Submitted by
meijers
on Mon, 01/28/2019 - 14:16
General Information
Resolution
46489
Period covered
Activities to implement this Resolution from Activity Reports
| Relevant operative para(s) of Res/Rec | Activities Overview | Description | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convene stakeholders/Networking | There has been little substantial progress in advancing the Whakatane Mechanism (WM) globally since it was reviewed at the CEESP’s Feb 2017 meeting in Gland, & at the Nov 2017 Global Dialogue on Conservation & Human Rights, Kenya (report: http://www.forestpeoples.org/en/environmental-governance-rights-based-conservation/news-article/2017/recognising-real-conflict One strong hope expressed in the CEESP meeting was that such a grievance mechanism could become housed, recognised and resourced within the UN HR system. Little has moved forward. Out of the CEESP meeting a small task force (CEESP, FPP, Natural Justice, WWF, WCS) formed to examine how to prevent conflict between conservation and communities (e.g. conservation standards) and how to resolve current conflicts (e.g. the WM). There have been ongoing discussions on this between CEESP, WWF, WCS, NJ and FPP, but little substantial progress. Additionally there have been meetings where FPP has presented to conservation organisations on the status and need for support for the ongoing Whakatane processes (e.g. at CEESP’s May 2018 Halifax, Nova Scotia, meeting, and at an informal meeting held by FFI in Cambridge in December 2018). Despite the seriousness of the issue, only THREE WMs have happened since 2011, all of which have made clear that the real conflict is not between ecological and community well-being but is driven by powerful state and private forces who divide and rule the better to exploit both. Are conservation organisations by and large preferring the short term easier route of allying with state and private interests to impose protected areas that are completely unsustainable? How can conservation instead champion a healthy relationship with communities against such forces? |
On-going | Full activity report | |
| Field activities | Despite FPP receiving further requests to follow up on the Whakatane Assessment that was held in Thailand in 2012 (see: http://whakatane-mechanism.org/thailand), including at the November 2017 Global Dialogue where the Karen of Thailand spoke of the huge discrimination against indigenous peoples who are not recognised by the Government, and whose forests are being decimated, nothing has come of this so far. In 2018, the stalling dialogue in DRC that the WM had enabled since 2014 (between evicted Batwa at Kahuzi-Biega National Park (PNKB) and ICCN/ PNKB) ground to a halt after one Batwa man searching for medicines on his ancestral lands was shot dead by PNKB eco-guards in 2017. However the conservator was then replaced and current dialogue involving the Batwa, CAMV and ICCN/ PNKB has helped allow the stalled WM to resume, with the need to address the land rights of the Batwa being propelled to the forefront of conservationists and Government attention by hundreds of landless impoverished Batwa returning to their lands in PNKB despite the threat of violence by the eco guards who have shown themselves capable of killing unarmed and peaceful Batwa. The slow but steady progress initiated by the 2011 WM with the Ogiek at Mt Elgon, Kenya, continues. County Government continues to engage positively, but Ministry of Environment has shown no willingness. Meanwhile, the nearby Sengwer indigenous peoples of Cherangany Hills have been suffering violent displacement from their ancestral lands by the Ministry’s Kenya Forest Service, now including the shooting and killing of peaceful community members in early 2018. Only after the killing, and after 3 UN SRs called for suspension, did the EU suspend its forest conservation focused WaTER project, however the violent evictions continue. THREE WM processes are so few for the task. How can we enable the big Conservation organisations to recognise the need to urgently resource and multiply such processes? |
_none | Full activity report |
Actors involved from Activity Reports
| IUCN Members | IUCN Commissions | IUCN Secretariat | Other non-IUCN related organisations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Challenges / lessons learned from Activity Reports
Report status
Published
I. IUCN Constituencies implementing this Resolution
IUCN Members
508E603F-B8A3-E011-96D3-002655853524
World Wide Fund for Nature - Switzerland ( Switzerland )
Forest Peoples Programme ( United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland )
Wildlife Conservation Society ( United States of America )
IUCN Commissions
F317E09E-5094-E611-97F4-005056BA6623
IUCN Secretariat
Yes
Other non-IUCN related organisations
Indigenous peoples organisations and supporting CSOs - e.g. the Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand (IMPECT) in Ob Luang and in Doi Inthanon National Parks in Thailand, the Ogiek's Chepkitale Indigenous Peoples Development Project (CIPDP) at Mt Elgon in Kenya and the Batwa of Kahuzi Biega, DRC, supported by CAMV.
II. Implementation
Activities carried out to implement this Resolution
Convene stakeholders/Networking
Field activities
Describe the results/achievements of the activities
- Representatives from FPP, CEESP and the IUCN Secretariat met to discuss fundraising opportunities for next steps for the Whakatane Mechanism, such as development of a GEF Medium-sized grant concept. As part of this work, it was agreed that the development of next steps should engage and be supported by IUCN’s IPO Members. In addition, this process should involve further development and clarification of the WM’s proposed scope and modes of operation. FFP agreed to draft a set of next steps for sharing and inputs.
- An activity report from FPP noted that there has been little substantial progress in advancing the Whakatane Mechanism (WM) globally since it was reviewed at the CEESP’s Feb 2017 meeting in Gland. There have been ongoing discussions on this between CEESP, WWF, WCS, NJ and FPP, but little substantial progress. Additionally there have been meetings where FPP has presented to conservation organisations on the status and need for support for the ongoing Whakatane processes (e.g. at CEESP’s May 2018 Halifax, Nova Scotia, meeting, and at an informal meeting held by FFI in Cambridge in December 2018). Despite the seriousness of the issue, only three WMs have happened since 2011.
- In 2018, the stalling dialogue in DRC that the WM had enabled since 2014 (between evicted Batwa at Kahuzi-Biega National Park (PNKB) and ICCN/ PNKB) ground to a halt after one Batwa man searching for medicines on his ancestral lands was shot dead by PNKB eco-guards in 2017.
- The slow but steady progress initiated by the 2011 WM with the Ogiek at Mt Elgon, Kenya, continues. County Government continues to engage positively, but Ministry of Environment has shown no willingness. Meanwhile, the nearby Sengwer indigenous peoples of Cherangany Hills have been suffering violent displacement from their ancestral lands by the Ministry’s Kenya Forest Service, now including the shooting and killing of peaceful community members in early 2018.
- There has been some good dialogue at the global level, but the resources have not been committed by major conservation organisations to make this a success.
- An activity report from FPP noted that there has been little substantial progress in advancing the Whakatane Mechanism (WM) globally since it was reviewed at the CEESP’s Feb 2017 meeting in Gland. There have been ongoing discussions on this between CEESP, WWF, WCS, NJ and FPP, but little substantial progress. Additionally there have been meetings where FPP has presented to conservation organisations on the status and need for support for the ongoing Whakatane processes (e.g. at CEESP’s May 2018 Halifax, Nova Scotia, meeting, and at an informal meeting held by FFI in Cambridge in December 2018). Despite the seriousness of the issue, only three WMs have happened since 2011.
- In 2018, the stalling dialogue in DRC that the WM had enabled since 2014 (between evicted Batwa at Kahuzi-Biega National Park (PNKB) and ICCN/ PNKB) ground to a halt after one Batwa man searching for medicines on his ancestral lands was shot dead by PNKB eco-guards in 2017.
- The slow but steady progress initiated by the 2011 WM with the Ogiek at Mt Elgon, Kenya, continues. County Government continues to engage positively, but Ministry of Environment has shown no willingness. Meanwhile, the nearby Sengwer indigenous peoples of Cherangany Hills have been suffering violent displacement from their ancestral lands by the Ministry’s Kenya Forest Service, now including the shooting and killing of peaceful community members in early 2018.
- There has been some good dialogue at the global level, but the resources have not been committed by major conservation organisations to make this a success.
Challenges/obstacles encountered in the implementation of this Resolution and measures taken
As noted above, there are challenges with WM processes at the local level, while at the same time more awareness, institutional support and financial resources are needed to advance efforts.
Future actions / activities needed for the implementation of this Resolution
- Based on a recent meeting, FPP will draft a set of next steps for fundraising opportunities.
- At the local leveL: (i) Continue with DRC dialogue: hopefully expand it to seek legal change at the national level; and (ii) Continue with the Kenya dialogue, but both these require support from the IUCN Secretariat to ICCN (DRC) and ESARO (Kenya) to back these moves; and (iii) Seek active support and funding from IUCN to respond to requests to have WM processes elsewhere.
- At the local leveL: (i) Continue with DRC dialogue: hopefully expand it to seek legal change at the national level; and (ii) Continue with the Kenya dialogue, but both these require support from the IUCN Secretariat to ICCN (DRC) and ESARO (Kenya) to back these moves; and (iii) Seek active support and funding from IUCN to respond to requests to have WM processes elsewhere.
Are these actions/activities planned?
Yes
III. Status of implementation
Implementation status of this Resolution
On-going: implementation consisting of repetitive, recurrent action (attending meetings, reporting, etc.)