COPENHAGEN and Beyond Copenhagen|IEN ACTION PLATFORM FOR COP 15 and COP+

I N D I G E N O U S  E N V I R O N M E N T A L  N E T W O R K

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RED ROAD TO

COPENHAGEN and Beyond Copenhagen

IEN ACTION PLATFORM FOR COP 15 and COP+

The goal of the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009 is to finish negotiations and decide what

the world will do when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) expires in 2012. The Bali Action Plan

(also known as the Bali Roadmap adopted at the UNFCCC COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia 2007) agreed upon a

comprehensive 2-year process in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at COP 15. The Plan is

based upon “a shared vision for long-term cooperative action (LCA), including a long-term global goal for emission

reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions and principles of

the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,

and taking into account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors”.

The Bali Roadmap includes measures for preserving tropical rainforests and helping poor countries adapt to a green

economy. The agreement leaves many contentious issues unresolved. The plan simply lays out a process to

negotiate the emissions targets to succeed the limits set by Kyoto Protocol (KP) in its first commitment period, which

expires in 2012. It also provides a platform to begin talks to address growing concerns about adaption, deforestation

and facilitating transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. There is a push for countries to finish these

negotiations at Copenhagen for an effective, comprehensive and equitable climate change regime beyond 2012

(called the 2nd commitment period). They want to make sure there is no gap between the 1st and 2nd commitment

period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP).

At the conclusion of the Barcelona Climate Talks in November 2009, there was hope by governmental negotiators

and some NGOs that an international legally binding agreement could still be negotiated in Copenhagen especially

with lobbying pressure and civil society actions and activism as part of an inside-outside strategy.. The Danish

government had proposed a political agreement be achieved in Copenhagen as a way to salvage something in case

a binding agreement was not agreed upon. At a recent summit meeting between U.S. president Obama and the

leadership of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in November 2009, Obama firmed the U.S. position to

delay a formal agreement until next year 2010. In a meeting with China, Obama and China agreed to come to

Copenhagen to set emission targets within a political accord, but not as part of a formal binding agreement.

However, the developing countries of G77 are coming to Copenhagen demanding an international legally binding

agreement be achieved, focusing on amending the Kyoto Protocol.

There has been an expressed need for Indigenous Peoples from the South and North to have our own Action Plan –

our own Road Map to Copenhagen. The Bali Action Plan has no mention of Indigenous Peoples or recognition of our

collective rights as indigenous peoples, including our rights to lands, territories and resources, and to ensure our full

and effective participation including free prior and informed consent on all matters relating to climate policy at subnational,

national and international levels. There is no recognition of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) that

could be useful in mitigation and adaptation measures. We recognize the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on

Climate Change (IIPFCC) that has been active every year operating as the Indigenous Caucus within the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its subsidiary bodies. Since the 4th Conference

of Parties (COP 4) of the UNFCCC, Indigenous Peoples have participated in the UNFCCC meetings. The IIPFCC,

the Indigenous Environmental Network and other Indigenous groups from every region of Mother Earth have been

active in these annual international meetings providing guidance to this Indigenous Peoples Road Map to

Copenhagen and Beyond Copenhagen.

Some of the core elements being discussed in Copenhagen COP 15:

• · Shared Vision
• · Carbon emissions reduction targets by industrialized countries (Annex 1).
• · Adaptation
• · Clean Development Mechanisms Beyond the Kyoto Protocol
• · Measures to reduce deforestation – REDD.
• · Moratorium on new fossil fuel development
• · Other Platform positions

1. SHARED VISION: Shared vision political outcome paragraph to be lobbied within the

Copenhagen Share Vision section of the negotiations. This paragraph is on the priority on

Indigenous Peoples’ rights for the overarching principles of the Copenhagen outcomes.

Platform 1: Acknowledging and determined to respect international human rights

standards that establish moral and legal obligations to protect and promote the full

enjoyment of indigenous peoples’ collective rights in the context of climate change,

including their rights to their lands, territories and resources, traditional knowledge, their

free, prior and informed consent consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and their full and effective participation in all climate

change related processes at the global, regional, national and local levels.

The shared vision must acknowledge the future survival of the Circle of Life – the rights of Mother Earth –

the biodiversity and ecological systems including the survival and affirm the vital role of Indigenous

Peoples and local communities. It is the Indigenous Peoples who have the knowledge to teach the world

on how to adapt and how to ensure a paradigm shift from the current economic model of development.

The shared vision must acknowledge the historical responsibility of developed countries in terms of

causing a climate debt, which comprises an ecological, adaptation and an emissions debt. The shared

vision must emphasize the need to take into account the historical responsibility of developed countries

for the generation of emissions and their inequitable use of atmospheric space, denying developing

countries the environmental space needed for their well-being and sustainable development. Only when

the climate debt of the developed countries – their historical responsibility for both adaptation and

mitigation is addressed – will the equity principle have been fulfilled and development for all nations will

become possible.

The shared vision must provide for ambitious action to rapidly stabilize the concentrations of

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ensure temperature rise is well below 350 ppm (parts per million)

CO2 equivalent and for temperature rise to be limited to no more than 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees

Fahrenheit). Stabilization of GHG emissions should be very ambitious and ensure the right of all

countries and Mother Earth as we know her, to survive. The shared vision must acknowledge the

urgency for developed countries to have deeper cuts in emissions to enable adequate space for

developing countries to be effective in sustainable development initiatives and the eradication of

poverty.

The shared vision must reflect the urgency of action and must recognize the needs of Small-Island

States, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the communities of the Arctic regions. Impacts on the

Small-Island States, LDCs and Arctic communities should be a key benchmark.

The long-term global goal should focus on how to enable implementation of mitigation and adaptation

actions. The vision must include technology transfer and the provision of financial resources. Within

States where there are Indigenous Peoples, this financial and technological support should have

mechanisms for this support to go directly to Indigenous Peoples who are doing their own mitigation

and adaptation measures.

The world has recognized that climate change is happening much faster that the science has predicted

and that an ambitious and urgent response is required. The shared vision must acknowledge the need to

accelerate the pace of negotiations and seek convergence and consolidation. The long-term goal for

climate mitigation must be based upon the most recent science and the precautionary principle.

2. RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND FULL AND EFFECTIVE

PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN UNFCCC

Support language to be inserted within all appropriate negotiating protocols and agreements of the

Convention (UNFCCC), its subsidiary bodies, the Kyoto Protocol and specifically advocating for

language within the UNFCCC Non-Paper 39, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action

(AWG-LCA) under the Convention, Subgroup on paragraph 1(b) (iii) of the Bali Action Plan, language to

be supported:

Platform 2: In accordance with applicable universal human rights instruments and

agreements, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples, and taking into account national circumstances, and legislation that is in

compliance with universal human rights standards, ensure respect for the knowledge

and rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights to lands, territories and

resources, and the rights of members of local communities and to ensure their full and

effective participation including free prior and informed consent.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must uphold the inherent and

fundamental human rights and status of Indigenous Peoples, affirmed in the United Nations Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and other international human rights instruments and

agreements. The term “peoples” is recognition of the fact that Indigenous Peoples are peoples with the

collective right to self-determination as recognized in the UNDRIP, and are diverse and not a

homogenous entity. UNDRIP adopted in 2007, clearly defines Indigenous Peoples are being distinct

peoples, belonging to diverse communities. This terminology is also recognized in the International

Labor Organization Convention No. 169.

On the road to Copenhagen and beyond COP15, the rights of Indigenous Peoples and recognition of the

UNDRIP must be inserted in appropriate sections of negotiated text. It is noted that most countries in

the world today, including those 144 countries who voted in favor of the adoption by the UN General

Assembly of the UNDRIP, do not have existing national legislation on Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It is

crucial that the UNDRIP is entered into negotiating text for it is recognized as the minimum international

standard for the survival, protection and well-being of Indigenous Peoples and remain as a framework

for the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC has yet to fully recognize Indigenous Peoples as key participants.

Indigenous Peoples must be fully recognized and respected in all decision-making processes and

activities related to climate change. This includes our rights to our lands, forests, territories,

environment and natural resources as contained in Articles 25–30 of the UNDRIP. When specific

programs and projects affect our lands, territories, environment and natural resources, the right of self

determination of Indigenous Peoples must be recognized and respected, emphasizing our right to Free,

Prior and Informed Consent, including the right to say “no”.

3. CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS BY ANNEX 1 COUNTRIES

Platform 3: Support a binding aggregate emissions reduction target for developed

countries (Annex 1) of 49% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 95% by 2050. Support all

national and global actions to stabilize CO2 concentrations below 350 parts per million

(ppm) and limiting temperature increases to below 1.5ºc.

Within the UNFCCC, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the

Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) is the body that was formed in 2005 to discuss and eventually recommend the

scale of commitments by Annex 1 Parties (developed countries) in reducing their greenhouse gas

emissions in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period which

commenced in 2008 expires in 2012 (the existing Kyoto Protocol). Developing countries are frustrated

that Annex I countries are delaying in putting forward the proposed scale of emission reductions for the

second period of commitment, despite the fact that the AWG-KP has been working close to four years

now. There is a general opinion that accepts a fundamental principle that developed countries shall take

the lead in combating climate change. While Annex 1 countries are failing to make progress, small island

communities in the Pacific and communities in the Arctic regions are experiencing climate impacts now.

Indigenous Peoples must call for the most stringent and binding emission reduction targets. A growing

body of western scientific evidence now suggests what Indigenous Peoples have expressed for a long

time: Life as we know it is in danger. Western scientists tell us that climate change is accelerating, that

changes are happening faster than expected. Western science tells us that global emissions need to

peak within the next ten years. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) prescriptions, it reports for all developed countries to take on reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions by 2020 in the range of 25 to 40 percent based on 1990 levels. At COP 15 in Copenhagen, one

of its goals is for the States to agree on a post-Kyoto Protocol binding emissions reduction target

agreement.

New scientific information made available since the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report shows that

changes in ocean acidification, melting of permafrost, and ice melting are happening much faster than

projected by the IPCC. Objectives must be made to reach stabilization of GHG concentrations at well

below 350 parts per million (PPM) and to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees centigrade (see

below), based on pre-industrial levels, noting that emissions must peak in 2015. The IPCC report

recommends that Annex I countries must make reductions of more than 40% by 2020 and more than

95% by 2050 below 1990 levels. This supports the positions of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS),

Least Developed Countries (LDC) that are calling for 45% by 2020 and Bolivia that is calling for 49% by

2020, for the U.S. and Annex I countries to take on emission reductions significantly deeper than those

set out in the IPCC Reports. The developing countries have been demanding the U.S. and other Annex 1

countries reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020, at 1990 levels. Currently, U.S. climate legislation in the

House and Senate are proposing 6-9% reduction levels by 2020, using 1990 levels. This is unacceptable.

As Indigenous Peoples, we must raise the bar. As Indigenous Peoples, we are the guardians of Mother

Earth, and must make principled stands for the global well-being of all people and all life.

From 20 – 24 April, 2009, Indigenous representatives from the Arctic, North America, Asia, Pacific, Latin

America, Africa, Caribbean, and Russia met in Anchorage, Alaska for the first Indigenous Peoples’ Global

Summit on Climate Change. The Anchorage Declaration, which represents the collective positions of the

over 300 Indigenous Peoples’ present in Anchorage, supported the carbon emissions reduction target of

45% reduction by 2020 under 1990 levels.

Parts per million (PPM) is a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio

of the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million other molecules in the atmosphere. For all of

human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million (PPM) of

carbon dioxide (CO2). The modern world is taking millions of year’s worth of carbon, stored beneath

Mother Earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere. The planet now has 387 parts per

million CO2 – and this number is rising by about 2 parts per million every year. Scientists are now saying

that’s too much – that number is higher than any time seen in the recorded history of our planet – and

we’re already beginning to see disastrous impacts on people and places all over the world. These

impacts are combining to exacerbate conflicts and security issues in already resource-strapped regions.

The Arctic is sending us perhaps the clearest message that climate change is occurring much more

rapidly than scientists previously thought. In the summer of 2007, sea ice was roughly 39% below the

summer average for 1979-2000, a loss of area equal to nearly five United Kingdom’s. Many scientists

now believe the Arctic will be completely ice free in the summertime between 2011 and 2015, some 80

years ahead of what scientists had predicted just a few years ago.

Propelled by the news of these accelerating impacts, some of the world’s leading climate scientists have

now revised the highest safe level of CO2 to 350 parts per million.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report stated that even 2 degrees C (3.6

F) above pre-industrial levels is likely to have serious impacts, especially in terms of stressing water

supplies and creating more malnutrition, disease, and drought. Through 2008, the global average

temperature had already warmed roughly 0.7 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels, meaning that

by some measures we’re already one third of the way toward hitting the 2 degree ceiling. And

temperatures are now rising faster than in earlier decades in the 20th century. Governments of the

world, at Copenhagen and beyond Copenhagen must decide for ambitious action to rapidly stabilize the

concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ensure temperature rise is well below 350 ppm

(parts per million) CO2 equivalent and for temperature rise to be limited to no more than 1.5 degree

Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Stabilization of GHG emissions should be very ambitious and ensure

the right of all countries and Mother Earth as we know her, to survive.

4. ADAPTATION

Platform 4: Indigenous Peoples call for effective, well-funded adaptation safety nets, at

the domestic and international level for Indigenous Peoples. A common, but

differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect indigenous Peoples, who in many

regions, in both developed and developing countries are most vulnerable to climate

change and who currently are experiencing climate related impacts.

The Bali Action Plan: paragraph 1 (c) on “Enhanced action on adaptation” which spells out the need for

urgent implementation of adaptation actions is now being discussed under the Ad Hoc Working Group

on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). While all agree on the need for adaptation measures,

differences appear among countries on two counts: a) the question of responsibility and b) where the

money is to come from. Within these debates, the issues of adaptation by of our indigenous

communities are not being adequately addressed – neither at the international nor national (domestic)

level.

Adaptation to climate change is vital: its impacts are already happening, as observed by our Indigenous

Peoples from the Arctic regions, to the hunters and gatherers of North America, to the people of the

Pacific Rim and oceans, to the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Russia. Shortages of

water and food, increased strength of tropical storms, coastal inundation, acidification of the oceans,

droughts and changing spread of disease vectors will all lead to greater risks to health and life for billions

of people, particularly our land-and-water-based indigenous communities in both developed and

developing countries.

There are many options and opportunities for countries to adapt, with adjustments and changes

required at every level: community, national and international. Appropriate adaptation strategies

involve a synergy of the correct assessment of current vulnerabilities to climate change impacts; use of

appropriate technologies; and information on traditional coping practices, diversified livelihoods and

current government and local interventions. National and international adaptation strategies could

benefit from knowledge of community-based adaptation measures and local coping strategies of our

indigenous communities.

Frameworks for setting up adaptation funding must be linked to GHG emissions, based on the polluter

pays principle, with criteria established for contributions and for prioritization of resources. Adaptation

funding mechanisms must be prioritized for meeting the adaptation needs of Indigenous Peoples – from

both developed and developing countries.

5. CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS (CDM) – Beyond Kyoto Protocol

Platform 5: Industrialized countries will need to meet their obligations for financial

transfers in a way that is independent from and additional to their emission reduction

obligations. Several non-offsetting public and other funding mechanisms to help

developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate have recently been

proposed for the post-2012 regime. Carefully constructed public and other fund-based

approaches must replace offsetting in any post-2012 international agreement that stands

a chance of pulling Mother Earth back from climate disaster.

The CDM was established under the Kyoto Protocol with the stated aims of reducing the crisis of cutting

greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries (Annex 1 developed countries), and promoting

sustainable development in developing countries. Under these carbon-emission trading regimes,

developed industrialized countries of the North can earn credits to offset against their emission targets

by funding clean technologies, such as solar power, mega-hydro electric dams, in poorer countries of the

global South. Countries can also claim credits for planting trees that soak up CO2 – so-called carbon

“sinks”. The offset buyers – industrialized country companies, energy and oil transnational corporations

and governments – use the credits to show compliance with Kyoto Protocol-mandated emissions

reductions. The Kyoto Protocol also provides for “Flexible Mechanisms” – which are mechanisms for

countries to reach their emission targets without actually reducing emissions at home. These include

emissions trading – where one country buys the right to emit from another country which has already

reduced its emissions sufficiently and has “spare” emissions reductions.

Unfortunately, since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, mechanisms such as the CDM has failed

to meet either of its goals and emerging concerns that it is undermining the effectiveness of the Kyoto

Protocol. A significant proportion, perhaps the majority of CDM credits are from projects that do not

actually reduce emissions. Some projects applying for the CDM are causing serious social and

environmental harm, and human right violations. There are increases in reports of the implementation

of CDM having structural flaws and cheating by project developers.

Other concerns with CDMs are: offsetting will provide little, if any, benefit to Least Develop Countries

(LDCs) and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS); unfair share of climate burden for developing

countries; CDM is fundamentally biased towards larger developing countries and double, triple and even

quadruple counting of offsets. Many developed countries have clearly stated their intention to use

financial flows from carbon offsets as an excuse to escape from their financial obligations to developing

countries for mitigation and adaptation under the UNFCCC Convention and the Bali Action Plan.

Developed countries plan to double count their international offsets b y ; (1) counting emission

reductions from offsets in a developing country as meeting the developed country’s mitigation target,

and (2) counting financial flows from offset projects as fulfilling the developed country’s financial

obligations to developing countries. There is even potential for triple and quadruple counting. Triple

counting comes from developed countries counting any climate-related financial flows toward their

official development assistance (ODA) obligations. Quadruple counting would come into play when both

a developed and a developing country claim emission reductions from the same offset project as

mitigation in each respective country, even though a reduction can only actually occur in one location.

Deep emissions cuts by industrialized countries will be necessary in the years after the first phase of

Kyoto expires in 2012, as will much larger financial flows to support shifts towards low-carbon

development paths in developing countries (and for helping these countries lessen the impacts of

climate chaos). For all the reasons described above, it is clear that the CDM will undermine these goals if

it continues as an offsetting mechanism beyond 2012. Industrialized countries will need to meet their

obligations for financial transfers in a way that is independent from and additional to their emission

reduction obligations. Carefully constructed fund-based approaches must replace offsetting in any post-

2012 international agreement that stands a chance of pulling Mother Earth back from climate disaster.

6. REDD (REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION AND FOREST

DEGRADATION) and REDD Plus

Platform 6: As a result of lack of guarantees and assurances that the rights of Indigenous

peoples are recognized, we call for the suspension of all REDD/REDD+ initiatives in the

territories of forest dependent Indigenous Peoples and local communities within

developing countries until such a time that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are fully

recognized and promoted. Indigenous Peoples’ land, forests and natural resource rights

must be recognized prior to the inclusion of forest dependant Indigenous Peoples and

local communities’ lands, territories and forests in REDD/REDD+ and carbon offset

schemes.

Indigenous Peoples recognize the position of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate

Change (IIPFCC), which reiterates that Indigenous Peoples have been, and continue to be, the primary

guardians of forests. For generations, Indigenous Peoples have managed to utilize forests resources in a

sustainable manner. Forests have not only provided shelter and food to Indigenous Peoples; they also

form the basis of many cultures, and have various spiritual and cultural values for us that cannot be

expressed in monetary values. In addition, many of the forests being considered for utilization in

REDD/REDD+ (Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Desertification) and other carbon trading and

offset mechanisms are located within our ancestral lands and territories.

It is recognized that many Indigenous Peoples within the forested regions, at the grassroots level are in

opposition to the commercialization and commodification of forests and recommend that Parties and

other key stakeholders involved in the UNFCCC and other international and national climate policy and

mitigation initiatives be educated to understand the different, holistic world view of Indigenous Peoples

and to understand the different values that forests have for Indigenous Peoples and for humankind.

Climate change mitigation and sustainable forest management must be based on different mindsets

with full respect for Nature, and not solely on market-based mechanisms. It must be acknowledged that

the trading of carbon means the ownership of atmosphere and privatization of air that conflict with

indigenous spiritual values, cosmovisions and worldviews. REDD is a property right issue concerning

forests and carbon. With some indigenous communities it is difficult and sometimes impossible to

reconcile with traditional cosmovision beliefs the participation in REDD and carbon offset projects that

provide monetary benefits for use of traditional knowledge, payments from a commodification system

and compensation for environmental services.

Other concerns with REDD/REDD+

There are other issues to be resolved concerning the implementation of REDD/REDD+ (see an IEN report

booklet on REDD). Some of these are: alternative mechanism for financing for REDD, taking the carbon

market out of the conservation of forests; concerns with a potential reality that REDD will always remain

a component of the carbon market, with opinions that the money behind it was always going to come

mainly from industrialized countries and large corporations looking for more pollution licenses to enable

them to delay action on climate change; concerns that even the technical structure of REDD reflects its

market orientation(REDD posits a numerical climatic equivalence between saving forests and reducing

the burning of fossil fuels. This equation is indefensible scientifically. Its only function is to make different

things tradable in order to generate fossil fuel pollution licenses. A non-market REDD would not need to

claim this false equivalence between biotic and fossil carbon); concerns that REDD will always be a

speculative plaything of the financial markets – to the detriment of the climate and human rights alike;

concerns that already, the biggest investors in carbon credits are not companies that need them in order

to meet their government-regulated pollution targets, but Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs;

concerns with methodologies to calculate emissions reductions; concerns on the question of who owns

the forest and the carbon in the trees; concerns with how REDD is utilized by northern countries to

mitigate and meet their emission reduction targets and how this offsetting of their emissions in the

North creates toxic hotspots to local communities and violates the rights of Indigenous Peoples of the

North; concerns with how the provisions of the UNDRIP and the standards of FPIC would be recognized

and implemented at the national and sub-national level, whereby in some countries, the rights of

Indigenous Peoples and rights to land are not recognized; concerns that if REDD is used to offset

emissions in the developed world, then it would flood the carbon market, depress carbon prices and

slow the transition to clean energy.

Platform 7: As Indigenous Peoples continue to question and resist the implementation of

REDD, it is recognized that many REDD/REDD+ initiatives are being fast-tracked by the

UNREDD Program and the World Bank. In these situations, Indigenous Peoples must be

empowered, as part of continuous Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes, to

decide whether and how they wish to participate within the REDD framework, ensure the

full recognition of their collective rights in such participation, and build further capacity

in order to ensure continued full and effective participation within the REDD framework.

Parties must implement the standards of FPIC and the principles of full and effective

participation a n d in accordance with universal human rights instruments and

agreements, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples further acknowledges the potential participation of Indigenous Peoples who decide,

through a process of FPIC, to participate in REDD and carbon offset initiatives. We recognize that

Indigenous Peoples are diverse communities with differing values and needs occupying different types

of forests. We affirm that Indigenous Peoples have the right and capacity to decide whether their lands

should be considered for REDD/REDD+ or other carbon offset projects. In these cases, Indigenous

Peoples must be empowered, as part of continuous FPIC processes, to decide whether and how they

wish to participate within the REDD and other carbon offset frameworks, to ensure the full recognition

of their rights in such participation, and to build further capacity for full and effective participation, and

benefit sharing within the REDD and carbon offset frameworks as the most natural guardians of the

forest lands.

Platform 8: Related to REDD+, we are demanding the public and other funding

mechanisms for REDD be directly funded rather than tied to the carbon market. This

would ensure for more environmental integrity. Forest conservation and protection of

forest biodiversity can be funded by non-carbon offset mechanisms, including

adaptation activities related to forests. The following points must be considered:

1. A publically fund-based mechanism that allows for equitable distribution of funds.

2. Not allow for off-set mechanisms.

3. Able to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local forest-dependent

communities as there is no transfer of rights of carbon ownership to the market.

4. Ensures sovereignty and national as well as local control over REDD+ activities.

5. Monoculture tree plantations not be defined as part of a sustainable forest system.

Other positions to advocate for at Copenhagen and beyond:

Platform 9: Support Indigenous Peoples’ request the UNFCCC’s decision-making bodies

to establish formal structures and mechanisms for and with the full and effective

participation of Indigenous Peoples.

Platform 10: Support Indigenous Peoples’ request that the UNFCCC organize regular

Technical Briefings by Indigenous Peoples on traditional knowledge and climate change;

Phase-Out and Moratorium of Fossil Fuels

Platform 11: Establish a process that works towards the full phase-out of fossil fuels,

without nuclear power, with a just transition to sustainable jobs, energy and

environment. We are against the expansion of and new exploration for the extraction of

oil, natural gas and coal within and near Indigenous lands, especially in pristine

environments.

Reducing carbon emissions has to mean ending fossil fuel exploration and shifting to renewable

energies. These could play a substantial role in achieving the cuts we need, but only when coupled with

a low-consumption lifestyle.

False Solutions

Platform 12: We challenge States to abandon false solutions to climate change that

negatively impact Indigenous Peoples’ rights, lands, air, oceans, forests, territories and

waters. These include nuclear energy, large-scale dams, geo-engineering techniques,

“clean coal”, agro-fuels, plantations, and market based mechanisms such as carbon

trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, and forest offsets. The rights of Indigenous

Peoples to protect our forests and forest livelihoods must be ensured.

Platform 13: We call upon the UNFCCC to explicitly exclude financial support to

monoculture tree plantations from any mechanisms, funds, investment programs,

financial facilities that may be established to address deforestation and forest

degradation.

From 20-24 April, 2009, Indigenous representatives from the Arctic, North America, Asia, Pacific, Latin

America, Africa, Caribbean and Russia met in Anchorage, Alaska for the Indigenous Peoples’ Global

Summit on Climate Change. IEN fully supports the consensus statement of the Summit that reads as

follows:

Fund to be established for Indigenous Peoples Participation in Climate Processes

Platform 13: We call for adequate and direct funding in developed and developing States

and for a fund to be created to enable Indigenous Peoples’ full and effective participation

in all climate processes, including adaptation, mitigation, monitoring and transfer of

appropriate technologies in order to foster our empowerment, capacity-building, and

education. We strongly urge relevant United Nations bodies to facilitate and fund the

participation, education, and capacity building of Indigenous youth and women to ensure

engagement in all international and national processes related to climate change.

For more information:

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) is a member Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO) of the

International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC). IIPFCC is the recognized Indigenous

Peoples Caucus within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For American

Indian and Alaska Natives, Canadian First Nations, Aboriginal Peoples and Métis, and Indigenous Peoples

of the world to participate in the international UN climate talks, please contact IEN for regional (global)

contacts.

The Anchorage Declaration: http://www.indigenoussummit.com/servlet/content/declaration.html

The IEN REDD Report Booklet: http://www.ienearth.org

Reports from the UN Climate Talks by Third World Network: http://www.twnside.org.sq/climate.htm

Other Useful Information and Reports:

Friends of the Earth: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/carbon_trading_05112009.html

International Rivers Network: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/global-warming

REDD Monitor: http://www.redd-monitor.org/

Tebtebba-Guide on Climate Change and IPs: http://www.tebtebba.org/

INDIGENOUS ENVIROMENTAL NETWORK

Main office: P.O. Box 485, Bemidji, Minnesota USA 56619

Telephone: + 1 218 751 4967; Fax: + 1 218 751 0561

Email: ien@igc.org (Tom Goldtooth, ED); ienenergy@igc.org (Jihan Gearon, NECP)

Web: www.ienearth.org

http://www.ienearth.org/docs/INDIGENOUS_PEOPLES_ROAD_MAP_TO_COPENHAGEN_Final%20November_2009.pdf