Reporter1 – The Voices of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia

Cambodia’s Pioneering Report on Indigenous Peoples

In a groundbreaking move, Cambodia has become the first country in Southeast Asia to produce a comprehensive National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia. This pioneering document marks a significant step forward in understanding and addressing the unique challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples in the Kingdom.

During the official launch of the report on December 12, Chea Chantum, Deputy Secretary of State of the Ministry of Planning, emphasized its significance. “This national report on Indigenous peoples is part of Cambodia’s history,” he stated, underscoring the report’s importance as a milestone in the nation’s development.

The 69-year-old elder representative of Indigenous women, Dam Chanthy, echoed this statement, regarding the report as a historic achievement for Cambodia. She mentioned that this is the first time an Asian country has produced such a comprehensive and detailed report on Indigenous Peoples, showing critical contexts of education, socio-economic conditions, and demographics.

This report aims to bridge existing data gaps and provide a foundation for evidence-based policy-making tailored to the needs of Indigenous communities, addressing challenges in accessing public services, protecting land and natural resources, and promoting culturally appropriate development initiatives.

The national report on the demographic and socio-economic status of IPs in Cambodia will be instrumental in guiding the implementation of the National Policy for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, raising awareness, and informing future research.

Yun Mane, Executive Director of the Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization, emphasized the report’s alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly the principle of “leaving no one behind.” She noted that the 2030 Agenda aims to address global social, economic, and political disparities faced by Indigenous Peoples. This report, she said, is a testament to Cambodia’s commitment to these goals and represents a historic achievement for the nation.

She continues, “I am very proud of this achievement and have always considered this report a historic achievement for our nation. It is one of many achievements of the government and partner organizations that have strengthened support for a clearer and better understanding of Indigenous peoples in Cambodia.”

This report not only provides critical data on the status of Indigenous Peoples but also highlights the government’s commitment and struggle to promote the cultures and livelihoods of the Indigenous communities in Cambodia.

Among its key findings, the report reveals disproportionately high poverty rates, limited access to healthcare, and lower educational attainment among Indigenous communities. These findings underscore the urgent need for more equitable and inclusive development policies that address the specific needs of these marginalized groups.

The groundbreaking National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a significant step forward in understanding and addressing the challenges faced by Indigenous communities. However, there are several areas for improvement to ensure the report’s accuracy, accessibility, and relevance to both Indigenous communities and the broader public.

Firstly, while the report provides valuable insights into the education, socio-economic conditions, and demographics of Indigenous Peoples, it lacks detailed information on the challenges they face in protecting their land and natural resources. Conducting on-the-ground research is crucial to ensure that the data accurately reflects the realities of Indigenous communities. If the report includes these challenges, it would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the barriers Indigenous peoples face. This would not only improve the report’s credibility but also inform more targeted and effective policy interventions.

Secondly, this report is useful for the public and stakeholders to better understand the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, and it is helpful to design their development initiatives for the needs of these communities. However, as highlighted by the Swiss Representative, more work is needed to ensure that policies are inclusive and responsive to the unique dynamics of Indigenous communities.

Thirdly, conducting the research requires more effort, time, and funds to support the research process. Recently, some development partners have paid less attention to support for producing the data on Indigenous peoples. “We must ensure that Indigenous peoples are not left behind and not pushed behind,” Sanda UNFPA Representative emphasized during the launching of the report on 12 December 2024.

Lastly, the report paper still looks like an academic paper, so local communities and Indigenous communities with low literacy would find it difficult to understand and unable to read the report. To address this, the Ministry of Planning and relevant stakeholders could design a simplified version of the report to share with the Indigenous communities in the coming months. By doing so, the report can become a tool for empowerment, enabling Indigenous Peoples to actively participate in discussions and decisions that affect their lives.

The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia is the result of a collaborative effort that began with a pivotal national reflection workshop held in Siem Reap Province in 2017. Organized by the Department of Ethnic Minority Development, the workshop aimed to address the lack of comprehensive data on Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, which had long hindered the development of targeted national policies and plans.

H.E. Bin Troachhey presides over the Report Launching Cereymony in Phnom Penh, Photo by Tong Len

During the workshop, Secretary State Poch Bunnak, Ministry of Planning, highlighted clear data on Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia and emphasized the critical need for accurate and detailed data, as it is essential for designing inclusive and effective national development plans that address the unique challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples.

The first edition of the report was published and launched in 2021 by the General Secretariat for Population and Development (GSPD), the Ministry of Planning, in collaboration with the Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Alliance (CIPA) and the Inter-Institutions Working Group on Indigenous Data and Report. The groundbreaking report marked a significant milestone in Cambodia’s efforts to recognize and support its Indigenous communities. Building on this foundation, the second edition of the report was launched and updated in 2024, incorporating updated data from national censuses and surveys. The report updated in 2024 provides a more comprehensive and detailed overview of the demographic and socio-economic status of Indigenous Peoples, serving as a tool for targeted planning, policy-making, and initiatives for the protection, conservation, and development of Indigenous communities in Cambodia.

The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a transformative step toward greater recognition, empowerment, and inclusion of Indigenous communities in the country’s development agenda. “Together, we can lift these communities, honor their heritage, and strengthen Cambodia’s socio-economic fabric,” Mr. Reto GRÜNINGER, Director of Cooperation, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC in Cambodia, aptly stated. This statement underscores the importance of collective action in ensuring that Indigenous Peoples are not left behind in Cambodia’s journey toward sustainable development.

Deputy Secretary of State Chea Chantum of the Ministry of Planning also stressed the ongoing need for support, noting, “Even if Cambodia leaves poverty by 2030, donors and development partners must not abandon Indigenous Peoples.” This call to action highlights the necessity of concerted commitment from all stakeholders to address the unique challenges, including poverty, limited access to healthcare and education, and the protection of land and natural resources.

The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a transformative step towards greater recognition, empowerment, and inclusion of Indigenous communities in the country’s development agenda and sustainable development goals. By continuing to prioritize the inclusion and empowerment of Indigenous Peoples, Cambodia can set a powerful example for other nations in the region and beyond, fostering a more equitable and inclusive society for all.

Co-written by: Blen Romam & Rim Sarem, Indigenous Youth Writing Project (IYWP)

Unfinished Progress: The Reality of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia

On 12 December 2024, Cambodia unveiled a new chapter in understanding its Indigenous peoples with the launch of the National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia. This report doesn’t just offer statistics—it tells the story of communities rich in culture yet persistently marginalized.

The report lays bare the juxtaposition of progress and inequity. Literacy rates among Indigenous peoples have climbed, school enrollment has surged, and more households now enjoy access to electricity. But when the data is peeled back, it reveals a reality as complex as it is troubling.

The Youthful Face of Indigenous Cambodia

Indigenous communities are young. Their median age of 21 years is a stark contrast to Cambodia’s median of 26. This could be their strength, a reservoir of energy to drive change. Yet, early marriages for girls, limited educational attainment, and high fertility rates stifle their potential. In rural areas, over half of Indigenous women marry before age 19, locking them into cycles of early motherhood and economic dependence.

The young workforce holds promise, but opportunities are scarce. The labor force participation rate is high—an impressive 85.2%—yet most of these jobs are in agriculture, where livelihoods are precarious. For women, unpaid labor dominates, painting a grim picture of economic inequity.

A Health and Hygiene Crisis

Health data further illuminate the struggles. Indigenous children and adults face higher rates of illness than their Cambodian counterparts, with poor access to healthcare exacerbating these conditions. Hygiene is a glaring issue—over half of Indigenous households lack toilets, a figure that dwarfs the national average. Water remains another frontier of inequality, with just 10% of Indigenous households accessing piped water.

These statistics aren’t just numbers; they are daily struggles. They are parents trekking miles for clean water, children falling ill from preventable diseases, and entire communities trapped in cycles of poor health.

The Land They Call Home

Land, central to the identity and survival of Indigenous peoples, tells its own story. Despite legal protections under Cambodia’s constitution and land laws, only 42 communities have achieved collective land registration. Many remain vulnerable to land grabs and exploitation; their ancestral lands are often viewed as commodities rather than heritage.

Without secure land rights, these communities are at the mercy of external forces. Forests are cleared, rivers polluted, and traditions uprooted. It’s a fight not just for land but for survival.

A Narrowing Gap in Education

Education offers a glimmer of hope. Literacy rates have nearly doubled since 2013, with school attendance among indigenous children reaching 75.4%. But while the numbers are better, they are still far from enough.

Dropout rates remain high, and Indigenous youth often attend grades below their age level. For many, education feels out of reach—rural schools are poorly equipped, and Indigenous languages are not integrated into the curriculum. Education, meant to be an equalizer, risks becoming another avenue for exclusion.

What Can Be Done?

The data is clear: Indigenous peoples are making progress, but they are doing so against the tide. Their lives are improving, but at a pace that leaves them far behind the national average. How can Cambodia close this gap?

Invest in Education
Education is the foundation. Schools in Indigenous areas need better resources, teachers trained in inclusive methods, and curricula that respect indigenous cultures. Vocational training and scholarships should target Indigenous youth, giving them tools to thrive in a modern economy.
Strengthen Land Rights
Land ownership isn’t just about property—it’s about dignity, identity, and survival. Cambodia must expedite the registration of collective land titles and enforce protections against illegal land grabs. Indigenous voices must be at the table, shaping policies that affect their ancestral homes.
Improve Healthcare and Hygiene
The healthcare system must expand its reach into Indigenous communities. Mobile clinics, public health campaigns, and investments in sanitation infrastructure can transform lives. Clean water and toilets aren’t luxuries—they are necessities.
Empower Indigenous Economies
Indigenous livelihoods need diversification. Beyond agriculture, initiatives in eco-tourism, sustainable crafts, and renewable energy could open new avenues for income. Microfinance tailored to Indigenous entrepreneurs, especially women, can drive economic resilience.

A Shared Responsibility

Indigenous peoples contribute immensely to Cambodia’s cultural and environmental wealth. They are guardians of forests, keepers of traditions, and stewards of biodiversity. Yet their future remains uncertain, and their voices are often unheard.

As the report launches, it’s a call not just to policymakers but to all Cambodians. Protecting indigenous rights isn’t charity—it’s justice. It’s about ensuring that every citizen, regardless of ethnicity or geography, has a seat at the table of progress.

Cambodia is at a pivotal juncture. Will it continue to marginalize its Indigenous communities, or will it embrace them as equals in the nation’s journey forward? The answer lies not just in reports or recommendations but in actions. Let the launch of this report be more than a ceremony—let it be the start of lasting change.

The Uniqueness of the Democratic System in Cambodia’s Indigenous Communities

This article explains how democracy exists and shapes Indigenous communities. The democratic practices of the Indigenous peoples are virtually unknown. And even Indigenous peoples themselves hardly realized that their traditional rule is in fact real democracy, which has shaped their communities for centuries based on their practices, culture, and context.

Rule by the people is the literal meaning of democracy, a term derived from the Greek word dēmokratia, which was used to describe the political structures of various Greek city-states, most notably Athens, during the 5th century BCE [around 2,500 years ago]. The etymology of democracy combines dēmos, meaning “people,” and kratos, meaning “rule.”

Scholars have traditionally believed that democracy refers to rule by the people, specifically through elected representatives, which originated around 2.5 millennia ago in Greece before spreading to Europe, [throughout the world] and the United States. From a general perspective, many people may consider that most European countries and the United States have shaped democracy and spread its concept across the world.

Kui elders, youth and women discuss the Inputs for the Amendment to Land Law and Environment and Natural Resources Code

For many centuries, the Indigenous communities have practiced what can be termed “traditional democracy” in various aspects of daily life. This form of governance enables them to address internal conflicts, protect their natural resources, and foster community cohesion. It is through this lens that we recognize the unique characteristics of Indigenous traditional rule in the past, which can be summarized through several key aspects.

Firstly, the traditional communication style of Indigenous peoples fosters strong relationships within the community. In many villages, individuals know one another by name, creating an atmosphere of friendliness and support for each other. “In my village, everyone is like family; we share food, and stories, and support each other in times of need,” Jarai elder Souen Chavan. Such bonds reflect a deep spiritual democracy that permeates their interactions, and strong spiritual respect and support for each other without discrimination.

Secondly, Indigenous communities often turn to mediation for various issues in the community. Mediators, who usually are esteemed elders known as “Mekontreanh” with extensive knowledge and experience, facilitate discussions among community members and the mediator who pays careful attention to solve the conflict following Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

It should be pointed out that Indigenous community members know their roles and duties in the community. Their representatives always respond to the community’s collective interests, and he or she plays an important role in leading the whole community with grace and happiness.

Ros Lim, Kui elder from Bankeunphall village, Preah Vihear province

This method builds peace and respect, as Kui elder Ros Lim stated. “We listen to and respect each other and seek understanding, with compromises that create happiness in our community.” The mediation process resolves conflicts and enhances community members’ relationships, Lim explained, adding that if this traditional system is to be preserved, it is good to compromise without hate. Mediation encompasses many steps, he said, such as consulting, educating, and also respecting all the people involved.

Indigenous governance structures are built on community representation and collective decision-making, Lim explained. When conflicts arise, the elders and mediators engage the entire community to hear all sides and reach a collective judgment, he said. With this procedure, both parties leave the discussion with a sense of peace and a commitment to maintaining relationships.

“Indigenous democracy means a system of governance rooted in our traditions, where decisions are made collectively, respecting the voices of elders,” said Sam At Rachana who is a Bunong Indigenous woman. “For example, in our community, elders lead discussions on important issues like land management, marriage and beliefs, ensuring the protection of our forests and resources for future generations.”

Thirdly, Indigenous cultural traditions such as weddings exemplify democratic practices through collective participation. For instance, in the Bunong community, discussions involving the groom’s and bride’s parents with the participation of elders and neighbours are an integral part of the wedding. The ceremony is a time for all to come together, share food, dance, and celebrate love. This communal involvement reinforces the values of cooperation and unity, demonstrating democracy in action.

Fourth, agricultural practices, such as rotational farming, highlight the commitment of Indigenous communities to environmental stewardship and civic engagement. For example, Indigenous villagers in Cambodia cooperate during the planting and harvesting seasons, illustrating their interconnectedness.

In practicing rotational farming, villagers help each other grow crops during the planting season, and always support each other in collecting the crops. Collective participation in agriculture is considered one of the great practices of civic engagement that is made inclusive of the Indigenous community.

Finally, in the Indigenous community, most villages have collective houses that serve as communal spaces and community buildings. It is crucial for enhancing solidarity, preserving cultural traditions, and creating a good environment for people. In the past, the Jarai people had long houses as their traditional homes for the whole family to live in the same house.

Moreover, the Indigenous community has a community hall for community meetings, ceremonies, cultural and other events. This shows that communities make time to come together. This house or hall also demonstrates that the Indigenous community has an actual space to practice democracy.

The Mondulkiri’s Cultural Festival collectively led and organized the indigenous peoples

Indigenous traditional rule can be considered democracy, a vibrant and enduring system of governance that has flourished within Indigenous communities for centuries. While conventional Western notions of democracy often emphasize electoral processes, the Indigenous approach focuses on collective decision-making, cultural traditions, and community involvement.

Indigenous democracy is not merely an element but a vital aspect of the communities’ global democratic discourse, deserving recognition and respect. The Indigenous traditional rule is one of transparency and accountability that has maintained the community’s peace and happiness in the past. Therefore, today’s Indigenous generations and stakeholders should prioritize continuing to study to learn from this and promote the Indigenous rule to ensure the preservation and uniqueness of this democracy in the future.

The article is co-written by:

Blen Romam is an Indigenous Jarai from Ratanakiri Province. He is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Social Sciences of International Relations at the University of Cambodia.

Rim Sarem is an Indigenous Kui from Kampong Thom. He earned a bachelor’s degree in English Literature, majoring in Educational Management and Teaching, and completed the Young Southeast Asia Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellowship Program in the United States.

Indigenous Peoples voice concerns on the revised Environmental and Social Framework of the Asian Development Bank

We, members of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), have engaged in the ongoing Safeguards Policy Review of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) since last year with good faith. We note the positive changes made in the revised ESF, including integration of ESS7 across other ESSs and requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of affected Indigenous Peoples for certain circumstances in ADB-financed projects. However, we, including the following Indigenous Peoples Organizations, reiterate the following demands for revisions/additions in the revised ESF, and particularly the revised ESS7, in line with the commentary we submitted on 6 May 2024 and the standards in the policies of other multilateral development banks or institutions:

1. On scope of application of ESS7 (paragraphs 5-9), we reiterate that the revised ESS7 should explicitly mention that the host country’s applicable laws should not be a limitation for recognition of Indigenous Peoples. That is because most countries in Asia still do not officially recognize Indigenous Peoples in line with international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169.

a. We thus call on for addition as follows :

The application of the ESS7 will not be limited by the absence of legal recognition or identification of Indigenous Peoples by a state. It will also not be limited by the legal status of titling of Indigenous lands, resources and territories. (see paragraph 19, Green Climate Fund (GCF) Indigenous Peoples Policy)

b. In paragraph 7 (i) of the ESS7, while self-identification is a criteria for recognition of Indigenous Peoples, it also refers to recognition of this identity by “others”. It should be revised to state that recognition of Indigenous Peoples by “others” only refers to “other Indigenous Peoples”.

c. Further, paragraph 9 of the revised ESS7 should be revised to state that “Following a determination by ADB based on para 7 and 8, …”. That is because paragraph 8 also refers to recognition of Indigenous Peoples. (see paragraphs 8-10 of World Bank’s ESS7)

2. On requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), we reiterate that the revised ESF should integrate the requirement to obtain Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous Peoples throughout the revised ESF. ADB should require that meaningful consultation is carried out with Indigenous Peoples present in the proposed project-affected area to obtain their FPIC for the proposed ADB-financed project, including for any significant changes to the project, and the outcome of the process clearly documented – not only when project causes certain impacts. This is in line with our rights to self-determination, to our lands, territories and resources and to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising our right to development, among others, as guaranteed in the UNDRIP. Thereby, States are to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (Art. 19, UNDRIP).

While FPIC is an iterative process that should be obtained or maintained throughout the project life cycle, it should particularly be obtained for the project preparation or design itself and during the E&S assessment. FPIC includes the rights of Indigenous Peoples to provide consent or conditional consent, or withhold consent for a project, and also withdraw consent during the project. When ADB is unable to ascertain that such consent has been obtained from the project-affected Indigenous Peoples, ADB should not proceed further with the project or with the aspects of the project that are relevant to those Indigenous Peoples whose FPIC cannot be ascertained.

Accordingly, we call for the following revisions throughout the revised ESF:

a. In paragraph 58 of the revised Environmental and Social Policy (paragraph 54), ADB should “require a borrower/client to undertake a process of meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in accordance with ESS7 and to document the outcome” when Indigenous Peoples are present in, or have a collective attachment to, a proposed project-affected area.

b. Under revised ESS1 paragraph 32, ADB should require borrower/client that the E&S assessment and the involved stakeholder engagement includes conduct of meaningful consultation with the Indigenous Peoples in the project-affected area to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for the project as described in ESS7.

c. Objective “e” of the revised ESS7 should be amended to state as “ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for projects affecting them and specifically in the three circumstances described in this ESS7”

d. In paragraph 10 of the revised ESS7, it should be amended to state that the borrower will ensure that Indigenous Peoples present in, or with collective attachment to the project area are meaningfully consulted in accordance with ESS10 to obtain their FPIC in the project design and the determination of the project implementation arrangements. When ADB is unable to ascertain that such consent has been obtained from the project-affected Indigenous Peoples, ADB will not proceed further with the project or with the aspects of the project that are relevant to those Indigenous Peoples whose FPIC cannot be ascertained.

Other multilateral development banks and institutions have also been moving towards stronger standards on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including FPIC. See, for example, below some positive provisions in those standards:

European Investment Bank (EIB) Standard 7

44. The FPIC process is required where a project:

• Affects the lands, territories or resources that Indigenous Peoples customarily own, occupy or otherwise use; or

• Relocates them from land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation; or

• Affects or exploits their cultural resources, whether tangible or intangible, or their ways of life.

45. When the FPIC process is required, the Bank shall not be able to proceed with the financing of these activities unless the promoter is able to ascertain and document that the consent of Indigenous Peoples was obtained through an adequate FPIC process. The promoter shall carry out an FPIC process even if the right to FPIC has not been legally and formally recognised in the country or region where the project activities are located.

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) ESPS 7

Participation and Consent

Para 13. The Borrower will undertake an engagement process with the Project-Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples as required in ESPS 1 and ESPS 10. This engagement process includes stakeholder analysis and engagement planning, disclosure of information, consultation, and participation, in a culturally appropriate manner. In addition, this process will:

Involve Indigenous Peoples’ representative bodies and organizations (e.g., councils of elders or village councils), as well as members of the Project-Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples.
Provide sufficient time for Indigenous Peoples’ decision-making processes.
Include indigenous consultation protocols when they exist.

3. On Impact Assessment for Indigenous Peoples, we reiterate the recommendation provided earlier that such impact assessments should be separate or standalone and should aid in identifying cultural, spiritual and other relations of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources. Such requirements also featured in prior iterations of ADB Safeguards. However, there are substantial cross-references to other ESS that complicate the process. The IED review, for instance, concluded that “[r]esults from the safeguard requirement on indigenous peoples, driven by the lack of robust SIAs, were less than satisfactory and limited.” This is a clear acknowledgement of the deficiencies in impact assessment and that these deficiencies then caused additional downstream problems (e.g., “community support cannot be established by the client without a SIA to assess the likely impacts on IPs”).

Therefore, firstly, the revised ESS7, under paragraph 11, should mandatorily require conduct of a robust and separate assessment of social, cultural and economic risks and impacts on Indigenous Peoples – or a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) – in absence of which ADB-financed projects in an area, where Indigenous Peoples are present, should not proceed. This should also resonate in the bank’s gender-related safeguards i.e. conduct of robust and separate assessment of risks and impacts for indigenous women. Secondly, it is critically important that the identified flaws in compliance and results in the case of Indigenous Peoples are fully understood and addressed if they are to be avoided in the future. Again, we consider that such reviews are best undertaken in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and that the flaws identified above amplify the need to require and ensure Indigenous Peoples’ effective participation in the design, conduct and review of environmental and social impact assessments. These assessments also need to include specific consideration and review of the rights of Indigenous Peoples as guaranteed by international laws, and not only as they may be reflected in national laws.

4. Further, below are couple of key recommendations that we recall on to be addressed:

Under revised ESS1 paragraph 48, in relation to ADB financing for projects in fragile and conflict-affected situations, projects should be a no-go in identified fragile and conflict affected situations unless E&S risks and impacts are fully accounted and analyzed and a risk management plan is in place. Projects should not be approved where identified that the project will further increase fragility and conflict in the proposed project area.
In terms of compensation and benefits, under revised ESS5 paragraphs 43-45, we reiterate that the borrower/client must offer affected persons an informed choice of either compensation in kind (land-for-land, house-for-house, shop-for-shop) or monetary compensation at full replacement cost. The borrower/client should respect the choice of the affected persons. (See EIB Standard 6, Para 25)

We hope for your positive consideration to above minimum asks from Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group and its associated organizations as you deliberate and adopt the revised ESF. This will enable us to continue our good faith engagement with the ADB.

Sincerely,

Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group

Including on behalf of its following members

Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE)

Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP)

Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)

Asia Indigenous Women’s Network (AIWN)

Asia Pacific Indigenous Women and Girls with Disabilities Network

Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization (CIPO)

Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC)

Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ)

Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN)

National Indigenous Disabled Women Association Nepal (NIDWAN)

Lembaga Bentang Alam Hijau (LemBAH)

Can a carbon offset project really secure Indigenous rights in authoritarian Cambodia?

The Cambodian Ministry of Environment has blocked Indigenous communities from receiving ownership over thousands of hectares of customary farmlands and culturally significant forests in the Keo Seima REDD+ project zone.
The Wildlife Conservation Society, which works with the ministry to administer the project, did not disclose these land disputes caused by the project’s activities to standard setter Verra, and its auditors failed to identify these issues.
Indigenous peoples in the REDD+ project face arrests, imprisonment, crop destruction and property confiscation as a result of unclear boundaries and insufficient land allocated to their communities.
This reporting project received support from the Pulitzer Center’s Rainforest Journalism Fund.

Read the full article at: https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/can-a-carbon-offset-project-really-secure-indigenous-rights-in-authoritarian-cambodia/

This is the first article in our two-part series on Indigenous land rights and the Keo Seima REDD+ project. This series was co-written by a Cambodian journalist whose name is being withheld due to security concerns. Read part two here.

Why the SDGs Should Be Revised to Meet the Needs of Indigenous Peoples

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals consist of 17 targets that were set in 2015 as successors of the Millennium Development Goals. They represent an ambitious call to action for global partnership and apply to all U.N. members, with the aim of creating a just world, protecting the planet, ending poverty, and ensuring prosperity for all by 2030. The hope is that individual countries take ownership of these goals and establish policies at the national level to achieve them.

At the halfway point of the 2030 deadline, the United Nations admits that progress on the SDGs has been slow. More than 50 percent of the targets have seen weak or insufficient progress, while progress on a further 30 percent has stalled completely or gone into reverse. The U.N. says that efforts have been interrupted and undermined by a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has affected global supply chains and has driven up food and gas prices, according to the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023.

Notably, the report also emphasized that the world’s indigenous communities in particular are among those who bear the brunt of many of these setbacks and failures to address the targets.

An analysis conducted by Dominic O’Sullivan, a professor at Charles Sturt University in Australia, which centers the perspective of indigenous peoples, found that the SDGs compromise the notion of indigenous self-determination and ignore the cultural and political context of indigenous communities. O’Sullivan’s book, “Indigeneity, Culture, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals” went so far as to call for the goals to be revised to more closely follow the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Indigenous peoples continue to be the poorest among the poor, even as poverty and extreme poverty in the Asia and Pacific regions have substantially declined. This demonstrates that indigenous peoples receive less attention and the goals themselves are broad and ambiguous, which hinders the public, policymakers, and government from identifying needs and gaps, keeping track of indigenous development progress, and delivering services that are appropriate to their cultural context, livelihoods, and traditional governance systems.

Speaking on what is missing from the SDGs, O’Sullivan has argued “I critique how effectively the SDGs contribute to indigenous people being among those who are ‘not left behind’ and suggest ways in which the SDGs and their indicators could be revised to support self-determination.” He further argues that UNDRIP provides a framework for revising the goals.

Therefore, the SDGs must be revised to add a separate standalone goal for indigenous peoples, one that is appropriate to their cultural practices, livelihoods, and governance systems. Otherwise, the 2030 goals will not be achieved.

Indigenous peoples, communities, and nations are those that have historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial society, have their own development strategies for their own territories, and consider themselves distinct from other sectors of society. These communities hold a non-dominant position in society and are determined to preserve and develop their ancestral territories, cultural patterns, ethnic identity, and governance systems and to be able pass these assets on to future generations. The phrase “indigenous peoples” is used differently in individual countries according to the context, ranging from “hill tribes” and “indigenous nationalities” to “indigenous communities,” “ethnic minorities,” “natives,” and more. These people often have unique development needs compared with other groups.

There are 476 million indigenous peoples living in 90 countries across the world and belonging to more than 5,000 different groups. Asia represents more than 70 percent of indigenous peoples, followed by Africa with 16 percent, Latin America with 11 percent, and Canada and the United States with 6 percent.

To make the SDGs more relevant to the unique contexts of indigenous communities, perhaps it would be useful to consider what indigenous people-specific SDG targets might look like.

First, a target that addresses indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consent and public participation is vital not just to protect indigenous ways of life, but also to protect the world’s biodiversity.

The majority of indigenous peoples depend on natural resources and land for their livelihoods, which include hunting, fishing, shifting cultivation, and the harvesting of non-timber forest products. These practices are important factors for maintaining their culture and promoting sustainable development. Multiple studies have shown that these ancestral practices and governance systems have enabled indigenous communities to enhance and to protect the world’s environment and biodiversity.

Currently, nearly 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity is being protected by indigenous peoples, an undeniable testament to their ecological knowledge and spiritual relationship with their lands, forests, and natural resources.

However, around the world indigenous culture, traditional forest stewardship, and governance systems are all at risk, as their rights have not been strongly protected by their respective national governments, as well as their historic exclusion from the development decision-making processes in their territories.

Research by the International Labour Organization on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia found that prior consultation and public participation regarding development projects that affect them are the cornerstones of UNDRIP and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and incorporating these rights as targets of an indigenous-specific SDG would enable them to protect their land, forests, and traditional systems and so continue to protect the environment.

Second, when it comes to enabling the environment and sustainable development in indigenous territories, it is also undeniable that we must have an SDG target which specifically recognizes indigenous rights to self-determination, which means allowing indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities for political, social, and economic development that might affect their beliefs, customs, culture, and traditional livelihoods.

Finally, while there is a much-needed specific SDG for women’s political representation, no specific target exists for indigenous peoples and their rights to be fully and equally represented by their national governments. Without full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life, indigenous peoples around the world will continue to be excluded from the policy processes that determine their futures.

Incorporating indigenous peoples more directly in the SDGs would also facilitate and encourage the collection of better data, both quantitative and qualitative, which can contribute to addressing the concerns of indigenous peoples by assessing their actual needs. Official data collection on indigenous peoples is not widely available at either the national or global levels. Adding to collective knowledge about indigenous communities is crucial in that it enhances the ability to monitor the development progress of these communities on the part of the public, civil society, and national governments, and especially allows policymakers who are interested in indigenous issues to be able to identify gaps for development policies.

Rithy Bun is a young research fellow at Future Forum who has many years of experience working with Indigenous communities.

The Indigenous World 2024: Cambodia

The report provides an overview of the Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, detailing their population, challenges, and ongoing issues with land rights and conservation.

The report provides an overview of the Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, detailing their population, challenges, and ongoing issues with land rights and conservation. It highlights the struggles faced by Indigenous communities in securing their ancestral lands, facing land grabs, discrimination, forced displacement, and environmental exploitation. The lack of legal protections and increasing privatization of natural resources exacerbate the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples, leading to growing debts and poverty within these communities. The report can be found at The Indigenous World 2024: Cambodia – IWGIA – International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

The Report in A Nutshell

Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia face challenges such as land grabs, discrimination, forced displacement, and environmental exploitation. They struggle to secure their ancestral lands, and the lack of legal protections exacerbates their vulnerability. Additionally, the lengthy process of obtaining Collective Land Titles leaves Indigenous communities exposed to land encroachment.

The government’s rejection of recommendations from Indigenous Peoples’ organizations impacts the rights and autonomy of Indigenous communities by disregarding the principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This exclusion prevents Indigenous decision-makers from having a say in the future of their ancestral land, leading to further marginalization and discrimination.

Some ongoing struggles and conflicts faced by Indigenous communities in Cambodia include:

– Land encroachment and illegal sale of communal land, leading to disputes and forced displacement.
– Criminalization of traditional land management practices, such as rotational farming.
– Discrimination and exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from decision-making processes regarding their ancestral land.

These challenges have sparked protests and resistance from Indigenous communities, as they continue to demand their rights and fight to protect their cultures and traditions.

About the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the ASEAN Environmental Rights Working Group (AER WG) and our non-negotiables for the ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Rights (ADER)

Subject: About the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the ASEAN Environmental Rights Working Group (AER WG) and our non-negotiables for the ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Rights (ADER)

Dear members of the ASEAN Environmental Rights Working Group (AER WG),

Indigenous Greetings from Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Women, Indigenous Youth, and Indigenous Persons with Disabilities! Southeast Asia is a region of high biological and cultural diversity, where we, Indigenous Peoples, play a vital role in conserving and managing our land, territories, and resources. Environmental rights cannot be respected, protected, promoted, and fulfilled without recognizing and securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For us, environmental rights go beyond the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It is our life, our identity, our culture, and our spirituality. Our worldviews and values guide us to live in harmony with nature. We do not own or privatize nature. The value of nature goes beyond ecosystem services and monetary benefits. It is for our common good.

However, we face challenges. Conservation, tourism, deforestation, extractive industries, and energy projects have taken place on our land, territories, and resources without our Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). These have led to environmental degradation and development aggression, disrupting our lives and cultures. Our human rights have been violated, including through killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, detention, criminalization, militarization, prosecution, and manipulation.

Therefore, Indigenous Peoples acknowledge the leadership of the AER WG in drafting the ADER with the objective of advancing and implementing the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment to address environmental rights as human rights. We welcome the reference to the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the preamble and the reference to the FPIC in provision 17 of the current draft (as of 7 March 2024) of the ADER. Also, we acknowledge and thank the members of the AER WG who champion the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, we are deeply concerned about the process of drafting the ADER with no representation of Indigenous Peoples. We got access to the English version of the draft ADER in March 2024 when we also learned that the AER WG is nearly completing its mandate. This process goes against the principle of ADER on access to information (ADER provisions 13-14). We are now pressured with a limited time to convene and consult among diverse groups of Indigenous Peoples in the region. The ADER and related information has not been made accessible in appropriate languages and formats in a timely manner. This goes against the principle on enabling environment (ADER provisions 9-12).

Through the support of our allies in the region, Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Women, and Indigenous Youth from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam met in person from 20 – 21 April 2024 to collectively reflect on the draft ADER.

We, Indigenous Peoples from the ASEAN region, would like to draw the attention of the AER

WG to the fact that all the ASEAN Member States have adopted the UNDRIP. According to Article 19 of the UNDRIP, States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous Peoples concerned through their representative institutions to obtain their FPIC before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. UNDRIP recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures and to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions (Article 18 of UNDRIP).

We, Indigenous Peoples, are rights holders and should be part of the decision-making process. We are very disappointed that AER WG has ignored the inclusion of representative organizations of Indigenous Peoples in drafting the ADER.

Out of the over 20 members of the AER WG, there is no representation of Indigenous Peoples. This approach goes against the UNDRIP, the whole-of-society approach stressed in the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) and the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples as highlighted in the Cancun Agreement and Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We reject the non-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the AER WG and bracketing of the term “Indigenous Peoples” in the draft ADER (provision 26 (1)).

The UNDRIP affirms that Indigenous Peoples are equal to all other people and recognizes the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such. Attempts by the AER WG members to dilute the rights of Indigenous Peoples through generalizations and other terminologies that distort our identity and legal rights are unacceptable.

We demand the AER WG use the term “Indigenous Peoples”, replace the term “Ethnic communities” of provision 17 with “Indigenous Peoples” and ensure that the term “Indigenous Peoples” remains in the final text of the ADER.

Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Women, Indigenous Youth, and Indigenous Persons with Disabilities are not just vulnerable groups. We have been stewards of the environment and defenders of our land, territories, and resources. We are rights holders, knowledge holders, and partners in the fight against climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) recognize and respect the rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples as effective solutions to environmental crises. Therefore, to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment requires securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples have the right to their land, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.

As rights holders, we strongly assert the following as non-negotiables, and they must be reflected in the ADER:

Explicit use of the term “Indigenous Peoples”
Right to the land, territories, and resources of Indigenous Peoples
Right to FPIC of Indigenous Peoples
Full protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Environmental Human Rights Defenders and Indigenous Women’s Environmental Human Rights Defenders
Right to maintain, control, protect, and develop cultural heritage and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples

Further, we request AER WG to demand to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) that the same non-participatory and non-inclusive approach is not repeated and ensure the full and effective participation of self-selected representatives of Indigenous Peoples in developing, implementing, and monitoring the Regional Implementation Plan and/or any related policy instruments at regional, national, or local levels_.

We have submitted specific comments on the draft text of the ADER to the AER WG members on 30 April 2024, which can be found here.

This statement of AIPP is endorsed by 89 Organizations and 26 Individuals, from Southeast Asia Countries, including; Cambodia: Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization (CIPO), Cambodia Indigenous Youth Association (CIYA), Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Alliance (CIPA), Indonesia: Perhimpunan Pembela Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (PPMAN), Papua New Guinea Indigenous Network, Malaysia: Network of Indigenous Peoples in Malaysia / Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS), PACOS Trust, Coalition of 20 Villages in Pitas district, Sabah, The Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC), Myanmar: Research Oriented Accountable Development (ROAD), Indigenous Peoples Partnership (IPP), Karen Network for Social and Environmental Action (KESAN), Philippines: Partners of the Indigenous Knowledge Philippines (PIKP), Cordillera Disaster Response and Development Services (CordisRDS), Indigenous Peoples International Center for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba), Institute for the Development of Educational and Ecological Alternatives, Inc. (IDEAS), Timuay Justice and Governance (TJG), Mindanao, Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas, Thailand: Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (NIPT), Wisdom of Ethnic Foundation (WISE), Highland Environmental Management Network (HEMN), Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT), Ethnic Community Health Association (ECHA), Indigenous Peoples Foundation for Education and Environment (IPF), Ethnic People Development Foundation (EPDF), Tonkla Indigenous Youth Network, Pgakenyaw Association for Sustainable Development (PASD), Karen Network for Culture and Environment (KNCE), Women4Biodiversity, Romphothi Foundation (RPF) and LISU Network of Thailand.

Asia Region and beyond ASEAN: ACSILs-Japan, NGO-Federation of Nepalese Indigenous Nationalities (NGO-FONIN), Indigenous Nationalities Women Youth Network (INWYN)-Nepal, Kirat Youth Society (KYS)-Nepal, Kirat Chamling Language Culture Development Association (KCLCDA)- Nepal, Active Society Nepal (ASN), Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP), National Indigenous Disabled Women Association Nepal (NIDWAN), Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), National Indigenous Women’s Federation (NIWF)-Nepal, Papora Indigenous Development Association (PIDA)-Taiwan, Central Taiwan Ping-Pu Indigenous Groups Youth Alliance-Taiwan, Srijan Lokhit Samiti-India, Maleya Foundation- Bangladesh, Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, Kapaeeng Foundation (KF)-Bangladesh, and Naga Indigenous Women’s Network-Nagaland, WE-Women From Indigenous Nationalities (WE-WIN), Nepal

Asia Regional Organizations and Networks: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders (IPHRDs) Network, Asia Indigenous Voices in Asia Network (IVAN), Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE), Network of Indigenous Women in Asia (NIWA), Asian Indigenous Women’s Network (AIWN), Non-Timber Forest Products – Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP), Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples of Asia (IKPA), and Asia Indigenous Youth Platform (AIYP).

Organizations from Africa, Latin America, North America, Russia, Europe, and the Pacific Regions: Benet Mosop Indigenous Community Association-Uganda, MUTASA YOUTH FORUM & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT TRUST-Zimbabwe, Kerio Valley Community Organization (KVCO)-Kenya, Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE)-Kenya, Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP)-Kenya, Guadalupe Yesenia Hernández Márquez-Mexico, Indigenous World Association-Canada, Center for Indigenous Cultures (CHIRAPAQ)-Peru, Asociación ProPurús-Perú, Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas (ECMIA), Pastoralists Indigenous NGO’s Forum (PINGO Forum)-Tanzania, Indigenous Peoples’ Organization-Australia (IPOA), Lelewal Foundation-Cameroon, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA)-Cameroon, Julian Cho Society-Belize, Toledo Alcaldes Association-Belize, Ch’orti’ Mayan Indigenous Council of Olopa Chiquimula-Guatemala, Banaban Human Rights Defenders Network-Fiji, Village Farmers Initiative (VFI)-Nigeria, Aborigen Forum Network-Russia, African Indigenous Foundation for Energy and Sustainable Development(AIFES)- Nigeria, Organización, Federavión de pueblos indígenas Kechwa Chazuta Amazonía- FEPIKECHA, País. Perú, and The Federación Indígena Empresarial y Comunidades Locales de México

International Organizations: Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI), International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), and Cultural Survival.

Individuals: Indu Chaudhary (Tharu)-Nepal, Raffly Jeffry-Sabah, Malaysia, Satej Chakma, Sub-Editor, IP NEWS-Bangladesh, Lalnunkimi Colney, East Mojo, Guwahati-India, Lelung Khumi-Bangladesh, Beverly L.Longid-Philippines, Rani Yan Yan-Bangladesh, Dr. Johnson Jament, Mukkuvar – Coastal Indigenous Peoples in South India, Radyo Sagada-Philippines, Chupinit Kesmanee-Thailand, Amrita Thebe-Nepal, Tauraoi Kirite-Fiji, Stan Lui-Torres Strait Australia, Lakpa Nuri Sherpa-Nepal, Frederic Wilson-Malaysia, Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn-Thailand, Shohel Hajang-Bangladesh, Kamonphan Salee-Thailand, Ke Jung-Myanmar, Gwendolyn Gay L. Gaongen-Philippines, Albert Salamanca-Philippines, Dayoon Kim-South Korea, Sushmita Mandal-India, Minh Tran-Vietnam, and Aehshatou Manu-Cameroon, Fausto Daniel Santi Gualinga, Ecuador

Click here to download full statement

Click here to download specific comments submitted by AIPP on the draft ADER

Joint Statement by Asia Indigenous Youth Caucus to 23rd Session of the UNPFII

Honorable Chair and distinguished delegates, jojolappa and Indigenous greetings!

We, the Asia Indigenous Youth Delegates, stand before you with a joint statement on agenda item no. 3, i.e., “Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ Right to self-determination in the Context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Emphasizing the Voices of Indigenous Youth.”

Our world today faces a critical phase where Indigenous communities continue to grapple with systemic challenges that undermine their right to self-determination. Failing to acknowledge the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination enshrined in UNDRIP is akin to perpetuating modern-day slavery, and this neglect is evident in the actions of those who continue to assert colonial control over Indigenous lands and communities. Historical injustices, land dispossession, cultural marginalization, and economic disparities persist, creating barriers that hinder the full realization of Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights. This reality is especially poignant for
Indigenous youth, who bear the dual burden of navigating these complex issues while striving to preserve their cultural heritage and identity.

From an early age, indigenous youth encounter intergenerational trauma and confront the harsh reality of being alienated from their ancestral lands as a result of forced relocation. Issues such as the absence of inclusive, culturally appropriate education in their mother tongue, discrimination in employment, trafficking, and exploitation of indigenous girls and women continue to contribute to significant human rights violations against Indigenous youth.

Despite the formidable challenges before us, Indigenous youth across Asia stand united in our determination to safeguard our rights, reclaim our narratives, and shape our collective future. We refuse to be silent observers of our own history; instead, we choose to be active agents of change, catalysts for progress, and champions of justice. As a result, we, as Indigenous youth, are not in flight mode but in fight mode, positioned as frontline advocates to reclaim stolen lands and assert our rights to self-determination.

To bridge this gap, our ongoing advocacy takes various forms, from grassroots mobilization and community empowerment initiatives to policy engagement and intergenerational dialogue. For instance, cultural revitalization in Nepal and the homecoming movement in Indonesia and Bangladesh involve youth calling their colleagues from the cities to return to their communities to help defend, protect, and manage their territories.

In light of the above, we put forward three key recommendations to advance Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and amplify the voices of Indigenous youth:

Ensure inclusive decision-making processes and the meaningful participation of indigenous youth in high level discussion and decision making bodies. This entails creating environments where
Indigenous youth can freely express their perspectives and contribute their insights.
We urge the UN and member states to prioritize and support initiatives that ensure the recognition and protection of Indigenous land rights. This includes strengthening legal frameworks that guarantee Indigenous communities’ ownership and control over their ancestral lands, free from encroachment and exploitation.
The UN should encourage member states to formally acknowledge and legally recognize the self-governance systems of Indigenous Peoples. These systems hold historical precedence that predates existing governance structures, underscoring the significance of states upholding and respecting these historical governance systems.

Thank You!

Joint_Statement_of_Asia_Indigenous_Youth_Caucus_on_Agenda_Item_3

A joint Statement by CIYA and CIPA to 23rd Session of the UNPFII

Madam Chairperson,

Cambodia is composed of 24 indigenous people’s groups in 15 provinces and equal to 1.11% out of the total 17 million population. We are living depending on natural resources, rotational farming, and small-scale cash crops.

Over the last thirty years, the lands and territories of Cambodia’s Indigenous Peoples have faced threats from large-scale logging, economic land concessions for the development of industrial plantations, mining, fortress conservation, large-scale in-migration of non-indigenous populations, hydropower development, and highway construction, among others, resulting in large-scale loss of our lands and fragmentation of our territories.

Our communities have been displaced and we are now surrounded by non-indigenous people. Our social systems and systems of local administration have been replaced. Political control has been imposed on us. Materialist non-indigenous ways of life are spreading. Our right to self-determination has been thoroughly undermined.

It has resulted in increased landlessness, poverty, and drug use among indigenous peoples. Further, the imposition of the national language has resulted in large-scale loss of the ability to speak our languages.

The Cambodian legal system has enabled these developments. Cambodia is one of the few countries in Asia to recognize Indigenous People in law, but it does not recognize Indigenous Peoples or our collective rights as peoples and to our lands, territories, and resources. Environmental Code have taken out the term of Indigenous Peoples from the law and replaced with the term of Local Community. These lead to a more marginalized and affected to the community who are already affected by the current development trend in practicing our traditional livelihood practice on traditional rotational farming and the accessing to the Non- Timber Forest product and the natural resources.

The 2001 Land Law allows communal land titling of the lands of individual communities, but it does not allow for collective titling of our lands and territories. This has resulted in fragmentation of our territories, conflict within the communities and made easy for land grabbing and manipulation by governments and outsiders. The land titling process is working against our interests and is not leading to the protection and promotion of our well-being.

Cambodian law does not recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect and promote our languages, cultures, and administrative and social systems. Our peoples do not have a voice in government because our right to participation in decision making and FPIC on matters affecting us is neither guaranteed nor encouraged.

We seek recognition of our rights to our territories and of our right to self determination in accordance with UNDRIP. We also seek recognition and support of our indigenous youth in rebuilding our communities and leading our people in exercising our right to self determination.

We, the indigenous communities draw our strength from our youth and depend on them for sustenance and propagating our way of life. They are also the future leaders and guardians of our communities and heritage. Our culture and knowledge systems are eroding fast because school systems and programmed of the government do not recognize our histories and worldviews. The policies and programs of the government of Cambodia should, instead, protect and promote our communities and youth in accordance with our way of life so that they become good leaders and custodians of our identity in the future. Our youth are losing their pride and good sense of their identity, but they have the ability to contribute in rebuilding our societies given opportunity.

Yet currently government, donors, and international organizations pay insufficient attention to the serious problems of our youth.

We call for:

UN agencies to support indigenous youth education in Cambodia, both within the government system and indigenous systems, through inter-cultural education system that effectively promote indigenous histories, knowledge system and worldview.
The government of Cambodia and UN Agencies must make provisions for and support indigenous youth’s participation in decision-making in developmental programmed and processes at all levels.
Government encourage and increase the number of the indigenous youth leaders into the leadership structure at all levels of the government structure as well community structure and open space for the self-determination on our land and territory.
UN Agencies and donors to fund initiatives by indigenous youth in the development that reflected the needs by them as well as to rebuild the indigenous economic systems and youth entrepreneurship.
The Cambodian government should have included indigenous language classes in the formal education curriculum at all indigenous areas and communities from kindergarten to grade 12 and as well as the program at higher education.
Donors, Partners, and Government should take serious action to stop the drug trafficking in the indigenous people’s communities effectively.

Download: Cambodia statement UNPFII 2024.FINAL.A