ADDRESSING CLIMATE VULNERABILITY:
Promoting the Participatory Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Women through Finnish Foreign Policy - Final Report
by Tahnee Prior, Sébastien Duyck, Leena Heinämäki,Timo Koivurova and Adam Stępień
Arctic Centre, funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
(Full Table of Contents below)
Climate change is a complex systemic change with unequivocal and accelerating implications that demonstrably manifest themselves in many forms. Exacerbating existing vulnerabilities, they perpetuate drivers of climate change through systems and institutions that sustain human health and well-being – from ecosystems, livelihoods and employment to social services – and push already marginalized groups, who often lack the necessary tools to mitigate and adapt to such implications and have contributed least to carbon emissions, to the edge. Moreover, climate vulnerability is contextual, resulting from socio-economic factors including: economic (financial wealth or poverty; differential livelihoods), social (education, health), geographic, demographic (e.g. age, gender, etc.), indigenous or minority status, sexual orientation, disability, culture, institutional (structural obstacles), governance, ethnicity, social class and caste, and environmental factors.
However, “vulnerability” goes beyond the biophysical aspect of climate change - it provides a policy-relevant framework within which to examine the capacity or resilience of socio-ecological systems or peoples to cope, adapt to, or recover from stress. Understanding the conditions and choices that make individuals vulnerable in the first place is an important aspect of projecting and responding to climate change implications. Gaps in current human rights and climate change frameworks highlight the potential for these frameworks to be mutually reinforcing, where human rights may serve as “a compass for policy orientation.” Thus, while there is a notion that vulnerable groups should be included in decision-making merely because they are marginalized, they should, in fact, participate because they contribute alternative perspectives, experiences, and context-specific knowledge that may enhance the value of local innovation and help address existing obstacles. Moreover, international cooperation and social mobilization are critical in providing such groups with the necessary tools – economic, scientific, and technical – to design and implement inclusive strategic plans; mitigation and adaptation policies; as well as globally negotiated and locally implemented climate change policy, from climate financing to development cooperation.
The link between human rights and the environment, as outlined in the study Addressing Climate Vulnerability: Promoting the Participatory Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Women through Finnish Foreign Policy, is reflected in the number and scope of international and domestic laws, judicial decisions, and academic studies. Nonetheless, unresolved issues surrounding this discourse remain. Consequently, in light of the Human Rights Council’s decision to establish a mandate on human rights and the environment, and the appointment of Mr. John Knox to a three-year term as the first Independent Expert on Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment, this MFA-commissioned report, focusing on women and indigenous peoples, is timely. Thus, in mapping out entry points for Finnish foreign policy to address the climate vulnerability of these two groups, focusing on the role of participatory rights where environmental governance has been inadequate in empowering and systematically including marginalized groups, this report aims to answer the following questions: What are the main challenges in linking climate change to human rights? How can we meet these challenges and overcome resistance? And, what are the next steps?
Methodology & Aim
In his preliminary report, Knox identified rights to freedom of expression and association; rights to receive information and participate in decision-making processes; and rights to legal remedies (e.g. systems of support and redress) as crucial in environmental policy-making, stating that “[t]he exercise of these rights makes environmental policies more transparent, better informed and more responsive to those most concerned.” He also noted the importance of non-state actors, including multinational corporations and vulnerable groups, as well as new. Consequently, sufficient and sustained, as opposed to reactive (e.g. short-term disaster relief), measures must be integrated into top-down and bottom-up approaches. Moreover, the importance of non-state actors must be properly taken into account. Rescaling across issue areas and integrating an understanding of climate change implications – legal, relevant, and actionable – allows for the coupling of concerns by joining social dimensions – from the marginalization of women to the plight of indigenous peoples – into new and existing climate change policy architecture. This provides present institutions with an opportunity to re-examine policy processes, such as efforts by the World Bank to include Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). This report adopts such a lens in examining two regimes: the climate change regime, with a special focus on the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), and development cooperation.
Theoretical Background: Climate Change & Human Rights
It has been contended that both conceptually and practically, the intersection of human rights and environmental protection, is more potent than either discipline working in isolation. However, the human component has largely been weak or missing in climate change policy and the debate on how states can apply human rights norms in mitigation and adaptation to climate change remains largely unanswered. The multifaceted nature of climate change and its implications reveal inherent limitations and gaps in current governance structures.
An often-discussed roadblock is the fragmentation of international law, where various sub-disciplines increasingly function independently of one another, leading to overlapping and even conflicting sets of norms, framed without due consideration of either discipline. The isolation of environmental and human rights law, to date, serves as a paradigmatic example. Separate institutional frameworks for human rights and the environment often mean that governance is competitive, rather than cooperative or coordinated, in coping with environmental issues, particularly when factoring in existing human rights discourse. It takes determined countries, such as Finland, to help provide opportunities for institutional and governance innovation. There is a need for comprehensive global agreements that address such matters in a holistic and coordinated manner (e.g. among various treaty bodies and agencies) and, thereby, help guarantee the success of integrative laws and policies. This requires an approach that enables countries, like Finland, to mobilize diverse financing and policy options for climate resilient development by, for example, focusing aid and climate efforts on marginalized and vulnerable groups, both in the context of development cooperation and climate change.
The impact of environmental sustainability on the enjoyment of human rights has held a strong presence in discussions surrounding environmental protection since the late 1960s, featuring prominently on an international level.
b) Regional & National:
Binding international regional agreements began acknowledging the link between human rights and the environment in the 1980s. Although nearly all normative instruments lack reference to the environment, the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights have articulated “the right to an environment at a quality that permits the enjoyment of guaranteed rights”. While cases presented by applicants have, among others, asserted violations against the right to life, health, property, culture, and access to justice, the Commission has generally recognized a basic level of environmental health, not linked to a single human right, required by the very nature and purpose of human rights law. Governments are required to enforce laws that enact any constitutional guarantee of “a particular quality of environment.” The Aarhus Convention also explicitly provides a legally binding obligation for its parties to promote these principles in international governance, stating: Each Party shall promote the application of the principles of this Convention in international environmental decision-making processes and within the framework of international organizations in matters relating to the environment. In order to further implement the provision of Article 3.7 of the Convention, Parties adopted the Almaty Guidelines on Promoting the Application of the Principles of the Aarhus Convention in international fora. Almaty Guidelines provide normative foundations and procedural safeguards guaranteeing that the views of those affected are, or will be, reflected in the final policy outcome. Moreover, there is “a growing trend” – with around 130 states haven taken up some form of state obligation since the 1970s – “to give environmental protection” – the right to an environment of a specified quality, such as a healthy, safe, secure, clean, or ecologically sound environment – “constitutional status in many national legal systems, either explicitly, or by judicial interpretation of other constitutional guarantees.”
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Translating climate change implications into human rights language has, at times, been regarded as creative interpretation based on ethical and moral import and has, in turn, been avoided in current policy-making. In the climate change regime, procedural fairness, environmental justice, and arguments for immediate climate change action have emerged as important principles without reference to human rights and, thereby, may serve to disregard the vulnerability of those who are already marginalized. While the climate change regime has been slow to adopt a rights-based approach, human rights institutions have only recently begun considering climate change as a human rights issue, as opposed to a mere environmental problem. Nonetheless, human rights monitoring bodies have recognized that the effects of climate change have undisputed implications for individuals’ well-being and human rights language may provide normative traction for strong mitigation and adaptation policies. The 2009 Human Rights Council consensus Resolution 10/4 on human rights and climate change, in particular, recognized that individuals are a central concern to sustainable development noting that, “human rights obligations and commitments have the potential to inform and strengthen international and national policymaking in the area of climate change, promoting policy coherence, legitimacy and sustainable outcomes.” Furthermore, in its report on mapping the general human rights consequences of climate change, the OHCHR examines those human rights that are most affected by climate change noting that human rights bodies recognize “the intrinsic link between the environment and the realization of a range of human rights.” Additionally, it focuses on the duty of international cooperation and emphasizes access to information and participation in decision-making. Although the OHCHR report declines to conclude that climate change is a violation of human rights itself, states’ legal duties concerning climate change are grounded in human rights law.
International human rights policy and climate change policy, thus, stand to gain from cross-fertilization, addressing the human and equity dimensions of climate change. Focusing on vulnerable groups, a human rights-based approach (HRBA) empowers them as agents, providing ownership in the design and implementation of adaptation policies (e.g. integrating social concerns with environmental goals, norms, and responsibilities); setting national and international mitigation targets; and holding decision-makers accountable. Meanwhile, challenges include: an indirect concern for the environment; state and non-state actors’ limited capacity to partake in a HRBA (e.g. a lack of time, expertise, information, funding); and the simple rhetorical repackaging of aid policies by incorporating human rights language. See section 2.7. on HRBA to the Enviroment for a more detailed discussion.for a more detailed discussion.
Environmental Rights: Substantive & Procedural
While the link between climate change and human rights may seem self-evident, this report further outlines the role of both substantive and procedural rights. While substantive rights are, to a large extent, vague and regarded as a policy statement, procedural rights are more concrete, effective, and flexible in achieving environmental justice. Insofar as states have committed themselves to upholding international human rights, they are also under legal obligation to strengthen procedural rights in international environmental decision-making. Policies that are designed and implemented without the inclusion of affected parties, may be technically inappropriate, too costly, or unrealistic, undermining their success and at risk of not fulfilling the needs and priorities of the affected community. Therefore, one objective in opening up decision-making processes is the widening of the range of voices heard, thereby, improving the quantity and quality of available policy choices (e.g. relating to infrastructure, land use, etc) and avoiding having to define the notion of a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘decent’ environment. This is discussed in greater detail in section 2.4. Enviromental Rights.
Indigenous Rights in International Law
Indigenous peoples have traditionally been adaptive and resilient, contributing least to climate change. However, the current pace of change resulting from climate change coupled with socio-economic transformation is beyond indigenous adaptive capacity – amplifyng disposession, marginalisation, acculturation, and discrimination – and threatening indigenous peoples’ general human rights (e.g. the right to life or health), the right to culture and traditional way of life is under immediate and direct threat. Despite some positive impacts, mitigation and adaptation projects may also have numerous adverse effects on indigenous livelihoods and rights – for example, projects aiming at the protection of forests may adversely impact indigenous peoples’ access to lands, resources, and the manner in which traditional activities are conducted. International law can help indigenous communities protect themselves by providing them with the opportunity to shape analysis, decision-making processes, design instruments and substantive outcomes, draw attention to climate change vulnerability, and trigger more effective responses.
Recent developments in international law, relating to indigenous peoples (e.g. Free Prior and Informed Consent), strongly support their inclusion in matters directly affecting their rights and interests. The right to culture, protected via minority protection provision 27 in the universally accepted International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) not only recognizes their substantive right to culture, and thereby to traditional territories, but also guarantees strong participatory rights, including free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), in cases where indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and way of life are significantly threatened due to outside interference. Moreover, on an abstract level, the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 marked a paradigm shift in state-indigenous relations. The right to FPIC has been regarded as a part of self-determination, clearly demonstrated in UNDRIP in relation to, for instance, the use of natural resources.
This report aims to show how FPIC, as a relatively new principle relating to both human rights and indigenous peoples, has found its way into biodiversity protection, as well as into the guidelines of financial institutions. The section 2.5. Indigenous Peoples Rights in International Law provides Finland, as a strong support of UNDRIP, with recommendations specific to indigenous peoples. These include recommendations on: the application and implementation of FPIC; the inclusion of indigenous representatives in national delegations (See section 2.5.3. On Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination).
Women’s Rights in International Law
Women are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to 1) historical inequalities (e.g. social roles and impoverished status); 2) dependence on sectors and resources that are set to experience intense shifts (e.g. water and agriculture); 3) poor access to economic and social resources (e.g. financing, new technology, bargaining power, assets, social capital, medication, and information) in both developing and developed countries; and 4) insufficient representation in decision-making processes on climate change mitigation and adaptation (See section 2.6.1. Gender and Climate Change). However, while gender consideration should be central when drafting international environmental law, including specific provisions and matching commitments for practical implementation, the climate change debate has been largely gender blind, fragmented, superficial, inconsistent, partially implemented, and often limited to short-term interventions. Moreover, from a climate change perspective, where the roles of men and women may change (e.g. due to migration), the instrumentalization of individuals (e.g. subjects of a function), contrary to individuals as the subjects of rights to which states have a mandate, is a particularly important discussion (See section 2.6.1. Gender and Climate Change) that must be taken into consideration in policy-making.
While no single international agreement encompasses all components of climate change – from human rights to disaster risk reduction – multiple principles outlined in many agreements and instruments complete the climate change picture.
There are several common threads that run through these instruments, including: a) equal rights and access to resources (e.g. land and credit); b) participation in decision-making processes; c) priority to women for capacity-building and addressing risks due to exacerbated inequalities; d) just and accountable climate mechanisms; e) mainstreaming gender in all levels of climate-related programming, design, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. While these instruments lack mechanisms to robustly guarantee implementation, enforce compliance or address impunity, they have normative power to shape the political, economic and development landscape by consciously and publicly placing priorities on paper. Moreover, public finance, via multilateral or bilateral climate funds or development cooperation channeled through bilateral or multilateral development institutions, is crucial to providing gender-equitable climate finance. It is also an arena where Finland can effectively influence women’s ability to participate in decision-making by guaranteeing women’s input and participation at all stages of implementation. Existing initiatives, like Finland’s support of the GGCA (Global Gender Climate Alliance) that recognize women's critical leadership and participation in developing climate change policies are also particularly beneficial in promoting women's rights.
Debates surrounding climate change must also recognize the subject of intersectionality (See section 2.6.6. Intersectionality: The Role of Indigenous Women). While women’s rights have been formally codified as human rights in CEDAW and indigenous peoples’ human rights have been codified in UNDRIP and recognized as crucial, indigenous women’s rights are often neglected at both the international and local levels. This report, thus, places an additional focus on the role of indigenous women, who often face systemic violations – deepened exclusionary and discriminatory practices present within their own peoples and in the non-indigenous majority of society – of their human rights in a climate change context, and are also often forgotten in decision-making. There are several reasons as to why indigenous women are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change: geography, land rights and ownership, resources, participation, patriarchy, discrimination.
Finland’s Human Rights Policy
Finland promotes democratic structures, multilateral cooperation, well-functioning institutions and processes, as well as international rule of law that both strengthen and safeguard human rights. Furthermore, its international human rights policy – founded on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights conventions, internationally binding human rights documents, and premised on the universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights , including equal rights implementation, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, age, religion, opinion, and sexual orientation – serves as an instrument for creating a more just, secure, and humane world through the improvement of human rights internationally. With regard to Finland’s human rights policy on women (See section 2.6. Women’s Rights in International Law) internationally, Finland emphasizes: participation, gender mainstreaming, land rights, and resources (e.g. financial and expert support). Additionally, Finland’s human rights policy on indigenous peoples (See section 2.5. Indigenous Peoples Rights in International Law) has promoted and prioritized indigenous peoples’ rights within Finland’s foreign policy priorities, while focusing its efforts on decreasing discrimination and strengthening the status of indigenous peoples by implementing the objectives set out in UNDRIP. While this report focuses on indigenous peoples and women, in particular, it also briefly examines three additional vulnerable groups – the child, disabled persons, and gender and sexual minorities – and provides a brief list of recommendations for each groups (See section 1.3.3. Other Vulnerable Groups).
CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME
Despite the growing understanding of the implications for human rights of climate change and of response measures, the UN climate change regime established under the 1992 UNFCCC had neither recognized explicitly this relation nor considered the implications of UNFCCC decisions until only recently. In 2010, the COP adopted the first references to these interlinks, acknowledging the impact of climate change for the public and in particular for the most vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the COP also reaffirmed the necessity for parties to uphold human rights in relation to all climate related policies.
The adoption of the Cancun Agreements in 2010 have provided many opportunities to review the modalities of established policies and work programs under the convention and to address human rights implications through new perspectives in the climate regime (such as loss and damage). Many core elements of the climate change regime (such as the CDM) are also undergoing a review, thus providing an opportunity for parties to address existing deficiencies in the climate regime. Furthermore, the opening of a new round of negotiations in 2011 with the adoption of the Durban Platform allows to consider opportunities to address human rights impacts in innovative manner, such as in relation to the ultimate objective of the convention or in establishing a grievance mechanism for affected stakeholders.
In this context, we have highlighted numerous timely opportunities for Finland to promote right-based frameworks in various areas of work of the climate change. The recommendations highlighted below can be found in a more articulated version in the relevant sub-sections of the report, accompanied by additional recommendations.
Guaranteeing human rights protection through the full implementation of the convention
Ongoing negotiations related to the “ultimate objective” of the UN climate change regime provide an opportunity to consider the importance of the full implementation of the convention for the protection of human rights as well as to determine a minimum threshold for mitigation action.
o In the short-term, Finland could call on the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to identify the current gap of knowledge and to request additional studies regarding the implication of the two degrees target in relation to parties’ commitments to various international human rights norms and other principles of international law.
o In the long-run, Finland could advocate for the use of human rights as thresholds in the review of the global goal in order to ensure that a cost-benefit analysis of climate impacts do not trump the adverse effects on vulnerable populations.
In relation to communities already affected by the impacts of climate change, adequate and participatory adaptation policies should be designed and supported in order to prevent the infringement of the rights of local communities and in particular of the most vulnerable.
o Recognizing that men and women are affected by the impacts of climate change differently, Finland should call for a systematic collection sex-disaggregated data and the requirement that all adaptation policies be designed based on a gender-sensitive approach.
Finally, the establishment of institutional arrangements for loss and damage caused by adverse impacts of climate change offers a unique opportunity to address the plea of most vulnerable groups.
o Finland should insist on the establishment of strong connections between the work of the climate change regime on loss and damage and existing international fora with expertise in subjects relevant to this issue. Finland could join and actively support the Nansen initiative and the consideration of the relevance of its outcomes in the UN climate framework to ensure that the protection of the rights of persons by climate change.
o Affected individuals and communities must be able to seek directly compensation for their losses. The loss and damage mechanism should therefore allow stakeholders to submit relevant information, including firsthand accounts of the impacts of climate change, and make requests for compensation.
First of all, Finland should aim at strengthening the procedural rights of members of the public at the climate change negotiations, and in particular the rights of participation of indigenous peoples.
o Building on best practices in other UN bodies, Finland could request the UNFCCC to establish a framework-wide information disclosure policy for all UNFCCC documents and information.
o Finland should systematically – except when particular circumstances require otherwise – call upon chairs and others parties to enable meetings to take place in an open format and to invite input from representatives of the public into the proceedings of the sessions, in a non-tokenistic manner.
At present, the participation of indigenous peoples representatives is constrained according to the rules of procedures and practices applying to other constituencies of the public. This approach however does not fully acknowledge the special nature of the rights of indigenous and fails to empower their effective participation.
o Finland could advocate for the establishment of an Indigenous Peoples’ Expert body in the UNFCCC framework. This body could serve both to channel technical advise from indigenous communities and to enable the UNFCCC to better take into consideration indigenous knowledge in its work.
o Finland could support the provision of additional support through the establishment of a Technical support unit for Indigenous Peoples’ issues. The secretariat should also nominate indigenous focal points in the UNFCCC Secretariat in each areas of work of the secretariat.
o Finland could support the participation of indigenous people in UNFCCC regime through the establishment of a voluntary trust fund, building on best practices implemented in the operation of the CBD voluntary funding mechanism.
The recommendations highlighted previously would strengthen the right to information and right to participation of the members of the public. The establishment of a grievance mechanism, building on the experience of other international forums, should support the guarantee of the exercise of these rights and provide an opportunity for impacted stakeholders to benefit from access to a remedy.
o Finland should request additional research on possible benefits and modalities of the creation of a grievance mechanism established under the convention, in particular providing a study of best practices among other international.
o In the context of the negotiations under the Durban Platform, Finland should advocate for the establishment – or at least for the adoption of a specific mandate to establish such a mechanism as part of the outcome of the work of the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform.
Finally, human rights violations associated to the implementation of projects registered in the Clean Development Mechanism have highlighted the inadequacy of the current modalities and procedures of the CDM.
o Parties need to address the absence of redress mechanism – such as the appeal process currently under negotiations – for stakeholders whose rights are adversely impacted a CDM project. Finland should ensure that this mandate is implemented in order to the current infringement of the right of access to justice in relation to CDM projects.
o Some past and ongoing issues have resulted from the lack of concrete guidelines on the conduct of local stakeholders consultations. A set of rules should be provided in order to guarantee a minimum threshold in the quality of the local stakeholder consultation process. The ongoing review of the modalities and procedures also presents an opportunity to clarify the process for the validation of the local stakeholders consultations.
o Finally, the review of the modalities and procedures should explicitly mandate the Executive Board to uphold its responsibility to ensure that the projects registered do not infringe international norms including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The review should also provide the possibility for the Board and parties to monitor the respect of international norms and adequate action even once a project as been adopted.
DEVELOPMENT AND AID
Climate change, environmental concerns and sustainable development have become recently a new paradigm of development aid and development discourse, leading to new thematic prioritization. HH Holistic and sustainable development policies that effectively integrate social, environmental, and economic aspects as well as take account of climate change impact, are envisaged as a new trend in development policy-making. However, the relationship between climate change policies and development assistance/development policies is uneasy, including risk of maladaptation, issues of local ownership of development projects, human rights safeguards in the new type of projects or consistency of development efforts troubled by too much “mainstreaming”. Challenges in development-climate nexus are particularly visible when mariginalized and particularly vulnerable to climate change groups face discrimination, lack empowerment, and when their specific problems go unnoticed. International human rights instruments may serve as a platform to address the challenges of aid-climate nexus, providing aid with legitimacy and high moral ground, improve the quality of assistance. Human rights-based approach (HRBA) becomes one of the keywords in the development aid, including climate dimensions and strong emphasis on participation, but there is little clarity what the HRBA is supposed to exactly mean and what kind of policy change it is to entail (See section 5.1. for discussion).
International institutions, through which the global standards for development and aid may be influenced, and which, thus, constitute vital entry-points for Finnish human rights activities: Development Assistance Committe of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD DAC), UN Development Programme and World Bank Group (See respectively sub-sections 5.4., 5.5. and 5.6.).
OECD-DAC, grouping the biggest donor states in its guidelines, inter alia, supports civil society organizations strengthening the voice of the most vulnerable, promotes non-discrimination and applies some, although isolated, human rights-based indicators. In climate change projects, taking proper account of ethnicity and gender in development actions is to avoid a number of adverse effects. DAC has also developed guidelines on gender equality and women’s empowerment, arguing for making these strategic development objectives. The role of DAC donors is to be particularly important in capacity building, supporting impact assessments, good governance, raising awareness and conducting high-level policy dialogues. Surprisingly, DAC has not adopted any policy documents (or specific guidelines) comprehensively approaching the problem of indigenous peoples in development.
UNDP may be perceived as a prime standard setter in regard to the gender-development-climate nexus, including: women’s adaptive capacity, mitigation and adaptation actions which promote poverty reduction and gender equality, disaggregated date regarding climate change, traditional knowledge in planning, or decreasing gender biases in climate finance. UNDP has also emphasised particular vulnerability of indigenous women in crisis situations. Attention is also given to indigenous (culturally apropriate) participation at all levels in decision-making processes, especially those that may affect their human, developmental and environmental rights.
World Bank Group and institutions financing development have only taken first steps towards integrating human rights into their climate actions. WB has developed human rights relevant safeguard policies in order to avoid adverse impacts of development projects for which it provides funding. However, climate finance is not yet well covered by existing safeguards. Moreover, the WB’s focus has been so far primarily on climate mitigation.
Important processes, where climate change concerns in development and participation of groups vulnerable to climate changes, include: International Conference on Population and Development, the post-Monterey 2002 process on Financing for Development and the process of shaping of new development agenda and post-2015 (after the end of Millenium Development Goals timeline) sustainable development goals. The report puts particular attention to the post-2015 agenda (See sub-section 5.7.). The post-2015 agenda appears to have a set of already defined parameters, such as the new framework of specific goals (reflecting the success of the MDGs), human rights-based approach, inequality and gender focus, incorporation of climate change and disaster-related risks in planning and the emphasis on participation. The specific and practical setting of the new agenda is, however, yet to take shape. To date, Finland has strongly supported an emphasis on human rights, inequality, and the enhancement of the status of women in the post-2015 process.
Finland’s own development cooperation has taken up the principles of HRBA and sustainable development. Gender, reducing inequality and climate sustainability constitute cross-cutting objectives of Finnish development aid, with particularly strong record of promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment (See section 5.2.).
Development and Aid: Key recommendation
Finnish Development Aid (See section 5.8.1.)
o An Indigenous Focus for Finland’s Development Cooperation and Aid Policy Statement: A major shortcoming of Finnish aid policy towards indigenous peoples is the lack of a (clear) indigenous focus. The development of clear policy statement would: underline existing efforts; strengthen Finland’s position and role as a promoter of indigenous rights; strengthen; and ensure the quality of future projects and policies.
o Closer cooperation with Finnish Sami organizations, institutions and experts may be of an advantage both for Finnish development aid and Finland’s international development advocacy.
o Using, sharing and promoting best domestic and international practices (e.g., Sami Parliament and Akwe-Kon Guidelines) in enhancing indigenous participation within and through Finland’s development aid, for example by strengthening indigenous organizations (especially grassroots where the risk of project failure is comparatively higher) and political dialogues with cooperation partners.
o The role of indigenous women in food production, the transmission of traditional knowledge, and education should be properly understood and programmes/projects dedicated to women’s empowerment should build on the indispensable character of women’s work for survival of indigenous communities and cultures.
o Finnish development policy should support indigenous and networks’ ICT capacities, including human resources, education, technical support, experience-sharing, adopting ways to combine modern ICT with cultural practices for education, advocacy and the restoration of traditional knowledge.
OECD-DAC (See section 5.8.2.)
o Finland should encourage development of OECD-DAC guidelines on Development Cooperation with Indigenous Peoples. Considering the influence that DAC guidelines and peer-reviews have on aid practices, such guiding documents may visibly improve main donors’ policies with regard to indigenous peoples.
The Post-2015 Development Agenda (See section 5.8.3.)
o In order to facilitate participation of women’s and indigenous organizations in the post-2015 process, Finland should play a major role in supporting these NGOs within development cooperation, as well as in influencing EU activities in the field, by: promoting legal regimes supporting NGO activity; including various stakeholders in ongoing political dialogues, via various forms of regional cooperation to which Finland is party to, as well as with partners in the Global South; and sharing the Finnish model and experience regarding the support of legal frameworks for and cooperation with civil society partners. The support of civil society partners could take place via instruments, such as UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, and the support of international NGOs that enhance indigenous peoples’ participation directly through Finnish development aid.
o Finland should support measurable targets and indicators addressing the specific situation of women and indigenous communities. Gender equality should be included in all post-2015 sustainable development goals, with specific gender targets and indicators for each goal.
o Indigenous Collective Rights: An Indispensable Element of the Human Rights Framework: While indigenous peoples were largely excluded from the MDGs, there is a clear need for a set of goals and indicators taking account of the special situation of indigenous groups and the recent international developments, including: FPIC; access to, ownership and control of the traditionally used lands and resources; or the acknowledgment of collective rights.
o Finland should ensure that disaggregated data and a participatory approach are a part of its development aid activities, aiming at the fulfilment of the post-2015 framework. MDGs apply to general population statistics and, thus, often conceal inequalities, discrimination, social, and economic barriers. Monitoring should be based on the participation of civil society actors and examine not only outcomes but also the process.
REDD, a mechanism at the centre of global and national mitigation strategies, provides incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries by creating financial value (e.g. financial compensation) for carbon stored and absorbed by forests, providing developing countries with funding for limiting deforestation and forest degradation. Since its inception, REDD+ has generated great interest as a possible means of strengthening community land and resource rights, empowering community institutions, increasing income through benefit-sharing, and supporting indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ forest stewardship activities. The notion that development cooperation, in the context of REDD+ (including conservation, sustainable forest management, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks), requires capacity-building has led to a three-phase approach that is supported by multilateral platforms (UN-REDD, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) , and the Forest Investment Program (FIP), and bilateral agreements with individual donor countries): Phase 1: The Development of National Strategies, Policies, Measures, and Capacity Building; Phase 2: REDD+ Readiness – The Implementation of National Strategies; Phase 3: Fully-measured, Reported, and Verified Results-based Actions. REDD+ is particularly interesting as pilot projects are already testing its viability in 44 countries, leaving plenty of room to influence current policies.
UN-REDD and the World Bank Group
Both UN-REDD and the FCPF have developed joint guidelines with the aim of supporting effective stakeholder engagement for REDD+ readiness, especially with regard to indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities. UNFCCC Cancun Decision 1/CP.16 included two particular safeguards that provide: 1) “respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the UN GA has adopted the UNDRIP”; and 2) “the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities” in REDD+.
Pilot programmes – testing out different means of financing REDD+ – are key to the decision on how the scheme will be financed in the future. It is here that participatory rights are particularly important. While current costs – incurred in drafting REDD+ programmes, enhancing readiness, and initial implementation – are mostly covered by development cooperation funds, the long-term goal includes the establishment of a market-driven financing mechanism that is supported by public funds. In addition, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) will serve as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, supporting initiatives in developing countries relating to mitigation. Finland should, thus, keep an eye on development in this area.
Participation and Decision-Making
REDD+ aims to take a decentralized approach in three regards: 1) design process; 2) the protection of local peoples from exploitation and abuse via multiple checks and balances that help guarantee basic human rights, procedural equity, and appeal processes; and 3) decision-making on implementation and benefit allocation. The success of REDD+ is, thus, determined by: 1) measurable, reportable, and verifiable forest carbon estimates; and 2) FPIC, participatory rights under national REDD+ policies and measures, as well as no corruption. Additional aspects include access to information and state obligations under international law that require REDD+ countries to meet higher standards of participatory decision-making. Moreover, most European governments, including Finland, are obliged to incorporate procedural rights in negotiations concerning REDD.
Capacity building and participation are particularly crucial in forest management. Integrating a rights-based approach into REDD+ requires that pro-poor policies guarantee indigenous and local communities’ rights. However, the role of procedural rights has been a contentious issue. While the discourse surrounding participation has gained traction, it is still questionable to what extent it is actually being implemented successfully in existing REDD+ processes. There are also disagreements as to how inclusive increased participation in REDD+ decision-making processes – the creation of invited spaces for various stakeholders to interact – have been.
a) Women and REDD+: Current REDD+ initiatives may further exacerbate inequality regarding women’s access and control over land, forests, and natural resources. This is, in part, because current REDD+ architecture focuses on the link between carbon credits and the reduction of deforestation, which is particularly problematic because women are less likely to be responsible for deforestation and forest degradation in the first place. In addition, women often have no ownership rights, making them ineligible to receive carbon credits or other benefits from REDD+ and the gendered dimension of property and tenure rights is complex. There are concerns that REDD+ may close traditional or customary tenure rights to local communities, especially poor women. This is, in part, because REDD+ policy-makers and programme staff lack knowledge on gendered dimensions of forest-based resource use, needs, access, and knowledge.
b) Indigenous Peoples and REDD+: With regard to implementation, REDD+ projects must include a contextual analysis that enables FPIC by “tailoring each agreement to the specific circumstances of the tribes and lands involved.” Indigenous peoples have largely been excluded from UNFCCC negotiations on REDD+. This is, in part, due to their nearly non-existent role in UNFCCC decision-making, in general. “Indigenous REDD+”, the proposal for an alternative to traditional REDD+, emerged at COP16 in Durban with an emphasis on designing and ensuring that financial benefits from REDD+ projects flow directly to indigenous communities and the ability of indigenous peoples to preserve forests and recognize that REDD+ must be implemented with clear assurances of land ownership in all REDD+ activities. Wessendorf has noted that indigenous peoples’ representatives have been at the forefront of advocacy work with the UNFCCC, leading to the broadening of the scope of REDD, as well as the inclusion of social and environmental safeguards in the Cancun agreement. It also recognizes that, in order for this to be achieved, a rights-based approach must be applied.
FPIC: Despite the broad acceptance of its importance as an ongoing process of REDD+, there are difficulties, precisely in defining how the right to FPIC should be operationalized, thus, challenging its wider practical adoption. For instance, while FPIC has primarily been utilized in developing more focused projects (e.g. mining projects, dams, roads), its application in the context of REDD+ decision-making (e.g. national REDD+ plans) is still somewhat unclear. Some limitations arise in advocating for a strong commitment from states to comply with FPIC.
The implementation and monitoring of REDD+ includes principles and social and environmental safeguards (REDD+ SES)– for which there is a growing need both at an international and national level – that serve as the basis for ensuring that actors’ rights (e.g. indigenous peoples’ rights) and interests in REDD+ decision-making processes. Agreed upon at COP16 (2010), REDD+ Safeguards lay out seven principles that guide REDD+ actions in national contexts. These include, among others: transparent decision-making, participation by local and indigenous communities, and the protection of vulnerable people and ecosystems. Lessons learned from REDD+ schemes, to date, indicate that REDD+ safeguards must be embedded in existing and future national processes where global safeguards are adapted on a country-level. This provides countries with the flexibility to design safeguards that ensure that opportunities from, as well as social and environmental risks of, REDD+ are addressed with the national context in mind.
REDD+ SES – versatile in their ability to be tailored specifically to each country, but also be used consistently across countries – provide a comprehensive framework of key issues and elements of quality set to go beyond minimum safeguards. See more in section 6.4.1. REDD+ SES. Having recognized that safeguard implementation and SIS are minimum requirements, financing must be directed toward activities (e.g. improving governance) that enable carbon and non-carbon benefits (NCBs).
An awareness of potential consequences is particularly important as forest-related institutions often have a tendency of being characterized by unclear property rights, remoteness from public scrutiny, and historically repressive state actions. As a result, the international community may face both risks and payoffs: the human rights risks of forest-related interventions in the short run, and human rights risks of no action in the long-run. However, these risks – especially those affecting indigenous peoples and women’s rights and welfare – may be minimized through human rights safeguard policies, monitoring, and assessments.
While the nascent state of REDD+ should, in theory, allow for the protection of environmentally based livelihoods of many indigenous groups, improve forest governance, and increase resource flows to poor rural communities, and provide enhanced biodiversity preservation; scepticism remains as to the risks, such as rewarding practices that may result in negative environmental and social externalities (e.g. biodiversity loss through monoculture tree planting or the prevention of subsistence activities by forest dwellers), that may come with existing REDD+ mechanisms. It is not surprising that already marginalized groups, including women and indigenous peoples, have several reasons – ranging from land rights to forest conservation to centralized forest management – as to why they may feel particularly feel at risk.
REDD+ also bears the risk of causing social and environmental harm if its programmes only focus on reducing emissions. There has, for instance, been criticism of the fact that REDD+ does not protect forests that have already been successfully protected (e.g. forests conserved by indigenous peoples). It has been also noted that this may suggest that REDD+ arrangements maybe remain outside international carbon markets in order to prevent profit motives that incentivize the exploitation of indigenous peoples. Further criticism includes the exclusion of various stakeholders from forest-policy decision-making at the national and sub-national level.
While REDD+ is often discussed in siloes, there is a need for an integrated and more effective approach – further guidance and modalities grounded in lessons learned – to implement REDD+ activities. REDD+ activities must be set within a wider focus on the underlying drivers of deforestation and degradation, including poverty and agricultural policies, among others. Moreover, it is important to set ambitious, but reasonable goals for what REDD+ can do for forests. Country ownership of the REDD+ process and meaningful and continued stakeholder engagement are key to developing realistic, effective, and equitable safeguards that will help assuage valid concerns about the risks of REDD+. Considering a growing demand for REDD+ pilot projects, there must also be a concerted global effort to improve and increase financing for country-specific REDD+ strategies and objectives, catalyzing adequate financing for REDD+ across all phases of implementation, and incentivising NCBs. This also includes long-term stable funding for indigenous peoples’ and women’s representatives to participate in decision-making.
World Bank Safeguard Policy: Update & Review
The World Bank’s Safeguard policy is currently undergoing a three-phased review and update. Particularly relevant dates include:
o Review and Update Phase 2 (May 2013-Nov 2013) : The team will analyze feedback from Phase and will begin working on an integrated safeguard policies framework to be presented to the Board of Executive Directors in the second half of 2013.
o Review and Update Phase 3 (Dec 2013-Jun 2014)
This review and update provides the WB with an opportunity to build on its current safeguard policies, improve coverage and environmental and social risks, deliver better social and environmental outcomes across its projects and programs, as well as strengthen country systems and institutions. Although Finland has not participated in Review and Update Phase 1, which included interviews with experts and stakeholders, Phase 2 provides an opportunity for Finland to be consulted and discuss the draft integrated framework with the review and update team.
o In these discussions, Finland should particularly emphasize the importance of discussions surrounding Free, Prior and Informed Consent vs. Free, Prior and Informed Consultation. As noted in Section 6.3.2. Indigenous Peoples & REDD+, FPIC can act as a form of legal empowerment for indigenous communities and is integral to their full and effective participation. However, while indigenous peoples’ representatives have fought hard to include FPIC in FIP processes, their efforts and proposed references to FPIC were replaced with the WB accepted ‘Free Prior and Informed Consultation’. In workshops, such as the one outlined below (to be held by the FCPF’s Carbon Fund in September), Finland should encourage the streamlined application of FPIC guidelines between UN-REDD, FPCF, and REDD+ Parternships so as to ensure the inclusion of free, prior and informed consent, as opposed to free, prior and informed consultation.
Partnerships with NGOs and research institutions may not only serve as channels, but also as a basis on which to build Finnish foreign policy in the context of REDD+. This includes information exchange, data-collection, and sharing. Partners may provide relevant data and information on stakeholder engagement processes in a more systematic matter. At the same time, partnership may provide NGOs, on the ground, with opportunities to build capacity among various actors, including indigenous peoples and local communities. In this regard, Finland should continue to partner with PROFOR, while also engaging with organizations that are specifically dealing with issues focusing on indigenous peoples and women.
o In these partnerships, Finland should encourage the following: information and data coordination (including sex-disaggregated data); complimentary research; as well as workshops and seminars. As indigenous women’s capacity to participate in decision-making processes is difficult, Finland should also aim to focus its partnerships on empowering indigenous women. Examples of potential partnerships include:
o General: The Program on Forests (PROFOR) was established in 1997 as a donor-funded programme managed by the World Bank. Its primary aim was to support in-depth analysis, innovative processes, knowledge sharing and dialogue. It focuses on four themes, in particular: livelihoods, governance, financing sustainable forest management, and mechanisms for coordinating policies across sectors. Finland’s Department for International Development Cooperation is a donor.
• Indigenous Peoples: IWGIA currently implements a project titled “Climate Change Partnership with Indigenous Peoples: Promoting rights-based, equitable and pro-poor REDD+ in South and Southeast Asia”, which seeks to strengthen indigenous peoples’ capacity and provide them with the necessary information and access to decision making to empower them to actively advocate for the recognition and protection of their rights in REDD+. Thus, the aim of the project is to ensure that indigenous peoples have the tools and influence they need to assert the rights that are enshrined in UNDRIP both within global and national REDD+.
• Women: Gender sensitive REDD+ initiatives have the potential to become effective strategies for conservation, poverty reduction and climate mitigation, while also helping to decrease existing gender gaps. Including a gender perspective into REDD+ would ensure that frameworks “respect international law instruments and human rights standards” (e.g. CEDAW) and allow for the inclusion of a wealth of women’s unique knowledge, skills, and experience that may be vital to successful REDD-related initiatives. Consequently, REDD+ must be linked to CEDAW, similarly to how indigenous peoples have linked REDD+ to UNDRIP and ILO 169. Moreover, states must develop REDD+ strategies that address gender considerations with sex-disaggregated data that can help ensure accuracy in defining problems (e.g. drivers of deforestation), defining new opportunities, highlighting best practices, and setting guidelines for incorporating gender perspectives from the outset. An initiative (2011) by the IUCN Pro-Poor REDD+ project, with funding from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and joint implementation with the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), aimed at delivering roadmaps to help guide the design and implementation of gender-sensitive REDD+ strategies. WEDO, in cooperation with NORAD and the Ford Foundation, recently published From Research to Action, Leaf by Leaf: Getting Gender Right in REDD+ SES, which aims to present a full analysis (e.g. lessons learned, etc) of the gender dimension of REDD+ to policy-makers, program developers, and various other practitioners.
Research and Data
The collection, analysis, and utilization of data in assessing drivers of deforestation and degradation, contributors to sustainable forest management, conservation, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks are paramount in developing effective policies. Moreover, data helps clarify differential access and strategic need, especially with regard to women and indigenous peoples. Sex-disaggregated data is, thus, particularly important.
o Access to Near-Real-Time Deforestation Data: As a leader in technology and communication, Finland should contribute to the development of and partake in the pilot testing period of Global Forest Watch 2.0 (GFW 2.0), a near real-time forest monitoring system that combines satellite technology, data sharing, and global human networks to fight deforestation. Developed under the auspices of the World Resources Institute (WRI), this tool can provide governments, companies and communities with up-to-date information regarding deforestation and, thereby, help monitor and manage forest resources. This is particularly crucial as data regarding forests is often out of date and difficult to collect on a global scale. Converging human networks and technologies can help address many forest-related challenges. Finland should ensure that actors – at all levels of government, NGOs, as well as indigenous and local communities – participating in REDD+ have access to GFW 2.0 in order to 1) track changes; 2) effectively participate in decision-making processes; as well as 3) hold decision-makers accountable.
o Research Networks for Information-Sharing: In order to ensure quality research on REDD+ related issues, Finland should develop a research network, akin to the Norwegian Research Network, in honing and sharing its forestry expertise to base future foreign policy regarding REDD+ on. Norway has successfully established the collaborative Norwegian REDD Research Network, which includes interdisciplinary researchers at Norwegian research institutions who are working on and are interested in REDD-related research. The research undertaken in this network significantly shapes Norway’s bilateral relations with forest-rich developing countries. Such a research network allows Norway to not only contribute financially to REDD+ projects, but to also support advocacy work and build capacity.
o Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Decisions taken within UNFCCC influence national policymaking on REDD+ and the institutional structures and mechanisms for its implementation. Indigenous peoples need to be involved in national processes. However numerous questions on how to make indigenous peoples’ participation in national policy-making and REDD+ strategies meaningful remain. “Methodologies and approaches such as community participatory monitoring, participatory mapping of forests in Indigenous Peoples’ territories, human-rights and ecosystem-based approach should be employed in implementing REDD+.” Consequently, representatives of the Finnish Foreign Ministry have been cordially invited to attend a Joint Expert Workshop (maximum of 60 persons) on Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Discussion of Experiences and Lessons to Date, to take place on September 10th-12th, 2013, in Weilburg, Germany. This workshop, co-sponsored by the FCPF, BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development), and UN-REDD will provide an opportunity for specialists on REDD+ Consultation/Participation and indigenous peoples to share experiences and discuss lessons in local- and national-level participatory processes for REDD+ involving indigenous peoples.
o Self-Determination: FPIC, Tenure Rights, and Indigenous Women. Part 1: Self-determination is and should continue to be a concern for both indigenous communities and REDD+ organizations. Indigenous rights advocates consider self-determination to be the basis for FPIC. However, according to international human rights jurisprudence, FPIC is legally based on property rights, cultural rights, and the right to non-discrimination. While these rights recognize a collective element in the case of indigenous peoples they have an individual rather than a collective basis. FPIC has also been adopted as a part of the biodiversity regime where it is not directly rooted to the question of self-determination, but rather acknowledges that indigenous peoples, as holders of traditional knowledge, may provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity protection and should, thus, participate and share the benefits of the use of, for instance, genetic resources. The question of whether FPIC should be directly linked to self-determination or whether it is, in fact, more meaningful to speak of an inherent part of the right to cultural integrity must be further examined. The role of indigenous women, particularly in the context of REDD+, should be further examined as they are often faced with trade-offs between indigenous rights (as a collective) and gender rights (as individuals) with regard to land ownership and tenure. See Section 2.6.6. Intersectionality: The Role of Indigenous Women for more information. Finland should, thus, advocate that women are guaranteed proper tools to intervene on their territories.
Part 2: Moreover, issues of land ownership and tenure, particularly regarding indigenous women, must be resolved prior to REDD+ agreements in order to prevent the exacerbation of land conflicts resulting from increased economic value attached to REDD+ forest lands. Tenure issues should be addressed in an effort to secure the official recognition of women’s rights to forest products and carbon. It is key to align the incentives of investors and local communities. Finland should, thus, undertake a research programme that helps design and strengthen the empirical case for women’s tenurial land ownership rights.
KEY GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
For a comprehensive list, see section 7 on General Recommendations.
Research on Human Rights, Environment Sustainability and Climate Change
o The MFA should encourage representatives, as well as researchers at Finnish institutions to actively participate at the 3rd Yale/UNITAR Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy that will focus on the interface of human rights, environmental sustainability, and climate change, scheduled to take place in 2014. The following areas, among others, have been identified (2013 Workshop at Yale) as necessary in furthering research on rights and environmental governance:
- The distinctive role and influence of rights in environmental governance, such as “case study research that compares processes of change, empowerment, and mobilization in environmental governance with variations in the legal recognition of environmental rights.”
- Factors that may hinder the effectiveness of rights in particular contexts.
- The link between environmental and social movements that support human rights, as well as the indigenous peoples’ and forest dependent communities’ rights (e.g. tensions, synergies, and misunderstandings).
- Ethical challenges associated with defining environmental rights in a manner that excludes or negativelly affects groups who are not defined as right-holders in a particular context (e.g. indigenous women).
Existing national and global institutions have not been designed in a manner that allows for the effective pooling and management of transboundary resources. Furthermore, national regulatory systems and accountability mechanisms are often weak. Issues regarding ownership, access to regulation and various resources, as well as participatory rights, are fundamental and must be examined closely. In order to achieve effective results, there must be system-wide coherence whereby cooperation between UN institutions and IFIs (WBG, IMF, WTO) is strengthened through both formal and informal ties.
o The MFA, as its key funder, should work closely together with KIOS in promoting the realization of human rights, particularly supporting human rights projects focusing on women, indigenous peoples, and indigenous women in the context of climate change and sustainable development. For example, KIOS has stated that, linking environmental issues and KIOS’ project would help strengthen their existing work. However, this would require additional information regarding the link between climate change, human rights, and vulnerability. In this regard, the MFA should share relevant information in the development of new projects and when designing projects in cooperation with partners, like KIOS.
o Finland should fully participate in activities supported by the secretariat of the Aarhus Convention to ensure the full implementation the principles of the Aarhus Convention in International Forums. Finland, through its Aarhus Convention Focal Point (currently Ms. Eija Lumme), should implement the activities suggested by the Aarhus Convention, including reporting back through its best practices and of challenges faced in the implementation of the obligations under Article 3.7 as well as raising awareness within the relevant services of the existence of this legally binding obligation and on how its implementation relates to the priorities identified for Finland’s Human Rights policy.
o Finland should encourage the development of a human rights framework that both accounts for indigenous self-determination and the human rights violation of indigenous women, which would contend that indigenous self-determination, cannot be achieved without accounting for pressing issues that involve indigenous women’s social, economic, civil and political rights. Finland should, thus, also take on intersectional analysis as a lens through which climate change policies may and should be viewed in the future. Intersectional analysis is particularly useful in addressing people’s unique discriminatory experiences, especially those not captured by the existing human rights approach.
o Finland should encourage indigenous women to strengthen their alliance/coalition position prior to official meetings (e.g. at regional, national, and inter-sessional debates), so that women are not called into order by men who leading the process (e.g. at the COP). This must take place at the international level through the support of indigenous womens’ representation. This is likely to have a trickle-down effect to the regional, national, and local level. This has been seen in the case of Sami women, who are increasingly involved in Sami politics via various channels – from organizations and institutions at the local and national to the international level. Participation is also often based on quotas and yet little research has been done on how quotas affect minority women, including indigenous women. According to Hughes , minority women are particularly underrepresented in high-level political positions globally. While dual identities (e.g. indigenous women) can benefit from both gender and minority quotas by emphasizing their gender or minority status in different institutional contexts, they often benefit from neither. National gender quotas are particularly effective in advancing minority women’s representation because they reach across all political parties in a system. By 2008, over 100 countries had adopted gender quotas in some form or another. However, minority quotas are still uncommon. Consequently, it is important to note that gender quotas alone may not aid indigenous women. Tandem quotas (minority and national gender quotas together) increase the political representation of minorities. Consequently, Finland should encourage the use of tandem quotas as a basis for including indigenous women in decision-making processes. See section 2.6.6. Intersectionality: The Role of Indigenous Women.
Table of Contents
About the Authors
Climate Change Regime
Development and Aid
Development and Aid: Key recommendation
Key General Recommendations
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Climate Change Consequences
1.2. Mitigation & Adaptation
1.3. Finland’s Human Rights Policy
1.3.1. Finland’s Human Rights Policy on Women
1.3.2. Finland’s Human Rights Policy on Indigenous Peoples
1.3.3. Other Vulnerable Groups
22.214.171.124. The Child
126.96.36.199. Gender & Sexual Minorities
188.8.131.52. Disabled Persons
1.4. Methodology & Aim
Chapter 2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Climate Change and Human Rights
2.1.1. General Overview
2.1.2. The Climate Change, Development Cooperation, and Human Rights Nexus
2.2. The Environment & Human Rights
2.3. Human Rights & Climate Change
2.4. Environmental Rights
2.4.1. Substantive Rights
2.4.2. Procedural Rights
184.108.40.206. Access to Justice
2.5. Indigenous Peoples Rights in International Law
2.5.1. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change
2.5.2. A Paradigm shift in Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Discourse
2.5.3. On Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination
2.5.4. The Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples
2.5.5. FPIC & The Right to Culture
220.127.116.11. The CCPR and UN Human Rights Committee
18.104.22.168. Other Human Rights Monitoring Bodies
2.5.6. FPIC & The Right to Property
2.5.7. FPIC & Land and Natural Resource Rights
22.214.171.124. ILO Convention No. 169
126.96.36.199. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
188.8.131.52. Biodiversity Protection Regime
2.5.8. FPIC in International Financial Institutions
184.108.40.206. World Bank
220.127.116.11. International Financial Corporation (IFC)
2.5.9. Conclusion and Recommendations: What is the Current Legal Status of FPIC?
2.6. Women’s Rights in International Law
2.6.1. Gender and Climate Change
2.6.2. Climate Change and Women’s Rights
18.104.22.168. Global Agreements and Forums
22.214.171.124. The Role of Women at the UNFCCC
126.96.36.199. Women at the UNCBD
188.8.131.52. Women at the UNCCD
2.6.3. Women and Climate Change Financing
2.6.4. Women’s Participation
2.6.5. Women as Agents for Change
2.6.6. Intersectionality: The Role of Indigenous Women
2.7. HRBA to the Environment
Chapter 3. Processes
3.1. Procedural Rights in International Environmental Governance
3.1.1. The Aarhus Convention and Public Participation in International Forums
184.108.40.206. Promotion of the Aarhus Principles in International Forums
220.127.116.11. Promoting the Aarhus Principles outside of the UNECE
3.1.2.Reform of the UNEP and renewed mandate relating to stakeholders engagement
18.104.22.168. Participation of stakeholders in UNEP’s work
Role of UNEP in Environmental Governance
Chapter 4. Climate Change Regime
4.1. Stakeholders procedural rights at the UNFCCC
4.1.1. Access to Information
4.1.2. Access to Negotiations
4.1.3. Public Participation
4.1.4. Women’s Participation in UNFCCC
4.1.5. Recommendations related to access to information and public participation at the UNFCCC
4.1.7. Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in UNFCCC
4.2. Country delegates and negotiations officers
4.3.1. Goal setting and ambition
4.3.2. The Clean Development Mechanism
4.4.1. Nairobi work programme
4.4.2. Cancun Adaptation Framework
4.5. Loss & Damage
4.5.2. The Work Programme on Loss and Damage
4.5.3. Prospects and Recommendations
4.6. Providing a legal remedy – towards a grievance mechanism?
Chapter 5. Development & Aid
5.1. A General Overview
5.2. Finland’s Development Cooperation
5.3. International Conference on Population and Development & the UN MDGs
5.5.1. Women and UNDP
5.5.2. Indigenous Peoples and UNDP
5.6. Financing Development and the World Bank
5.7. The Post-2015 Development Agenda: Overview of The Current State
5.8. Recommendations for Development and Aid
5.8.1. Finnish Development Aid
5.8.2. Developing OECD-DAC guidelines on Development Cooperation with Indigenous Peoples
5.8.3. The Post-2015 Development Agenda: Recommendations
Chapter 6. REDD
6.2.1. UN-REDD and the World Bank Group
6.2.2. REDD+ Partnership
6.2.3. REDD+ Financing
6.3. Participation and Decision-Making
6.3.1. Women & REDD
6.3.2. Indigenous Peoples & REDD
6.4.1. REDD+ SES
6.6.2. Indigenous Peoples
6.6.4. For Future Reference
Chapter 7. General Recommendations
7.1. Monitoring Existing International Legal Mechanisms
7.2. Research on Human Rights, Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
7.4. Indigenous Peoples
7.4.1. A Seat at the UNFCCC
7.4.2. Indigenous Peoples’ Participation
7.4.3. 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples
7.4.4. Institutionalizing Indigenous Ecological Knowledge
7.4.5. Indigenous Women
7.4.6. Draft Nordic Saami Convention