Simpson, Tony --- "International Update - Update on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations" [1993] AboriginalLawB 41; (1993) 3(64) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 5

• International Update-Update On The Working Group On Indigenous Populations

---

International Update -
Update on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations

by Tony Simpson

The 11th session of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) was held over ten days during July in Geneva. It was attended by over 300 indigenous leaders and representatives, along with representatives of NGOs, governments and intergovernmental organizations.

The main focus of this year's WGIP was on the text of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also considered current developments affecting indigenous peoples including, in the Australian context, Mabo and the inadequate legislative response to it. The WGIP heard strong criticisms of the references to indigenous rights and the outcome of the UN Vienna Conference on Human Rights, especially the failure of the Conference to clearly and unambigously recognise the collective political rights of indigenous peoples.

The WGIP considered a number of working documents - unfortunately the documents had not been made available in both English and Spanish in advance of the meeting, causing some delays and dissatisfaction among the participants. However, the WGIP was able to complete its public consideration of all of the Articles, hearing critical comments from indigenous participants and some governments.

At the conclusion of the public hearings it was apparent that the WGIP members themselves, the indigenous participants, and government observers were divided on the question as to when the WGIP should complete its work and finally and formally adopt the Declaration and transmit it to the higher UN bodies.

One school of thought was that the WGIP should finalise the text at its private sessions during the month of August when the WGIP members were present at Geneva attending the WGIP's parent body, the SubCommission. This scenario envisaged that the text which was finalised in these private meetings would then have been submitted to the Sub-Commisson at this year's meeting for approval and then transmitted to the government-controlled Commission on Human Rights. This proposal was supported by the Chair of the WGIP, Erica Daes, a number of governments including Brazil, Canada and Australia, as well as some indigenous participants, including some from Australia.

An alternative proposal supported by WGIP Alfonso Martinez and an increasing number of indigenous leaders from North America, Latin America, Aotearoa and some Australian indigenous representatives requested the WGIP to defer the finalisation of the Declaration until next year's session so that indigenous groups would have an opportunity to review and respond to the text which the WGIP produced during its private sessions. This proposal envisaged the WGIP taking into account the indigenous response before it concluded its deliberations on the text.

Briefly, the outcome of the debate - which at times was quite intense - at the end of the month long meeting of the Human Rights Sub- Commission was a compromise along the following lines:

• the WGIP' agreed' upon, but did not 'adopt' a final text
• that text will be forwarded to the UN Secretariat for technical review for transmission to indigenous groups and communites as well as governments by March 1994, with a note indicating that the text would not be amended by the WGIP at its future sessions
• the WGIP will adopt, in open session at its July 1994 session, the text which had been circulated
• indigenous representatives will be able to comment on the text at the 1994 WGIP meeting and the report of their comments will accompany the Declaration when it is forwarded to the Sub-Commission for its consideration
• the Sub-Commission will, 'if possible', forward the text to the governmentcontrolled Commission on Human Rights so that the Commission can begin its negotiations on the final outcome of the Declaration at its session in February-March 1995

The outcome will not meet all of the concerns of indigenous representatives who considered that a final review from an indigenous perspective should have been taken into account by the WGIP before its adoption. Many considered that this procedure would have enhanced the integrity of the process of adopting the document. Others will be disappointed that the process has been delayed for another year.

In relation to the content of the Declaration, the area of greatest concern to indigenous participants will most likely centre around Article 31 which deals with a limited form of political control by indigenous peoples. In other important respects, such as control over land and resources, culture, and internal matters, the Declaration is undoubtedly a major advance on existing national and international standards and if adopted by the General Assembly and applied globally would benefit millions of indigenous peoples. The AboriginalLB will endeavour to follow and report on the progress of the Declaration in future issues.