text commits civil society to building alliances via the International Planning Committee and presents the input from the different work groups that took place during the Forum: Women, who defend their role in food sovereignty, youth who plead for education and training in agricultural practice, fishing and animal husbandry, indigenous peoples who demand the right to land and who consider nature as a living being that is essential to the identity and culture of their communities.

The FAO Summit Declaration

The official declaration of the FAO Summit expresses good intentions and pompous commitments in their five Principles of Rome for sustainable global food security: 1) invest in national plans to channel resources aimed at NGOs and well-designed results-oriented programmes, 2) encourage strategic co-ordination of national, regional and global plans in order to improve governance and promote a better distribution of resources, 3) work towards food security through direct emergency measures aimed at the most vulnerable groups, in order to fight hunger and poverty, 4) guarantee the role of the multilateral institutions, 5) guarantee the commitment of all to investing in agriculture, food security and nutrition, in order to fund pluri-annual plans and programmes.

The civil society Forum criticised the FAO for grounding the achievement of the above principles in the creation of a High Level Action Group on the crisis in food security at the instigation of the Secretary General of the United Nations. This is in the context of the reform of the Committee for food security. Civil society’s disagreement is due to the fact that the Action Group supports the multinationals that are patenting seeds and commercialising GMOs in order to implement projects with many large international philanthropic foundations who are operating on funds from the World Bank.

Civil society condemns the fact that the FAO also delegates “the strategic co-ordination of national, regional and global plans” to a “global Alliance for agriculture, food security and nutrition”, created by the industrialised countries of the G8 that – and this is no mere coincidence – control most of the food system by imposing production models that are contrary to the interests defended by small-scale farmers.

The principle of Rome also includes the World Trade Organisation, and suggests on paper that global markets become more open to small-scale farmers from developing countries, in order to enable them to increase their productivity, and compete in more equal circumstances. Civil society organisations again reproached this attitude: Although the WTO is a multilateral institution representing countries of all sorts, and with a decision-making system based on the principle of “one country, one vote” it is important to realise that in the corridors of power some countries club together to defend their interests more than those of others, in terms of the available resources, the size of the economic and legal lobby and their influence. Once again, the developing countries have a handicap in negotiations before they even begin.

Challenges for the years to come

It’s time to square up on the chess board: one camp defends food sovereignty, protected by rural tradition and the ancestral knowledge of peoples and communities, while the other is in favour of technological green revolutions, the industrialisation of agriculture and GMOs. These are the black and white, even grey squares on the board… Can there be no meeting of the ways in this struggle for power?

Ethical commitment and respect of the environment, of ecosystems and subsistence means of rural populations should take priority; it is necessary to avoid ideological and political prejudice as well as economic interests that may block the path. If we really wish to reach a reciprocal commitment of all stakeholders, we need to consider that achieving a joint solution is a moral obligation that broadens our field of vision.

Food sovereignty implies a sense of responsibility. On one hand, governments need to guarantee supplies of accessible food that is culturally acceptable and nourishing, and to facilitate emergency access to those in need of help, without undermining the principle of sovereignty. On the other, farmers and producers should participate in the decision-making process as to how to grow and distribute food. Their know-how is both their heritage and their contribution. Food is life. It comes from the land that we work and from animals that we raise or hunt. It is nature, culture, tradition, religion, the identity of peoples and nations. We savour it, appreciate it, dream about it; it awakens feelings and emotions in our hearts; it brings us together, satisfies us, makes us aware of our essential being and our shared identity. As citizens, we can, through our acts, set the example for future generations, through responsible consumption, by cultivating our curiosity as to the origin and way in which food is produced, and by drawing closer to nature. We are all involved in the future of our planet and we can no longer remain dependent on decisions taken by others.

Published in International Newsletter on Sustainable Local Development,  Newsletter # 65. February 1, 2010

By Mario Osava

IPSnews

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jan 15, 2010 (IPS) – The initiatives were already there, in the form of cooperatives and a variety of related activities. But they have a new connectedness thanks to the growing solidarity economy, which has opened up new horizons for alternative forms of production and social relations.

The Fio Nobre Cooperative, founded 15 years ago by Idalina Boni, evolved from craftsmaking to textiles, and now produces shirts, blouses, t-shirts, skirts, pants, shorts, dresses and handbags, as well as accessories like necklaces, in Itajaí, a port city in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina.

Once Fio Nobre reached a certain quality level, thanks in part to a fashion designer, it began to export its products. The cooperative already has contacts in Italy and France, and in February Boni will travel to Spain to market its goods.

Before setting up Fio Nobre, Boni was active for years in rural, community health and human rights movements, based on her belief in liberation theology, a progressive current in the Catholic Church that works to empower the poor.

“When you’re young, you think you can change the world,” she told IPS.

But unemployment forced her to come up with a project that could bring in an income on which to survive while she continued her efforts “to at least improve the world,” she said.

That gave rise to Fio Nobre and the organisation of an organic clothing production chain stretching from cotton farming to the final sale, under the Justa Trama brand name.

A number of other collective initiatives based on cooperation and self-management, and free of the employer-employee relationship, have networked at the World Social Forum, whose annual editions were held in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005 in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, where it first emerged.

The Brazilian Solidarity Economy Forum (FBES) emerged at the 2003 WSF, which coincided with the start of the government of leftwing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who established a National Secretary of the Solidarity Economy (SENAES) under the Labour Ministry.

The movement in Brazil differs from those of other countries, because it combines three dimensions, said FBES executive secretary Daniel Tygel. Besides the economic aspect, which comprises self-management and the creation of cooperatives and networks, it includes a cultural dimension, related to consumption, gender relations and areas like free software, as well as a policy of social transformation.

In the long term, “we want to change the model of production and the direction of development, towards a model that is not harmful to life,” said Tygel.

Brazil’s solidarity economy ranges from agricultural production, which accounts for 60 percent of the groups linked by the FBES, to crafts, apparel, microcredit cooperatives, bankrupt companies that have been salvaged by workers’ cooperatives, community church projects and university incubators of solidarity businesses.

Although the solidarity economy currently represents a “paltry” share of the national economy, as Tygel acknowledged, it is growing fast, despite the scant government resources dedicated to supporting its development.

But although SENAES has a tiny budget, cooperatives and related initiatives also receive financial support from the ministries of Agricultural Development, Social Development and others.

Forging connections between the numerous and varied small local initiatives and making headway in terms of marketing and sales are the big challenges facing the solidarity economy.

But there are successful examples of integrated production chains and networks, like Justa Trama, in which the need to secure raw materials produced under the same shared principles – of horizontal labour relations and environmental sustainability – brought together several textile cooperatives and an association of more than 700 cotton farmers.

Justa Trama and the solidarity economy movement fuelled “the quantity and especially the quality of Fio Nobre’s production,” said Idalina Boni. The cooperative’s output climbed from 1.5 tons in 2005 to eight tons in 2008.

The production chain runs from the “ecological cotton” grown by family farmers in nine municipalities in the northeastern state of Ceará through a textile cooperative that makes yarn and fabrics in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais to three garment-making cooperatives in the south.

Buttons, collars and other components, meanwhile, are made from seeds gathered by members of another cooperative in the Amazon jungle state of Rondonia.

The biggest hurdles faced by organic farming cooperatives are marketing and selling their products.

In the northeast, Brazil’s poorest and driest region, the Xique Xique network of community-focused and solidarity-based marketing, which takes its name from a local cactus, facilitates the marketing of products by family farmers in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, organised in hundreds of groups, which make up nine larger cooperatives.

Agroecology, women’s rights and empowerment, and the solidarity economy are the “three main focuses” of the fast-growing network, which links production and trade, said Viviana Mesquita, a local technical assistant with SENAES.

“Women have a greater vocation for the solidarity economy,” but their strong presence in Xique Xique is also due to the local activity of the World March of Women, said the activist, a sociologist who has been active in the community organising and environmental movements. (END)

Please receive our best wishes so that the year 2010 will be constructive for “en route to Manila via Kuala Lumpur».

Here are some news from Pactes Locaux. We have not yet renewed efforts to go forward with the Internet forum we had to prepare Tokyo.  There are still strings to be attached. Sorry for this delay.

Pierre Calame is very pleased with our work. But now, he is not any more the «leader» of the FPH. His son, Matthieu Calame has just taken over.  We know that the project Pactes Locaux is included within the «social and solidarity economy” and «territory” projects.  Pierre would be grouped in one cluster around a web-site project on international contacts. I think Pierre has contacted Ben about it. This is an excellent thing.

But for the Pactes Locaux, uncertainty remains on our place to prepare Kuala Lumpur (2011) and Manila (2013), and financial support to continue the learning journey process.

We have general meeting January 20 at the FPH. We requested a moment of encounter (after the conclusion of our internal work), at about 16:00 with our FPH interlocutors in this transition: Peter, Matthew, Gustavo Marin (who follows projects from Asia at the FPH) and Thomas Weiss, who follows the projects on website and COREDEM (Coordination of resources for a global democracy). We hope to learn more.

It is certain that we will continue, but can not yet say in any way. The meetings between practitioners are essential to our eyes for a common understanding and facilitate reconciliation between the different continents. Learning journeys are a great way to learn.

As agreed in writing the draft (June 2009), the involvement of Pactes Locaux in the preparation of 2013 has the objective of “conducting an active approach to research partnerships of grassroots actors with financial and institutional support, to give greater scope to the continental stages of preparation of the meeting in Asia.”

So thank you for your patience. Depending on the response of the FPH (and the support it brings us finally), we can decide how to proceed realistically, but with determination.

A message for Denison. Yvon has shared with me the news he saw on the Internet about the violence that has erupted in Malaysia with religious intolerance as a background.  We are very sad about this and our best wishes for peaceful resolution of this difficult situation.

Yours sincerely

Martine Theveniaut and France Joubert
(and Yvon, thank You Yvon, for helping us to translate and correct this message)

by

BETSAN PATRICIA MARTIN, New Zealand

(This paper was presented at the 2007 Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in Manila, Philippines)

I bring greeting from the Charter for Responsibility Committee in NZ and include in that warm greetings from the people of the land, Maori and Pacific communities with whom we work as an intercultural team.

We acknowledge those who have gone before us, those who inform our thinking and actions towards human responsibility, and those who give leadership and guidance for governance that supports the interdependence of people with the earth.

Philosophy for Aotearoa-NZ Charter for Responsibility

Relational ethics

The main philosophical orientation of our committee is to work with relational ethics, through practices of partnership, shared-decision-making, and working with an earth-centered approach in our projects. One of our group, Charles Royal who is a Maori philosopher refers to a ‘woven universe’ (2003) to describe the inter-relatedness of all things.

The relational world view that we work with comes from indigenous knowledge sources, as well as to western philosophers of ethics. Indigenous thought  such as Charles Royal’s concept of a woven universe, and the Pacific oceanic traditions  reflected in the two hulled waka come from traditions of  governance which have regard for safeguarding resources across generations.

Western thought which guides our thinking include Emmanual Levinas and Luce Irigaray, whose work comes from critique of western patriarchal individualism, and restores relational and spiritual values such as responsiveness as neighbours, and the capacity to relate across differences of sex, culture, age, belief that is identified as being attuned with women’s values.

Within this relational approach can be found a move from human centred ethics to the interdependence of life with earth, air, fire and water. The challenge of this work to western women for whom freedom and equality have become realities, is to work with such ethics when we are in so many ways compelled by the dominance of competitive, economic values.

Partnership

Another metaphor for a relational approach, from our location in the Pacific is the two-hulled waka – a vessel for the great journeys across the Pacific that were undertaken traditionally.  Much can be derived from this image, but the main aspects which inspire us are the two hulls and the joining platform.

The model may seem restricted to partnership between ‘two’, but it can represent many forms of shared endeavour, One interpretation we hear is that women are at the front, giving birth to the future, and men at the back safeguarding experience for traditional wisdom.

The hulls can be seen as corresponding to Mãori and Pakeha, the two main groups of people in NZ who entered into a Treaty in 1840. The Treaty was an agreement for shared governance, but this has never been agreed to by Parliament since is represented the majority British immigrant population from the 1860’s.

The joining platform is a key part of the structure, where representatives of the hulls meet to exchange knowledge and views and for decision-making. You might say that direction for the vessel is set from the space in the middle.

Partnership expresses our relational approach which is at the heart of responsibility – responsibility is responsiveness, and attunement with those we relate to closely, as well as  more distantly, and with the living world.

Responsibility for the Health of Water Ecosystems: a NZ –Pacific regional initiative.

NZ Team

Earlier this year a small groups of us  came together for a special 3 day meeting  to discuss responsibility and the project we have initiated on  governance for the health water ecosystems. We chose to work with water because our Pacific identity as a liquid continent, where the  ocean, Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, makes us neighbours.

Reference points for Responsibility for Water

Water is the focus of intense interest for governance in NZ with tension between the market interests in commodifying water and establishing property and ownership rights, and indigenous tribes having to straddle customary traditions of guardianship and care for water, yet make claims for their interests in water through property rights conventions.

Access to water and water quality are the focus of local  conflicts across the globe as water becomes locked up  in private property regimes.  The rising sea levels in Climate Change is already impacting on the Pacific with the prospect of environmental refugees raising particular responsibilities as neighbours for the larger countries of NZ and Australia.

Another reference point for  water comes from understanding water as the foundation of all of life. As stated by Callum Coats, a  water researcher and advocate with whom we are working stated:

“Good water – good life, Bad water – bad life, No water – no life.”

The natural state of water is to be in continuous motion and transformation, absorbing essential elements as  it flows through the atmosphere and earth to take on the qualities needed to support life. The continuance of life is not just a matter of water supply, rather it is the quality of water that determines the level of functioning of human life and other species that consume water.  Coats has identified the mutual importance of the health of water and of life. The question before us is not one of humanity versus the rest of creation, but one of a humanity inextricably embedded in a mutually supportive environment in which the myriads of lesser organisms have an equally vital role to play. Ultimately their needs and their continuing health are as important as ours, and we neglect them at our peril (Coats 2001:2)

Unfortunately I can only bring you a sip of knowledge of  the amazing attributes of water which we are partaking in through a series of seminars with Callum Coats, who opens up the world of  vortical energy systems as part of the complex properties of water.

In this time of a Climate for Change we are taking notice of global environmental deterioration and our intimate connection with this loss.  Part of the remedy for the general increasing disconnection with the natural world is to restore our ability to relate to living, breathing energy systems, to hear the intelligence of earth and rivers and oceans.

In a small and humble way we seek to respond forms of governance and management that is attuned to the life supporting capacity of earth’s ecosystems.

Integrated governance

In the NZ and Pacific context, indigenous systems based on the interdependence of people with earth, provide some guidance for engaging with environmental responsibility through whole of systems governance and safeguarding long term environmental  and human interests.

We have identified ‘integrated governance’ as a term our Charter for Responsibility working group is using for the initiative on ‘Responsibility for the Health of Water ecosystems. We are inaugurating the project with a meeting in Samoa in January, with participants anticipating being involved in case studies of integrated governance of various water ecosystems projects in NZ, Australia and Pacific Islands.

Principles which we are working with for integrated governance are linked with the sharing of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries and with the interwoven dimensions of social, economic and environmental dimensions for ‘strong sustainability’. These, along with decision-making for the Long term correspond with principles of the Charter for Human Responsibility.

Principles for integrated governance include:

• Partnership and collaboration
• Working with cultural difference and support for indigenous aspirations regarding land and governance
• Decision-making involving whole systems approaches
• An interdisciplinary approach, involving science, social science, philosophy, economics,  with sharing of knowledge.
• Holding the Long view to ensure resources to support future generations
• Earth related with an ecosystem focus
• Keeping a place for the environment ‘to speak’ at the governance table

Recently I was discussing a  proposal for a housing development, of a style that can be seen all over NZ  for subdividing land into small lifestyle properties or for intense inner city apartment construction. In this case it was a rural area which I had been involved in opposing through provisions of the RMA – in my role as a board member. When I spoke about this to a Maori elder from the area, he said ‘ there’s no problem with development, all that matters is that the quality of water in the stream is protected.

NZ and Pacific as parties to International Conventions:

NZ and many Pacific Island states have become parties to numerous environmental conventions, as well as to UN Covenants for the elimination of racism, and other covenants to safeguard Human Rights.⁴

While noting these environmental covenants, and before identifying them, it seems timely to refer a moment to the recently passed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Key Articles

Simple principles of partnership  include provision for indigenous people to chose their own representatives at forums (and not have these selected ). They also include compensation for the taking of land and other forms of loss.

Articles include:

• Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination, and to determine their political status.
• The right to distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining the right to participate in the life of the State.
• Right to establish educational systems and provide education in their own languages
• The Right to practice and teach spiritual traditions, to protect privacy of cultural sites and control ceremonial objects, and rights to repatriation of human remains.
• Shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.
• the Right to development and to determine priorities for their lands, territories or other resources
• the Right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities

There has been an outcry because of NZ opposed the Declaration , despite years of advocacy and lobbying from Maori for the NZ government to support this indigenous initiative. The Declaration was passed by 143 votes to 4  (with some abstentions) with opposition from New Zealand, Canada, US and Australia. The Declaration was supported by the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Zimbabwe, Netherlands.

A key area identified by one speaker at a local meeting was that opposition by the four states was to protect  Free Trade, with the argument that  Indigenous Nations Treaty rights might constitute an obstacle to the free trade regime because international free trade agreements rest on  non-disputable national sovereignty  – so states ensure there is no diminishment of  territorial sovereignty.

These proclaimed rights have symbolic force which will be realized with duties, or responsibilities to implement them. You will see the difference between our state refusal to support these rights and the Charter for Responsibility Across Oceania project to work with, and support these kinds of principles.

Environmental Conventions

The Pacific Islands and NZ are two of the 25 ‘hot-spots’ in the world, marked as being in environmental crisis. The need for locally-based ecological initiatives integrated with regional and global information was identified in our Responsibility team discussions with  scientists at the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP).

In our project we will therefore bring knowledge of global ecosystems to inform local and regional programmes for protecting biodversity. Protection of fish and birds needs to account for migratory habits -  birds migrate from Alaska to Samoa, Godwits migrate from Siberia to New Zealand and then return to reproduce.   Similarly, long finned eels live in NZ rivers for 80 years then migrate to Tongan waters to spawn and continue ther lifecycle in this habitat for a further 20 years.  Fish migrations mean that local environmental and ecological initiatives have to be matched with corresponding responsibilities in far regions.

Some of the conventions which NZ and Pacific states are party to include:

• UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, covers  territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf. Refers to sustainable fisheries and marine protection
• UN Convention of Biological Diversity
• UN Fish Stocks Agreement – management of migratory species beyond EEZ
• Convention on Conservation of Migratory species – NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits
• Protection of Antarctica – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The UN convention of the Law of the Sea  provides a legal framework for management of oceans. As a signatory New Zealand gained rights and responsibilities for over 4 million sq. kilometers (430 million hectares) of sea, the area of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) arose from the 1992 convention on biological diversity held in Rio de Janiero. The UN convention, which has been ratified by NZ, provides for the setting of national priorities, which are then translated into regional plans and local management regimes. A series of conventions include codes for responsible fishing, provisions for management of migratory fish, and mechanisms for NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits. New Zealand is part of the UN Convention on Environment of the South Pacific Region, as well as being party to treaties on Antarctica,

In the visions and objectives of the UN Conventions, and the ways in which they have been translated into policy in New Zealand, there are general principles which can be identified as:

• The conservation of biological diversity;
• The sustainable use of  resources;
• An ecosystems approach to research, governance and management;
• Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of  utilisating genetic resources.
• Marine Protected Areas as a tool for managing the marine environment
• Community-based natural resource management and conservation initiatives
• Management to ensure freshwater quality and supply
• Sustainable coastal fisheries
• Waste management and pollution prevention
• Learning for best practice in integrated governance and management of coastal watersheds

Current water, oceans, and fishing policies are oriented towards species and resource use, whereas these principles move us towards taking account of the inter-relationships between species, of habitat protection and of the effects of waste disposal in  water and oceans. At present NZ has not proceeded with a comprehensive Oceans Policy as originally promoted, which is attributed to the government’s betrayal of Maori customary interests in the Foreshore and Seabed. Legislation in 2003 foreclosed on customary rights, with an assertion of Crown sovereignty which is parallel to the assertion of territorial sovereignty for trading purposes that we saw with the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are working with another approach to globalization, different from that of corporatized economic growth: which is shared responsibility for the complex inter-connected eco-system of the biosphere, from which emerges the need for protocols that support local, and indigenous approaches to ecological responsibility with international protocols for safeguarding all forms of life.

Concluding  notes

Linking social and environmental responsibility

Our projects on water encompass building a NZ network on responsibility for water, Te Wai Puna Ariki, and a regional project Across Oceania Te Au o Te Moana.  Working with science and social science has led us to bring together social and environmental concerns, and this will be one area we bring to a symposium / assembly in Samoa in January 2008.

One of the big questions of sustainability is how to relate care for the environmental  with responsibility to alleviate poverty.  Development is seen as the pathway to achieve  the freedoms that come with sufficient income to bring access to education, to enhance health and bring the human benefits of enhancing human capacity for social participation and access to technology and knowledge.

Knowledge about climate change and environmental responsibility comes out of science and is access to information. People who are poor in terms of education and access to information are less likely to be informed of the environmental crisis and even less likely to be able to be involved in movements for responsibility or to influence decisions. This may not  be necessarily true of indigenous peoples who may be income poor, but who are resourced with traditional knowledge and unextinguishable responsibilities to the land. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that people’s whose basic needs are not being met cannot give priority to protection of  earth, water and air (Sinner, Baines et al, 2004).

To this end we hold up Amartya Sen’s thesis (Sen 1999) that freedom requires relief from poverty and deprivation and is the basis for the opportunity to realize and express human potential and engage in responsible citizenship.

Callum Coats has asserted that a long-term view is now imperative, taking appropriate steps to respond to an earth in crisis and safeguard the long-term future of life. For this a far more profound knowledge of Nature is necessary, so that whatever is implemented by way of remedial measures, will be in harmonious accordance with Nature’s laws.

References:

Coats, C. (2001) ‘Water the Unifier of Life’ Presentation Paper at the Alliance Workshop ‘Interbeing’ ,Bangalore, South India – 19^th – 23^rd June 2001

Royal, C.  (ed) (2003) The Woven Universe. Selected Writings of Rev. Maori Marsden. The Estate of the Rev. Maori Marsden.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books

Sinner, J.; Baines, J.; Crengel, H.; Salmon, G.; Fenemor, A.; Tipa, G. (2004) ‘Sustainable Development: A summary of Key Concepts’. Ecologic Research Report No. 2.

May you all have a very…