Statement – The Voices of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia

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)

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

Secretary General of Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Gam A. Shimray addressed the UN General Assembly during the High-level Event

Secretary General of Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Gam A. Shimray addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations during the “High-level event convened by the President of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” on the 17th of April , 2024. Gam represented Asia socio-cultural region of the 7 socio-cultural regions.

Honorable Mr. President and distinguished delegates,

As we commemorate the Tenth Anniversary of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, let us reflect on our history.

We are here because we all have a deep yearning for peace. The UN was born out of the conviction to save succeeding generationsfrom the scourge of war, which brought untold sorrow to mankind. The UN embarked on decolonization to facilitate self-determination and self-government to overcome the evils of colonialism involving political suppression, economic domination, and social and cultural subjugation. But peace does not come by itself, we need to fight for our convictions. Peace comes only when we become peace makers. This is the meaning and dignity the UN Charter embodies.

However, self-determination conflicts and the lack of democratic space to negotiate peace arrangements continue to be the source of grave human rights violations. For example, in Myanmar, it is reported that about 8,000 civilians have been killed and 2.3 million people have been displaced since the coup. Much of these numbers are Indigenous Peoples.

The self-government that we seek is more than political content, it is a comprehensive doctrine encompassing economic, social, and cultural factors. In other words, it is a process of seeking how best Indigenous Peoples can join other people with dignity on agreed terms by securing fairness and just peace.

It is about how constructive agreements made with governments is implemented with convictions and not abused by powers e.g., the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord (CHT) of Bangladesh. It is about how agreements will establish a new dignified relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the States e.g., will the current Indo-Naga peace talk result in an agreement that give a fresh breath of life and dignity to the Indian State and the Naga people? Will it put an end to the bloody war that has spanned for more than 70 years?

It is imperative to address the lack of clear institutional arrangement, effective enforcement measures, and clear terms and rules for facilitating the right of self-government of Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, we reiterate the need to pursue the General Assembly Resolution No. 40 of the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, which sought for recommendations providing how to use, modify and improve existing UN mechanisms to achieve the ends of the UNDRIP.

Furthermore, as we prepare to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the UNDRIP, we recommend the following:

1. We call for a high-level event that includes a comprehensive action plan spearheaded by the United Nations in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples;

2. Under the leadership of the Secretary-General, develop a comprehensive System-wide Action Plan for the implementation of the UNDRIP, including supporting States and Indigenous Peoples in peace negotiations, reform and implementation of legal frameworks, policies, strategies and plans that further the UNDRIP implementation processes;

3. Explore means for the Security Council to address conflicts in indigenous territories under the peace and security agenda with the full participation of women and youth in peace processes;

4. Engage the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs to have an active role in monitoring the implementation of peace accords involving Indigenous Peoples;

5. Enhance participation of Indigenous Peoples with a new status at Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, and other relevant UN meetings;

6. Prioritize to address the endemic violence against indigenous women with key deliverables of empowering and securing full participation in policy making;

7. Prioritize capacity building and education of indigenous youths for leadership and self-governance; and

8. For the UN Agencies, funds, and programmes to establish a Regional Inter-Agency Working Group on indigenous issues in Asia to enable a coherent regional approach, as has been done in Latin America and Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President

Keynote address by Jose´ Francisco Cali Tzay

José Francisco Calí Tzay 21 March 2024

As you all know today 21 March marks a very special day. Today is the United Nations Day on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination because on 21 March 1960, police in South Africa opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, against the apartheid “pass laws”. The UN General Assembly proclaimed this Day in 1966 to commemorate this massacre and to call upon the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.

The various impacts of what I would term “structural discrimination” and “institutional racism” on Indigenous Peoples are reflected in high levels of poverty, maternal and infant mortality, low life expectancy, marginalization, social exclusion and limited access to adequate housing, healthcare, education, employment and decent working conditions; participation and representation, or to justice and redress. In addition, Indigenous Peoples continue to face discrimination in the exercise of their rights to own and control their lands and territories, their rights to consultation and free and prior informed consent and self-determination. Discrimination and racism were used to justify colonial invasion and expansion, occupation of indigenous lands and territories, exploitation and domination of Indigenous Peoples and the whole scale destruction of entire indigenous societies. Racism was implicit in many legal doctrines such as the Doctrine of Discovery’s concepts of “terra nullius”, “effective occupation” which were used to justify the invasion of indigenous territories and the dispossession of their ancestral territories. Racism justified the civilizing mission of colonial powers and their duty to bring the so-called benefits of Western civilization to “uncivilized” , “primitive” peoples or “inferior” races around the world. Racism is behind the contamination of indigenous lands, waters and territories by nuclear testing, dumping of toxic wastes, pesticides, fumigation, oil spills, dams or what peoples have termed environmental racism.

Racism is also behind the rejection of the legitimacy of indigenous values, institutions, justice systems, traditional knowledge and land management and conservation practises. Indigenous Peoples supposed “backwardness” and “irrationality” to manage their lands or internal affairs have crystallised as conventional wisdom in the minds of politicians and members of the judiciary system.

RACISM AND CONSERVATION

Racism is behind the evictions of indigenous peoples, the development of national parks and protected areas excluding the original inhabitants of these lands.

Today is also the International Day of Forests. Proclaiming the Day in 2012, the UN General Assembly called on the international community to celebrate and raise awareness of the importance of protecting forests and trees. Interestingly, the word ‘forest’ originates as a juridical term in early middle age in Europe to designate royal game preserves reserved for the king’s recreational activities. In Asia and Africa, the first protected areas were established as recreational opportunities, hunting grounds for Western colonial elites.

The first “protected areas” established in the USA such as Yellowstone National Park or the Yosemite National Park involved the violent evictions of Indigenous Peoples who had been living on these lands for thousands of years. Some of the earliest American advocates of conservation and protected areas promoting pristine environment and the fortress conservation approach, founders of high-profile conservation NGOs, were also famous proponents of scientific racism, colonial expansion and eugenics. Indigenous Peoples were seen as weak races and were doomed to disappear in the course of progress and modernity.

Conservation’s colonial underpinnings continue to portray Indigenous Peoples as responsible for conservation problems, and permit practices that forcibly evict Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands and prevent them from practising hunting, fishing or grazing their animals, accessing sacred sites, collecting wood, often by extreme violence and militarized means.

It is now time to acknowledge and come to terms with the Western conservation’s deep-seated systemic racism, which has historically excluded Indigenous Peoples and continues to do so. It is also time to operate a paradigm shift as conservation is about to become one of the main industries destroying Indigenous Peoples’ lives and violating their human rights. This paradigm shift was already announced by the world’s leading conservationists at the International Union for Conservation of Nature World Conservation Congress held in Durban in 2003 where the 2003 Durban Action Plan was adopted. In this regard, Targets, 8 9 and 10 require that all existing and future protected areas are managed and established in full compliance with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and ” have representatives chosen by Indigenous Peoples in their management proportionate to their rights and interests” and require the adoption of “participatory mechanisms for the restitution of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free and informed consent [shall be] established and implemented by 2010”.

21 years after such announcement where are we? Conservation institutions and policies continue to exclude and discriminate against Indigenous Peoples. In the name of protecting nature, protected areas and national parks continue to be established on the lands of Indigenous Peoples without their consent, in violation of their rights to lands, natural resources and self-determination. Indigenous Peoples continue to be forcibly removed from their lands with devastating consequences. The colonial and discriminatory “fortress conservation” model continues to prevail and to be duplicated in conservation initiatives in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CONSERVATION

As UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I have witnessed myself during field visits the destructive impacts of conservation projects on Indigenous Peoples and their lands including violent evictions, destruction of their houses and traditional subsistence economies, expropriation of land, denial of self-governance. Indigenous Peoples can no longer hunt, fish, graze their cattle, they lose access to their religious, sacred and cultural sites. They are denied access to justice and reparation, including restitution and compensation. Indigenous Peoples are often forced to relocate without any resettlement programme or access to adequate housing, essential services, water, food, health care or education. The trauma experienced by Indigenous Peoples, in particular children, women and elders, who are forcibly evicted from their lands and homes create severe trans-generational post-traumatic stress disorder. Often, evictions are accompanied by extreme violence and severe human rights abuses perpetrated by rangers, police officers and army officials including torture and ill treatment, arbitrary arrests and detentions, unfair trial, extra-judicial killings, summary executions, enforced disappearances, sexual gender-based violence, death threats etc. % of the total defenders killed exposes the disproportionate targeting.

Beyond this horrific human toll, this model of fortress conservation undermines the very goals of conservation. Decades of experience with fortress conservation contradicts the argument that the removal of Indigenous Peoples is necessary for the conservation and or restoration of biodiversity. Mounting studies have shown that Indigenous Peoples possess the knowledge and ability necessary to successfully conserve and manage bio-diverse ecosystems more effectively than governments or conservation organisations, and at a fraction of the cost, particularly where their rights are recognized, respected and supported. The fortress conservation model diminishes rather than enhances local livelihoods and biodiversity.

Indigenous ancestral territories encompass about 22 per cent of the world’s land surface that hold 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. The ancestral lands of Indigenous Peoples contain the most intact ecosystems. Wildlife is abundant on indigenous lands, but not because such areas are left untouched, but precisely because Indigenous Peoples have been occupying and conserving such lands for centuries.

As we all know, we are facing a global loss of biological diversity on a scale unprecedented in the entire human history. In December 2022, UN member states have endorsed the goal of protecting and conserving 30 per cent of the planet’s lands and waters by 2030 in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at the COP15, also known as the 30 by 30.

The Framework acknowledges the important roles and contributions of Indigenous Peoples as custodians of biodiversity and as partners in its conservation, restoration and sustainable use. It also states that implementation must ensure that “the rights, knowledge, including traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, innovations, worldviews, values and practices of Indigenous Peoples are respected, and documented and preserved with their free, prior and informed consent, including through their full and effective participation in decision-making, in accordance with relevant national legislation, international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and human rights law”.

Despite this language, I remain extremely concerned by the potential negative impact of this 30 by 30 conservation project. Given that some 15.7 per cent of the world’s land is currently covered by protected areas, to reach 30 per cent would require a doubling of the area under some form of conservation protection.

There is an urgent need to establish clear, coherent and consistent human rights guidance for both conservation organizations and major funders of conservation. A number of influential conservation organisations or conservation funders have no policy on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Others have adopted standards or policy statements which represent an important step forward in reconciling conservation and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, however many of these policies or guidelines present substantial weaknesses and gaps, are outdated or do not reflect the current human rights standards and jurisprudence as it applied to Indigenous Peoples.

To conclude, human rights-based conservation is the most effective, efficient, and equitable path forward to safeguarding biodiversity. The protection of the ecological integrity of critical ecosystems and positive conservation outcomes are strongly correlated with community-based management that engage Indigenous peoples and recognize their human rights, including their rights to self-determination, free and prior informed consent, ownership and ancestral lands, waters, territories and other natural resources

CALL FOR ACTION

On that special day, I call the international community including states, UN Agencies including UNESCO, conservation NGOs in particular the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, Co-operation Agencies in particular the United States Agency for International Development and the German Development Cooperation and other public and private donors and stakeholders to join their efforts to eradicate racism and racial discrimination in conservation embodied by the fortress conservation model, which continue to devastate the lives of millions of Indigenous Peoples in Asia; Africa) and Latin America.

I call upon donors, investors and funders to adopt explicit policies and guidelines for the rights of Indigenous Peoples that are aligned with international human rights standards, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and recent developments and jurisprudence.

I call upon them to condition funding on the adoption and application of a solid Indigenous human rights-based approach by the recipient, prohibit funding to projects resulting in the forced resettlement of Indigenous Peoples or forced restriction of access to traditional and customary resources and prohibit funding to projects developed without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and which will restrict their access to livelihoods or their lands.

I urge conservation organisations to demonstrate a genuine commitment to a human rights-based approach to conservation and the eradication of racism and racial discrimination in conservation. Indigenous Peoples should be recognised as equal partner rights-holders in conservation efforts undertaken on their lands and territories. Ensuring respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples, rather than excluding them from their lands in the name of conservation, will ultimately benefit the planet and its peoples as a whole.

I call upon conservation donors including Cooperation Agencies to direct financial flows to support Indigenous Peoples to develop and sustain their own conservation initiatives. Indigenous Peoples should be acknowledged as key and equal partners in protecting and restoring nature and recognized for their conservation contributions. Indigenous knowledges and sustainable nature governance practices must be placed at the forefront of efforts to identify, designate, and manage new and existing areas important for cultural and biological diversity, including Indigenous protected and conserved areas, and other Indigenous efforts to protect biodiversity, such as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs). These are forest and biodiversity conservation programmes designed, developed and led by those who have known, occupied and protected these forests for thousands of years.

I call for the rapid adoption of the H.R.7025 – Advancing Human Rights-Centered International Conservation Act of 2022.

Joint Statement of Indigenous Representatives on Concerns Relating to the Environment and Natural Resources Code

Joint Statement of Indigenous Community Representatives

Of the Kingdom of Cambodia

Concerns Relating to the Environment and Natural Resources Code

Angkor Century Resort and Spa, Siem Reap

December 19, 2023

**************

On December 19, 2023, at the Angkor Century Resort in Siem Reap, we, 189 representatives of Indigenous communities, including 44 women, convened at the National Consensus Consultative Workshop between Indigenous Peoples and Other Stakeholders to gather relevant input on concerns about the content of the articles that affect the social, cultural, and economic rights of Indigenous peoples who live in and near protected areas and forest areas, as provided in the Environment and Natural Resources Code.

The consultation was attended by representatives of the communal land titling communities, community protected areas, and community forests from 12 provinces: Kratie, Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri, Stung Treng, Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom, Kampong Speu, Pursat, Koh Kong, Banteay Meanchey, Sihanoukville and Battambang.

Affirming that Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

Affirming further that rights to natural resources and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable, and socially unjust,

Reaffirming that Indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,

Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of the formulation or creation of the Environment and Natural Resources Code, other laws and regulations which dispossess their lands, traditional sites, culture, belief, non-timber forest product areas, and resources around their communities, thus weakening or preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development, conservation of cultural and civilization legacy, and interests in the natural resource sector in accordance with their own needs,

Concerned further that Indigenous peoples face social injustice because this Code provides a single standard or is solely based on social equality with the general population, or treats Indigenous communities on an equal footing with the general community by defining Indigenous peoples as local communities. In this spirit, the Code should not imply that including Indigenous communities in the definition of local communities provides reasons for inclusion, does not leave Indigenous communities behind, or promotes Indigenous communities to be equal in an equal society; on the contrary, such inclusion here embodies discrimination and does not benefit indigenous communities. Only then will it become a major cause of Indigenous communities being increasingly vulnerable to the loss of natural resource rights, economic, social, cultural, civilizational, and identity differences, and other benefits,

Concerned that indigenous peoples will lose their differences due to the fact that the Code does not state or include the word “Indigenous Peoples or Indigenous Communities” while some national laws already exist, such as the Land Law of 2001 from Article 23 to Article 28, Article 306 of the Civil Code of 2007, the Forestry Law of 2002, Sub-Decree No. 83 on Procedure of Registration of Land of Indigenous Communities and National Policies on Indigenous Peoples Development, as well as international laws and instruments that the Kingdom of Cambodia has supported and ratified, such as Convention No. 111 on Discrimination of Employment and Occupation. Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in the Independent States United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and, in particular, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Instead, the Code defines the term “Local community” by generalizing indigenous community, which we see as an effort to eliminate indigenous or ethnic names by mixing with the general community, which is distinct from the indigenous people. Meanwhile, indigenous peoples and most Khmers have a shared value: the value of ownership of Cambodia’s motherland throughout Cambodia’s whole national history.

Reaffirming that Indigenous peoples do not oppose the inclusion of the term “local community” in the Environment and Natural Resources Code, but the term “local community” cannot replace the term “Indigenous Communities” or be included in the definition of “Local Communities,” because Indigenous peoples differ in origin, ethnicity, language, identity, history, society, civilization, culture, tradition, and permanence, especially the connection of values, virtues, and harmony in the practice of traditional livelihoods with sustainable economy linking directly with their land, forest, natural resources and other resources.

Concerned that Article 364 stipulates that the designation of the four management zones does not stipulate the Indigenous principles of “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent” which may have an impact on Indigenous peoples’ social, cultural, and economic rights. The challenges and threats are as follows:

Restrictions, deprivation of ownership, and prohibitions on freedom of entry and exit, traditional farming practices, housing, farmland, and places of worship, as well as loss of forests, burial sites, religious sites, natural history sites, archeological sites, and cultural heritage sites, and areas for the practice and extraction of traditional non-timber forest products. As long as Indigenous Peoples continue to assert customary ownership in their current areas, they will suffer legal fines, transitional fines, litigation or authoritative forces, imprisonment, convictions, coercion, and intimidation. As a result of these problems and threats, individuals and families in indigenous communities will face psychological and emotional crises, trauma, ruined reputation, loss of happiness, loss of livelihood, debt, migration, wasting time, and children dropping out of school.

Concerned that indigenous peoples may lose access to the aforementioned locations, zones, and resources because the Sustainable Use Zone provision specifies that “the zone has economic value for national economic development.” If the Royal Government intends to change the purpose from conservation to national economic development by granting economic land concessions to the company, the company will enter to completely clear the forest, land, natural resources, and other resources.

Concerned that land within the community area provided for in Article 364 will not be able to make a decision or approve the issuance of a title in the area when the Ministry of Environment is unwilling to require indigenous peoples to obtain a certificate of collective ownership, despite indigenous peoples’ control, possession, and use of the land being in line with or in accordance with Articles 23 and 25 of the 2001 Land Law and international instruments. This issue is caused by the content of Article 364’s second paragraph in the community area, which states that “the issuance of a certificate identifying the owner of immovable property or permission to use land in this area… ” requires “prior approval from the Ministry in charge of Environment and Natural Resources in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.”

Concerned further that Article 369, indigenous peoples face the loss of the right to use natural resources in the traditional, religious, and customary way, which limits the right to use only in the sustainable use zone, and some other types of resources may occur in conservation zones by following the guidelines set by the Prakas of the Ministry in charge of environment and natural resources, and these guidelines will not be expected to have the same content giving rights and benefits to indigenous peoples based on actual situation. Additionally, freedom of movement within and out of protected areas must also be supervised by officials in charge of the environment and natural resources.

Joint Requests

Insist on the inclusion or provision of the words “Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Communities” in the Environment and Natural Resources Code, as well as other regulations established to implement the Code. The State shall not generalize Indigenous peoples which are defined or provided for as Local communities.
Insist on the inclusion or provision of the “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent” principle in all stages of drafting or revising this Code or other laws and regulations, as well as other procedures, in accordance with collective mechanisms of indigenous peoples.
Request that the phrase “The issuance of a certificate of identification of an immovable property owner or a land use permit in this area requires prior approval from the Ministry in charge of Environment and Natural Resources” be repealed, which is provided for in the second paragraph of the Community Areas Section of Article 364 of the Environment and Natural Resources Code to expedite and resolve the deadlock in the registration of indigenous communities’ land and the registration of cultural heritage of indigenous communities based on the actual situation. And insist that this code is not an obstacle to the process of indigenous community land registration based on the request and actual situation of each community.
Request that the state enact a provision in the law and issue a certificate on the location or traditional sites, identity, cultural heritage, archeological sites, religious beliefs, rotational agricultural regions, and NTFP areas.

Download: English

Joint Statement of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia Amid IPs Day 2023

During the 29th observance of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, we, the Indigenous Peoples of Cambodia have come to a consensus to issue a statement to ensure that our concerns are heard and considered by relevant stakeholders. The statement contains important recommendations pertaining to various sectors of indigenous communities.

Click here to download a full statement in PDF

Statement of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact

This year marks the 29th International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, with the theme “Indigenous Youth as Agents of Change for Self-Determination.” It reminds us of the significant roles that young Indigenous Peoples play in the conservation and preservation of the rich cultures of Indigenous Peoples around the world.

AIPP, a regional Indigenous platform, issues a statement to amplify our voices on the occasion of the commemoration.

Click here to download the full statement on the IPs Day 2023