Local Gov. and Indiguenos Peoples. Regional seminar by maria vasquez

REFLECTIONS

on the Regional Seminar

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS and

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES San Crist贸bal de las Casas, Chiapas-Mexico 15-16 of April 2010

(English version)

REFLECTIONS

on the Regional Seminar

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS and

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

San Crist贸bal de las Casas, Chiapas-Mexico 15-16 of April 2010

(English version)

Reflections on the Regional Seminar

on Local Governments and Indigenous Peoples

Copyright © 2011 By the United Nations Development Programme Montes Urales 440 Lomas de Chapultepec, Z.C. 11000, Mexico, D.F. Published by the United Nations Development Programme inside the activities of the Project 00059515 “Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective”.

The opinions, analyses and recommendations hereunder do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the United Nations Development Programme, its executive board, or its Member States.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the United Nations Development Programme.

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-92-1-126334-3 Sales #: B.11.III.B.34 Printed in Mexico Desktop publishing and printing: arte i diseño. www.arteidiseno.com This publication is financed by the UNDP´s Bureau for Development Policy (BDP/DGG).

DIRECTORY United Nations Development Programme, RBLAC Alvaro Pinto Coordinator Democratic Governance Cluster

United Nations Development Programme Regional Centre

for Latin America and the Caribbean

Gerardo Berthin Governance and Decentralization Policy Adviser

United Nations Development Programme, Mexico Magdy Martínez-Solimán Resident Representative Diego Antoni Democratic Governance Programme Director Cristina Magaña Project Coordinator “Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective” Dafne Gómez Research and Operations Assistant “Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective”

Responsible for the Proceedings Elsa Barreda UNDP Chiapas Paulina Trujillo UNDP Chiapas Rebeca Koloffon UNDP Chiapas

Editorial Coordination Dafne G贸mez UNDP M茅xico

Analysis and Document Elaboration Paloma Bonfil Reseacher GIMTRAP Gerardo Berthin UNDP Regional Center for Latin America and the Caribbean

Edition and Translation to English Philomena Linehan

Index

Foreword

I. Introduction/Background and Objectives of the Seminar

II. Principal Findings and Themes

III. Latin American Scenarios

IV. Local Government and Indigenous Political Participation:

V. Indigenous Peoples’ Local Government Models: Cases Discussed

VI. Gender Outlook in Local Governments

VII. Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous Peoples’ Governance

VIII. Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance

ANNEX: Seminar Agenda

Acronyms

Discussion Themes

and Indigenous Peoples

(Spanish 5)

Foreword

he Regional Seminar on Local Governments and Indigenous Peoples was organized because of the common interest and joint effort by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Mexico, the UNDP Democratic Governance Practice Area of the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, the UNDP Regional Service Centre in Panama and UNDP’s Bureau for Development Policies (BDP/DGG). The objective was to make better known the various initiatives in the region on issues concerning local governments and indigenous peoples. The seminar offered an opportunity to know, share and systematize lessons learned, progress made, obstacles encountered, and initiatives proposed in the region.

In Latin America reflection about democracy and local governance has a central place. This is a key reason to strengthen channels for reflection and provide spaces where different local realities can be discussed. Doing so will give more elements to tackle the region’s historic challenges in national settings that are marked by a distancing between citizens and politics and its actors. It will also enable us to confront the emergence or intensification of social phenomena that impede human development due to marginalization, inequality, discrimination, insecurity and increasing violence.

We thank those invited (colleagues from the region’s country offices) for agreeing to take part in this reflection exercise and for sharing valuable and relevant information.

In this regard, to be able to have an opportunity to reflect on local-national experiences from a regional perspective provides a comparative framework.

Similarly, we want to recognize the support and commitment from UNDP BDP colleagues, as well as from those from RBLAC and the Regional Service Centre. Special thanks are due to Lenni Montiel, UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator in Turkmenistan, who at the time of designing this initiative served as Senior Local Governance Advisor of BDP’s Democratic Governance Group.

While in the past three decades important advances have been made in the region in understanding these democratization processes in various countries of the region, perhaps the most diverse and most complex to analyze is that concerning both the local area and decentralization policies.

(Spanish 7)

Hence the importance of focusing on local public spaces and government policies and actions developed in them as a means of enriching the debate about what is happening at national or regional level.

The commitment societies have made to local democracy should be strengthened to allow citizens to improve their situation and become political subjects who are responsible for their community’s human development.

Equally important is to identify conditions and circumstances that facilitate – or conversely prevent – the emergence of political leadership and democratic capacity-building among vulnerable groups or in those that have been historically excluded.

It is in the local space where women and indigenous communities should be better able to enforce their political and collective rights by, for example, having access to local government bodies, or because political leaderships emerge who introduce their group’s or community’s priority themes in the local agenda, an even in the national or international agendas.

In addition to the undeniable democratization advances in the region, we must also pay attention to the fact that the local and community levels have a long path to follow. Today, local governments are better known for their opacity rather than for their transparency. Moreover, there is no functional link between federal or central policies, local or municipal programmes, whether due to institutional design or to a lack of coordination between levels of government; or lack of state, resources and institutionality. Of concern is also the lack of channels for social participation and political representation to encourage constructing a citizenry increasingly involved in local public affairs.

It is also in the local space where women and indigenous communities should have much more to say about the effectiveness and relevance of the social policies, public works and municipal services being the direct beneficiaries and go-betweens with authorities. It is ultimately at local level where some practices occur that are contrary to universal human rights and the desire for political participation. Reflecting on local governments, indigenous governments, development and gender, is an obligation for those of us who want to help build and strengthen democracy.

Magdy Martínez-Solimán Resident Representative UNDP Mexico Alvaro Pinto Coordinator Democratic Governance Cluster

(Spanish 8)

Introduction/ Background and Objetives of theSeminar

Introduction/ Background and Objetives of the Seminar Gerardo Berthin, Governance and Decentralization Policy Adviser, UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean.

ver the past decade the indigenous peoples of Latin America have become increasingly vocal in national and local political scenarios and have forced countries and societies to give a specific response to their demands for inclusion, participation and citizenship, as well as to recognize their cultural and collective rights. A first result is that there are now areas where indigenous peoples can be represented, express their desire for self-determination and make their impact felt, but where they face new challenges that come with diversity when building and consolidating the region’s democratic governance.

During the past two decades many democratic reforms have taken place throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. All the countries in the region, at different speeds and using different strategies, are undergoing a political transformation –to some degree in response to the perception of ineffective government– by improving public administration and introducing more in-depth democratic changes; to a great extent these changes are encouraged not only by decentralization and citizens’ demands for a more effective State, but also by democratic ideals about giving them new opportunities to help close the rural-urban gap and achieve a fairer and more transparent distribution of public resources.

The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations Organization in 2007, requires constant revision. United Nations agencies should also rethink their strategies and work together to respond to questions concerning inclusion processes that recognize the demands made by of indigenous peoples worldwide that their diversity be accepted and promoted.

(Spanish 11)

In Latin America sub-national and local governments that are closer to the population are increasingly receiving more demands and proposals from indigenous peoples and their representatives. Some countries, Bolivia and Ecuador for example, can be thought of as laboratories of political expressions and practices in a local environment that is in full development.

Considering the above, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) organized the first Regional Seminar on Local Governments and Indigenous Peoples to learn about and exchange experiences with UNDP country offices in order to prepare a shared reference format and establish a foundation for new regional strategies. One objective of the seminar was to systematize experiences to summarize the lessons learned.

Various experiences show the vibrant and growing range of indigenous peoples’ political participation in local government, such as: processes concerning autonomy and self-determination and/or resistance; situations where violence and/or serious conflicts occur within institutionalized democratic structures; or under a traditional and original order of authority and government. These experiences, although recent and novel, make an important contribution to the region’s democratic governance and have led to the emergence of new political stakeholders and ways of exercising power at national and local level.

The seminar was suggested and financially supported by UNDP’S Bureau of Development Policy (BDP) in New York. In October 2009 Lenni Montiel, at the time Senior Policy Adviser for the Democratic Governance Group of BDP, held discussions with the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean in New York, the Policy Adviser on Governance and Decentralization Policies of UNDP for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the UNDP Resident Representative in Mexico about holding the seminar in Chiapas, Mexico.

Several Latin American countries are rethinking how to develop and manage public policies with decentralization designed to strengthen local governments. They are also fostering vertical and horizontal conversational networks; promoting and strengthening cooperation protocols between stakeholders; recreating a new language of involvement at the different levels of the State and between the State and citizens; and demanding greater transparency and accountability. Growing demands made by indigenous peoples on local governments are part of the process. And although not yet complete, it is an experience to be recorded and supported, and about which information should be disseminated to give a better understanding of indigenous peoples’ political participation opportunities and their potential impact on national and local decision-making.

Between October and December 2009, Gerardo Berthin, Diego Antoni (Director of the UNDP-Mexico Democratic Governance Programme), and Pablo Gago (who at that time assisted Lenni Montiel in New York), held several virtual meetings to begin organizing the seminar. Late in November 2009 in Seville, Spain, Oscar Torrens, Director of the UNDP office in Chiapas, Mexico, joined the organizing committee. In January 2010, when Diego Antoni was on mission in Haiti during the disaster, the organization of the seminar was entrusted to a two-member team in the UNDP Office in Mexico: Cristina Magaña and Daphne Gomez. They were asked to design the seminar and arrange the logistics of participation by UNDP programme officers, national counterparts and regional experts.

(Spanish 12)

The team and the seminar were supported by: Alvaro Pinto, Democratic Governance Coordinator at RBLAC; Gerardo Noto and Ferran Cabrero, RBLAC; Ana Maria Lopez and Cristina Martin, UNDP-Mexico; and Mauricio Espinosa and Dayana Guillen, UNDP’s Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean. Key inputs for the agenda and topics for discussion were provided by: Christian Jette, UNDP-Bolivia; José Eusebio Guoz, UNDP-Guatemala; Marco Estella, UNDP-Colombia; Mario Solari, UNDP-Peru; Veronique Gerard and Jorge Servin, UNDP-Paraguay; and Jesus Virgilio Rivera, UNDP-Nicaragua.

Third, a number of dilemmas are still unsolved concerning the seminar’s theme. A preliminary look at specific studies,1 such as Chiapas, indicates that indigenous people may find the subject of local governments to be paradoxical. On the one hand, during the last two decades local spaces have been strengthened by being given greater political power and responsibilities, by receiving and mobilizing additional resources, and by taking more responsibility for public services. This makes them a fertile ground for designing and implementing public policies as well as for democratization and development strategies. On the other hand, a constitutionally established local space can be limited as to traditional forms of indigenous government: it tends to disrupt the original system of organization and decision-making by weakening institutions (such as the assembly and the cargo system) still in force in many places and, in some cases, supplant original forms and practices of governance.

The seminar was held in the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas on 15 and 16 April 2010 and was attended by more than 40 participants including officials from UNDP offices in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, New York, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Thailand. Academics and invited experts also took part in the discussions.

The seminar’s methodology, therefore, was intended to be an exercise in building a shared framework from the bottom up or “local” in this case represented both by national contexts and practical local government experiences in each country, and “global” shared frameworks considered as those with which UNDP could prepare new strategies on indigenous participation in local-level governments and structures.

It was designed under three basic assumptions. First of all, “local governments/indigenous peoples” was a new theme with very little background information available either in UNDP or elsewhere. It was therefore proposed that it be an “internal” regional seminar with invited guests to enrich the discussion and provide UNDP with a map on which to outline and project policies, initiatives and partnerships on the theme.

The seminar’s programme was divided into four thematic segments allowing an analysis to be made of: context; cases and experiences according to sub-regions; transversal elements; opportunities and challenges (see Agenda in the Annex). By so doing, intermediate scenarios were built of coincidences and specific issues in models of indigenous political participation and locallevel impact. Sub-regions represented were:

Second, the seminar could serve as an instrument to allow for analyses, exchanges and systematization not only to better understand the current characteristics of the theme of “local governments/indigenous peoples” but also to learn more about advances and challenges. It was important to review the different forms and models used by local governments and indigenous peoples in the region and analyse how they can be improved.

REFERENCES 1. For example, see the two reports (2006 and 2010) on Human Development of the Indigenous Peoples in Mexico.

(Spanish 13)

Mexico and Central America (with cases from Mexico, Guatemala and Nicaragua); the Andean region (Bolivia, Peru and Colombia); and the Southern region (Paraguay). Time was made available to address additional strategic and complementary issues including: indigenous land management in community territories and how it is related to local governments (municipalities); governance of territorial claims and the well-being of indigenous peoples; gender issues and female indigenous movements and local authorities; and the territory as an area for indigenous peoples’ programming, planning and autonomy. To meet the seminar’s objectives of generating new knowledge and creating possible new strategies, the agenda left plenty of room for discussions and exchanges and four thematic roundtables were organized to prepare specific proposals on issues identified as important, priority and illustrative. The following topics were discussed: Roundtable 1: Regulatory/Legal Analysed: harmonizing local legislation with the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; recognizing indigenous peoples’ institutionality; and the electoral framework. Roundtable 2: Decentralization, public administration and government programmes Analysed: local governments; indigenous peoples’ governments; indigenous land management; inputs for analysis and challenges. Roundtable 3: Participation of indigenous peoples in election and decisionmaking processes Analysed: the main electoral trends and challenges, also looked at specifically from the indigenous peoples’ point of view. Roundtable 4: Dialogue and building agreements Analysed: indigenous movements; displaced persons and refugees; and capacity building to reach agreements, among others.

(Spanish 14)

The roundtable discussions were an integration exercise between UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s practical experience and proposals put forward by invited stakeholders to hear different views about indigenous peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; situations.

in their respective political contexts, with their respective protagonists, achievements and challenges. It is intended to complement broader efforts already made and to offer a reflection as a programming and policy input.

To enable new scenarios and priority areas of attention to be established, discussions ranged from specific experiences of indigenous peoples and local governance to national scenarios and transversal problems. The wide-ranging composition of the roundtables improved the discussions and resulting proposals; it also provided key inputs for this report.

By examining these experiences, a basic framework emerges to understand the design, implementation, critical situations and other elements needed to support local governance and indigenous peoples. The document focuses on processes that allow useful lessons to be identified by those who are already promoting this type of activity or are contemplating doing so. Since they are works in progress, no judgement is made about their quality, but it is hoped the dialogue will be helped by examining them. Readers are offered these deliberations as a contribution to the debate and a way to share different outlooks and convergent points of view about a common theme whose solution requires much imagination and exchange of experiences.

The main objective of the report is to record experiences of local governance and indigenous peoples in seven countries in Latin America (Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru). It neither qualifies nor compares experiences. It is rather an attempt to analyse and understand seven different dynamics

(Spanish 15)

Principal Findings and Themes

he principal analytical focal points, presented in greater detail in the body of the document, are: (i) the diversity and special features of national cases; (ii) general and shared concerns; (iii) relevant factors in national scenarios, in UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional work in each case, and local environmental implications.

It was important to review the regional conditions in which indigenous participation in local government takes place given that the diversity of experiences, from how national government functions to obstacles hindering autonomy and community-level management, pose serious challenges but also provide opportunities when establishing an institutional policy framework. Despite differences, a shared agenda was prepared that reflected local conditions, within national borders and in international forums and venues with a bearing on the performance of UNDP, its counterparts and associates.

Common characteristics were identified in relation to local indigenous governments with national structures of authority and political representation. For example, political parties and the different ways they relate to indigenous organizations and movements, ranging from collaboration to inclusion, and even to how indigenous parties are constituted.

It was evident that instruments are needed to allow UNDP country offices and other stakeholders to develop national strategies that effectively respond to local conditions characterized, among other things, by the extent to which indigenous movements are taken into account and by their impact on local governments.

Within the general scenarios an analysis was made of the importance and relevance of the impact international mechanisms have in the region in promoting the opening of spaces for political participation of indigenous people at all government levels. However, not all Latin American governments have signed or comply with international agreements on the rights of indigenous peoples living within their borders.

(Spanish 19)

Analysis focal points In this context, the following themes were the focal points of the analysis:

a. Governance First of all the need was established to recognize that today local governance in Latin America, besides being the expression of national contexts and social structures, includes different political systems. These are, perhaps, the factors with the greatest effect on the conditions under which indigenous local government functions. Then a comparative analysis showed a disfunction between the knowledge, traditions and customs of indigenous peoples and the societies they live in; this means intercultural processes are not always either equal or horizontal and, therefore, it is difficult to advance a broad democratic and inclusive model of the type of government the region needs.

little effect on promoting inclusive relationships between national and sub-national socio-political structures and indigenous peoples and organizations. This is particularly relevant because some indigenous peoples have sound organizational structures but share the same scenario with others whose social fabric is being torn and who are under pressure from the disruptive forces of migration, social breakdown, and uneven integration. Mention was made of the need to regionalize diversity as a basis for UNDP action strategies. This is especially important because so far most policies meant to recognize indigenous peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; collective and political rights in different countries are essentially uniform in their conception and approaches and, therefore, end up by failing to recognize the internal diversity of the indigenous groups living within different national borders.

It is necessary to record and address the diversity of local government patterns in indigenous communities and, because national power structures often limit and ignore their authority and legitimacy, the different ways such governments respond to the demands of their communities.

Other challenges to democratic governance were mentioned (in the political system, in representative democracies and in institutions representing national and local governments) that continue to make more demands as the search continues for new opportunities and solutions. In view of the dimension and complexity of national and regional problems, it is at local level that it is becoming more likely to find feasible, structured, well thought out, and agreed upon solutions that indigenous people can put into effect with their own type of governance.

Also analysed was the importance of taking into account the diversity of indigenous communities according to their different levels of social cohesion. It was remarked that this social cohesion affects their local governance and how they interact with national-level socio-political structures, as well as whether their projects and agendas are sound and feasible. Constant adaptations must also be taken into account; if they are not included in any UNDP support proposal or strategy action taken would have

(Spanish 20)

The feasibility and importance of the commitment to what is local are also confirmed by learning that as national governance crises festered and erupted, more localized parallel governance efforts were made while, at the same time, indigenous peoples had accepted the proposal to build national and local governance with their own outlook and vision of the future; this outlook allows for what has been called a more inclusive “new democratic governance” to make more explicit and operational the legal recognition of diversity.

At regional level it is seen that, apart from the experience of Ecuador and the current process in Bolivia where indigenous people are or have been the country’s governing force, because indigenous local governments are often formed in ways that are national and formal rather than with their own mechanisms, indigenous political participation is often conditioned and limited by the constraints of a traditional democratic model and by centralizing trends. A true intercultural exercise based on their own democratic governance would imply managing indigenous territorial entities according to their ancestral methods and, therefore, they would have both the right and the conditions to administer their own territory’s resources under their own regulations. It is in this context that challenges appear concerning coordination between what is local and national, and even between what is regional and global, as well as about establishing the importance of dialogue and making it possible to consolidate indigenous institutions. In any case, to exercise government implies contextualizing the Western institutional pattern, particularly with regard to resource management and fiscal arrangements; it is at these levels that indigenous governments continue to be restricted to following the Western standard although in other areas it is easier to seek other arrangements that more resemble their own outlook.

It is essential that diversity be recognized if a new model of democratic governance, whether national or local, is to be adopted that takes into account and opens the way for different political and social stakeholders and including indigenous peoples. This type of new democratic governance must confront the struggle between dominant forces vying for entry to and/or coordination with power structures and indigenous governments. Dilemmas are appearing, for example in Andean countries where indigenous peoples are not homogeneous groups and there are political and cultural differences between the highland Andean people and those living in the lowlands. Also, while some indigenous groups in Latin America have found positions of political power, others are still struggling for recognition as legitimate political stakeholders; this happens with the people in the Amazon region and in particular in Paraguay where indigenous people make up 1.7 per cent of the country’s population. In this respect, local democratic governance associated with local indigenous authority may be linked to the idea of territorialized communities, indigenous communities, parishes, or other forms of territorial administration where indigenous territorial autonomies could flourish.

Democratic governance as it concerns government by local indigenous representations inevitably leads to a new relationship between the State and the indigenous peoples and to a new legal political status that must be considered if the State’s institutions are to be redefined. Legal variations must be identified that go beyond simple declarations and affect the whole constitutional structure. However, the issue of democratic governance when indigenous representatives exercise local authority and power has not yet reached ministries of finance for example, even though it is already included in national constitutions.

(Spanish 21)

b. Worldview One topic raised was indigenous peoples’ cultural identity, including aspects of indigenous worldviews and how they relate to local governance. Because performing public duties and functions of government as well as exercising authority – and democratic governance itself – are closely linked to a new ethical and sociopolitical perception, describing the worldview of indigenous concepts of development, participation and/or public policies causes innumerable dilemmas. Indigenous social organization is related to each community’s cosmogony with its view of life as the guiding principle of all human activities and of the natural scenarios of which they are a part. Since human relationships are a part of life itself, everything is inter-related.

The analysis showed the importance and necessity of documenting the political viewpoint, the ethical discourse and the future of indigenous government and its policy objective of a “good life” or “living well” based on worldviews that link thought with feeling and build decisionmaking areas to achieve the community’s wellbeing when confronted with the unfair and alienating terms imposed by development models and that have denied indigenous social identities and mechanisms. In many cases, political and government offices are occupied by indigenous representatives under a prevailing “colonized settlers” logic and not as an alternate government and development proposal based on the distinct identities of Latin America’s indigenous peoples.

There are also ethical codes that are part of a government support system in which, in general, a person’s word is his or her bond and the honour of serving the community is of prime importance. And these ethical codes of belonging and reciprocity that validate the “legality” of indigenous exchanges since the word alone is what counts whether when making a contract or solving a conflict, even though the prevailing national legal system requires an indigenous authority to keep a written record of its decisions.

Among the clear differences identified between how non-indigenous and indigenous government performs, emphasis was placed on dedication to service and how the values of government functions are respected; in indigenous communities this means that while there are advantages for those who govern they are conditioned by the formality of the office and by being subordinate to the community. Thus, the indigenous conception of local government is based on seeking equality, the discrete handling of conflicts, balance and consensus, the value of accumulating prestige, a disinterest in acquiring power, and on solidarity. Among the bridging and dialogue mechanisms between indigenous and formal local government systems community consultation has been rescued as a characteristic method indigenous peoples use to make decisions affecting the community and to decide what actions to take to build and develop democracy.

(Spanish 22)

c. Shared and Individual Scenarios in Latin America Institutional work by UNDP with indigenous peoples and national and local governments in the region is marked by its diversity. On the one hand, conditions have been identified in the sub-region of Mexico and Central America that allow support to be given to indigenous local government processes. In Guatemala, for example, civic committees with indigenous participation and community principles have legitimacy among the indigenous population and are maintained as an alternative form of dealing with the State and national society. In some cases an indigenous mayor was elected and, by being a socially validated representative, opened up opportunities for community participation. However, this is infrequent and did not happen in every municipality and/or region; the Ixil area is an example where the civic committee was coopted by dominant political interests.

Another example is that of people in lowland Bolivia who use strategies to defend their autonomy and, 28 years ago, formed a regional indigenous movement that has had an impact and some of the results of which were to: consolidate indigenous territories; prepare different levels of territorial planning; and promote their own management systems. In 2006 indigenous women were encouraged to participate in decision-making; sustainable use began to be made of renewable natural resources; the regulatory system began to be fully implemented, especially by promulgating laws on managing land resources; local technicians and community leaders were trained and their capacities built as best practices for governing their territories; a relationship was established and an impact made on public and private institutions in the region; demonstration projects were implemented according to each region’s potential; the School of Projects for Indigenous Peoples (ESIPIRO) was established; and the Agrarian Reform Law approved.

Linguistic multiplicity is another challenge of diversity. In Guatemala 24 indigenous languages are spoken and in Mexico there are more than 96. This has many implications for democratic governance, particularly when it comes to promoting indigenous State representation. There may be alliances and agreements, for example, about protecting indigenous institutions or autonomy; however, these are not always microlevel alliances or on inter-ethnic borders so that confrontations or conflicts may occur. When this happens, the best support must be sought to recognize indigenous institutions’ legitimacy and representation as emblems of the people’s struggles and conquests.

In the case of the Andean peoples in Bolivia in particular, the Ayllu is a traditional form of community territorial management that includes the community’s legislative organization to attend to its educational and health needs. The Ayllu system allows an analysis to be made of indigenous peoples’ conditions and needs on which public policy forecasts founded on localized indicators are used to prepare a baseline for local-level indigenous government. It is a cultural construction expressed in “natural, cosmic, technical and political” indicators.

(Spanish 23)

Several of the cases discussed showed how the exercise of local indigenous government has developed in parallel with building political discourse, also indigenous, and affirming existing territoriality resulting from the history of indigenous peoples and their inherited ancestral cultures. This suggests that indigenous autonomies are also historical and have always existed, while Ayllu territories are connected and interdependent. The complexity of this political structure includes different levels and mechanisms of community land planning, departmental forums and councils, but also other forms of political organization and management built on the territory’s realities.

In 2008 in Paraguay, before the government changed in 2009, the Coordinator of Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (CAPI), in partnership and collaboration with UNDP, presented a public policies proposal. With a historical background of omission and failure to take adequate and pertinent action for the indigenous peoples, it sought to reverse their condition of exclusion and inequality by respecting indigenous self-determination; this would be done by creating new government institutions, especially at local level, establishing specialized indigenous jurisprudence and introducing legislative reforms to recognize indigenous rights. In this initiative, each indigenous community has its own internal regulations to establish a penal framework based on local realities and social structures in what is called “autonomy within autonomy” as a regional exercise in structuring its own levels of development.

In Bolivia the indigenous government’s political discourse states that the role of the indigenous authority and its institutions is to ensure food production and systematize political practice to activate the Ayllu model and ensure indigenous political participation. This does not prevent difficulties due, above all, to indigenous sectors being “colonized” by the political leadership as well as by political parties.

It can be seen, therefore, in different Latin American contexts indigenous communities and governments establish and practise new forms of local government, and these experiences should be recorded and information on them disseminated to encourage and nurture all levels of democratic governance processes. This is governance based not only on national but also on local and culturally inclusive criteria, as well as on knowledge of the territory. Solidarity was raised at the seminar as another key element to allow indigenous peoples to foster democratic governance; also discussed was the prevailing notion of justice and the differences that have occurred within indigenous governments. Indigenous societies have an all-embracing view of governance, in contrast to a decentralized sectorial vision. By linking these elements the diversity of indigenous and local forms of government would be recognized.

The cases presented show that all the indigenous peoples of the continent have their own social, political, and economic structures in varying degrees of consolidation. It can be argued, therefore, that indigenous peoples do not have only one way of making policies at local level and there is no reason why a different approach should not be found. In the Andean countries, for example, the Quechua and Aymara cultures have developed their own community policy proposals; however, when they were presented to national governments they were disallowed and even banned as illegal. The ultimate goal of the protests has always been the constitutional recognition of communal forms of government. And even in view of the various intellectual, conscience, and identity limitations, these issues must be analysed and resolved to make possible a type of government with a distinct, diverse and different identity.

(Spanish 24)

For its part, the experience of indigenous local government is mixed with other features of social and cultural transformation. For example, there is a new generation of indigenous women with higher levels of education and with scenarios and prospects of participating in their communities very different from those of the previous generation, or of uneducated women in general.

This emergence of women as social stakeholders has taken place in the midst of tensions in the relationship between indigenous structures and women’s rights organizations; the relationship has not been easy because the debate about the meaning of indigenous women’s political participation still remains unresolved.

d. The work of UNDP Reflecting the indigenous peoples’ distinct and various manifestations in the region’s countries, UNDP’s work experience can indicate challenges that are shared, and above all, can identify local strategies to respond to needs, situations and/or specific demands. In Peru for example, before the conflict in Bagua that broke out on 5 June 2009 due to the privileges given to the mining industry, the government asked for international assistance and it still receives support from the International Labour Organization and UNDP. The latter has strengthened a direct communication channel with the indigenous population and has been able to position and identify UNDP as a strategic ally. Government authorities have also identified this initiative as a necessary platform for dialogue with indigenous representatives. This is a successful lesson learned.

In Paraguay, where some Mbyá Guaraní people were isolated, UNDP promoted talks with representatives of indigenous organizations and supported the recognition of their territories. An important achievement was the agreement signed between the Ministry of Environment and the country’s indigenous organizations. In another example, in Chiapas, Mexico, the first component and main objective of the programme on displaced persons is to establish jurisdiction over the issue, at least at state level in view of its absence from Mexican law, and to compensate the population for the territorial damage and injustice suffered. A second component is to build bridges of understanding and dialogue for a peace process between good government bodies that are civil entities of the rebel Zapatista movement and the national government. The need was stressed to learn more about and to recognize regional experiences of indigenous social movements in Latin America in cases such as the EZLN in Mexico.

(Spanish 25-26)

Principal proposals Taking the above analysis as a starting point the seminar allowed time for plenary discussion sessions at roundtables where proposals and strategies were outlined to support initiatives on local governance and indigenous peoples. The results cover a wide range of issues relating to the dynamics and inner workings of UNDP, as well as how to include indigenous representatives in local governance and their complex and varied relationship with national political administrations. The most significant lines of action suggested at the seminar are described in section VIII on Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples.

More details are given below about the discussions and reflections on which the proposals were based and give an insight into the wealth of experience gained from the institutional link between UNDP and the indigenous representations of the countries in the region.

(Spanish 26)

Latin American Scenarios

Latin American Scenarios2 • Guatemala • Nicaragua • Colombia • Peru

Guatemala

Guatemala is living through a post-war period, the social fabric is damaged and it continues to have a state structure that is historically monocultural, concentrated, exclusionary, discriminatory and racist towards indigenous peoples who have resisted policies of segregation, assimilation and integration to allow them to continue their ancestral ways of life and their organization.

here are 24 indigenous peoples in Guatemala (22 Maya, Garifuna and Xinka) who, according to official census figures, make up 42 per cent of the population; however, in a state system that keeps them out of sight, as shown by flaws in the census figures, indigenous organizations believe the figure is higher, even above 60 per cent. The remaining population is made up of Ladinos and Mestizos.

REFERENCES 2. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Jesus Virgilio Rivera, Mario Solari and Marco Stella.

(Spanish 29)

A person’s word is taken very seriously and given great value and honour, and it is the bond that confirms all transactions such as contracts even though written records are required to be kept. In addition, decisions that affect an indigenous community are taken by consulting the entire community.

To ensure the local and national democratic coexistence of indigenous peoples it is imperative to recognize their ancestral organization structures and characteristics. The indigenous organization has its own authority figures: doctors, midwives, spiritual leaders, village heads, etc., characterized by a lifestyle of community service with a strict selection process used to award each position. The State assigns municipal mayors a key role as stakeholders. While mayors play a pivotal and central organizational role and may be indigenous, they do not necessarily practice indigenous norms and principles, irrespective of their identity.

Because development models are imposed on indigenous people without their involvement and totally misinterpret their way of life, they themselves must participate in and make decisions at the different levels of the State’s hierarchy. There are lapses when it comes to implementing ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, including the absence of regulations on the exploitation of resources that take account of the collective rights indigenous peoples have over their territories.

As mentioned earlier, all matters concerning indigenous peoples’ organization are related to their theory of cosmogony where life is the pillar supporting all activities: everything is life and everything is alive; everything is inter-related.

Nicaragua These territories have major potential natural resources of which the most important are Fisheries, Water, Forestry and Mining. According to figures taken from the Human Development Report 2005 “The Autonomous Regions of the Caribbean Coast: Nicaragua Accepts its Diversity?” prepared by UNDP, the Autonomous Regions contribute six per cent to the GDP mostly due to raw material production (primary sector).3 In the primary sector Fisheries has 42.3 per cent; Forestry 30.9 per cent; Livestock 21.3 per cent; and Agriculture 13.2 per cent.

A description of Nicaragua’s Autonomous Territories (the RAAN and the RAAS) is given in Section V. The Eighth National Census and the Fourth Housing Census show that the two territories have a population of 620,640 or 12.07 per cent of the country’s total; they cover a land area of 60.366 km2 or 47 per cent of the national territory. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) it is a multiethnic and multicultural region inhabited by indigenous people and ethnic communities such as the Miskito, Sumu-Mayangna, Rama, Creol, Garifuna and Mestizo.

REFERENCES 3. This primary sector contributes with more than 18 per cent of Nicaragua’s GDP.

(Spanish 30)

In contrast, despite having one of the country’s largest natural resources potential they have the greatest poverty. Twelve of the 25 poorest municipalities in Nicaragua with low Human Development Indexes are in these regions.4 Ranging from 0 to 1, the RAAN has an index of 0.466 and the RAAS 0.454.5 A characteristic is the poor communications, energy, highways and social services infrastructure.

Regions of Nicaragua” (1987) and its regulations.6 The rules establish the Autonomous Regional Councils as the highest bodies of authority of the Autonomous Regional Government, and the Government Coordinators as the President’s executives and representatives in the autonomous regions. In 1990 the first Autonomous Regional Councils were elected and since then six further elections have been held to renew them (1990, 1994, 1998, 2002 2006 and 2010). However, the autonomous institutional framework is still weak. Despite the different legal instruments regulating the public sector, there are no smooth coordination mechanisms between the different levels of government: Central; Regional, Municipal; and Territorial-Community.

The Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua recognizes the country as multiethnic and multicultural. Also recognized is the right of the indigenous peoples in the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast to use their natural resources and preserve their cultures and languages. The Constitution also guarantees the autonomy of the Atlantic Coast regions governed by Law 28, “Statute of Autonomy of the Atlantic Coast

The following is a description of the four levels of government with political and administrative autonomy. ÐÐ

Community. Legally recognized by the Political Constitution, Law 28 (Statute of Autonomy for the Atlantic Coast Regions of Nicaragua) and Law 445 (Law of Communal Property Regime of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Rivers Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maiz).

ÐÐ

Municipal. Legally recognized and regulated by Law 40 and its reform Law 286 (Municipal Autonomy) stating the municipalities in the Autonomous Regions are governed both by the above-mentioned Laws and by the Regional Autonomy Law.

ÐÐ

Regional. Established by Law 28 on Regional Autonomy and its Regulation.

ÐÐ

National. Law 290 on the Organization, Jurisdiction and Procedures of the Executive Branch, gives ministries and autonomous entities the power to organize and be present “throughout the national territory” regardless of its limitations or the conflicts this power may cause in the Autonomous Regions because of the legislations detailed above, all of which have the same or higher legal status (Law 28). REFERENCES

4. The Human Development Index mainly measures access to health, education and economic income. 5. Human Development Report 2005. Autonomous Regions of the Caribbean Coast; Nicaragua Accepts its Diversity? 6. Decree No. 3584 of the National Assembly approved in 2003.

(Spanish 31)

Colombia Eighty-five per cent of indigenous communities in Colombia now live in areas protected by law although many of them (records indicate 300,000) live in conditions of internal forced displacement due to the presence of armed groups, both legal and illegal. They usually migrate to cities, and therefore, become “urbanized” and “de-etnicized” as part of this uprooting process.

According to the National Statistics Department indigenous peoples in Colombia represent 3.5 per cent of the population. They occupy a territory covering between 25 and 27 per cent of the country and comprise more than 90 ethnic groups speaking 64 languages; they live mostly in settlements with fewer than 500 inhabitants. Colombia’s indigenous peoples are settled mainly, although not exclusively, in Amazonia, along the Pacific Coast, and in the Chocó, Cauca, Nariño, Guajira and Sierra Nevada de Santa Martha regions. These are areas rich in natural resources and have gone through complex processes of dispersion, conflict, and forced migration. For the most part they are also border territories with a very special political context.

Armed conflict and the displacement of indigenous peoples occur even though the country has a very advanced constitutional framework dating from 1991 which, at least in theory, defends ethnic minorities and in particular indigenous regions and territories. This is remarkable as being probably the most advanced legal framework in this field in Latin America, and possibly in the world, with several constitutional articles providing and recognizing important rights granted to indigenous minorities; it also makes a legal reference to land ownership and the judicial system. Under the Constitution indigenous peoples have collective rights and their territories are safeguarded and managed under a regime of collective and transferable ownership that also permits ancestral legislation and jurisprudence in the territory. According to the law indigenous peoples have the right to elect judges, as well as to teach their own language.

Mining is practised intensively all along the Pacific Coast where hydrocarbon deposits are also found. Considerable coca crops are grown in the Amazonian region in the south. These crops are managed by guerrilla and paramilitary groups that force indigenous populations to cultivate coca leaves and lead to the loss of many traditional indigenous crops. The links to drug trafficking, guerrilla warfare and to government forces occupying indigenous lands are obvious.

Peru Peru has 72 million hectares of tropical forests covering 60 per cent of the territory. Ten million indigenous people live in this area in 1,509 indigenous communities. The country has many conflicts: having recently emerged from a period of violence, it now lists 252 latent political

flashpoints. Forty-six per cent of the problems between the indigenous populations, the State and national society have a socio-environmental origin and of these 68 per cent are conflicts over mineral resources. The number of conflicts increased between 2004 and 2009.

(Spanish 32)

Local Government and Indigenous Political Participation: Discussion Themes

Local Government and Indigenous Political Participation: Discussion Themes7

• Governance as an act of governing • Territoriality as a Means of Acquiring Indigenous Autonomy • Worldview as an Alternative Approach to the Relationship between Society and Nature • Legal and Structural Framework for Democratic Governance

Discussions about indigenous participation in local government should revolve around four local issues including some of the difficulties hindering indigenous political participation. The first is the concept of governance based on national criteria that continue to ignore the proposal by indigenous people and movements for a local government community and autonomy model under different types of government. The second is the importance of territoriality as a path towards indigenous autonomy and types of government proposed by indigenous peoples in the framework of Convention 169 and international agreements on their rights. It is in this context that discussions are held on the territory and territorial practices from a holistic outlook where sectors are not considered and with a view to strengthening democratic relations between different peoples and diverse political and organizational experiences.

hile indigenous peoples now face great challenges they also have opportunities to participate in decision-making and politics. Being granted indigenous autonomy gives them the right to representation at all levels of government, including community, and allowing them to determine whether or not public policies have strengthened their capacities and improved their living standards. Democratic political change in recent years in the region has had the practical effect of renewing the power of the political elites and encouraging more inclusion of the old guards of society.

REFERENCES 7. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Guillermo Tapia, Blanca Ruth Esponda, Araceli Burguete, Marco Stella, Diego Iturralde, María Rosario Saravia Paredes, Paloma Bonfil, Oscar Torrens, Mario Solari, Leonel Cerruto, Jorge Servín, and Jesus Virgilio Rivera.

(Spanish 35)

The third issue is indigenous worldview as an alternative approach to helping to democratize the structures of State, national and local government agencies, political, social and trade union organizations, and community and family centres as a prerequisite for building an inclusive and equitable social pact. Finally, the fourth issue is the legal framework concerning all aspects of the rights of indigenous peoples: from effectively implementing international standards to including them in regional and local plans as legal policies and practices.

Governance as an act of governing problems in the relationship with the State and in terms of democratic governance, citizenship and local government. Different methods are employed to harmonize rules that recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples; it is necessary, therefore, to promote political, conceptual and methodological methods of regionalizing diversity; the policies promoted so far have become standardized and do not fully acknowledge their internal diversity.

Governance as a prerequisite for the democratic exercise of diversity is possible only with horizontal dialogue and coordination between the State and the indigenous peoples. The persistence of unilateralism and the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s one-sided decision-making power cause political, legal and cultural tensions in response to which the State, as a form of pressure, imposes a forced order including repressive measures such as arresting indigenous leaders and allowing women to be raped. This has induced indigenous peoples to defend their rights and adopt different strategies of resistance, mobilization and opposition. Indigenous mobilization is expressed in different ways in the region and assumes distinctive characteristics depending on the diverse socio-historical and political contexts still included in each countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s local, regional and global plans.

Concerning processes designed to lead to political participation by indigenous people, two basic levels can be distinguished: the organizational structure of indigenous communities and peoples and pre-existing traditional schemes; and how indigenous participation has been adapted in the face of national power and government structures. The crisis of governance in the region means local solutions must be found at the same time as global governance is constructed. Indigenous peoples must also be consulted when another governance proposal is prepared, one that includes and takes them into account and is based on the legal recognition of diversity; otherwise, it will be impossible to promote a new governance model that includes all social stakeholders.

Because indigenous knowledge, traditions, customs, and intercultural processes have been dismantled advancing a democratic model of government in different national contexts is obstructed. A distinction must be made between the diversity of existing government schemes in different indigenous communities and the multiple ways in which they face national power structures. It is also important to record the different levels of social cohesion in the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s indigenous societies. For example, some indigenous peoples are highly organized while others have a social fabric that is disintegrating; these diverse conditions present different challenges and

(Spanish 36)

The new governance model should also tackle the struggle between competing hegemonies trying to intervene in communities and even affecting competing interests within indigenous societies (as happens in Andean countries where the Andean culture predominates while other groups struggle for recognition). When it comes to local-level resource management, administrative experiences driven by municipal governments and mayoralties have caused problems because they require indigenous councils’ mechanisms and structures to adopt an institutional (Western) government resource management structure (including procedures to submit project proposals, deal with bureaucracies, a lack of transparency about how resources are used and the very frequent problems of corruption, etc.) The new relationship and a new political and legal character of a democratic governance model would require a redefinition of the State’s institutional framework to identify legal and tax variations and how they relate to the constitution.

and horizontal dialogues. Experience shows that indigenous people defend their way of life because they have a clear social project and know what kind of development they want; however, countries do not always take this into account in their development models. Allowing political participation by indigenous people under a democratic governance model implies recognizing their diversity. State institutions in countries like Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Paraguay face the challenge posed by the rights of indigenous people and their still incipient citizenship. On the one hand, indigenous institutions have legal representation because their representatives know their peoples’ history and struggles and are trusted by the communities. However, they must continue to work on: the philosophical foundations of community life; promoting social control processes; and monitoring elected governments and officials – their own and others – to ensure they respond to the communities and meet their commitments. Doing so would result in active and purposeful indigenous political participation.

It is worth asking whether inclusion means (i) indigenous inclusion or incorporation into the Western pattern, or (ii) the State’s inclusion/adaptation of the indigenous government in a horizontal multicultural relationship. This is important because while national States fragment large indigenous territories crossing national borders, they also impose their own governance and mechanisms to administer resources and power.

On the other hand, frequent conflicts occur between the various governance models because precepts of usage and customs systems and the secular rights of indigenous peoples are still being established. To begin with, despite constitutional recognition and legal support for their rights in many countries, indigenous territorial models are not yet a reality. That explains why the real exercise of democratic governance that includes indigenous peoples and their representatives remains an arduous and protracted task and a challenge that has not yet been met.

From the cases reviewed it can be seen that the relationship between national States and indigenous peoples is based on still-prevailing racist practices directed against indigenous communities and their traditional government models. National policies and democratic structures continue to oppose indigenous government structures. Democratic governance that respects diversity is possible if it creates spaces or areas to address racism by engaging in vertical

(Spanish 37-38)

There is no basis to affirm that there is no indigenous government model, or several models, because there is self-government in all indigenous social groups; however, they are often not considered to be genuine governments as the general wisdom is that all local governments should conform to western standards. This in turn creates a problem of invisibility, because the rules, institutions, or norms that govern the collective life of indigenous peoples and communities represent diverse forms of government. This must change and legal and political mechanisms sought so that these structures of authority, principles and rules of conduct may be understood as an exercise in citizenship and government. Doing so would encourage concepts about politics, participation and democracy being decolonized and permit intercultural democratic governance. It is a matter of conceiving democracy in a context of cultural diversity and avoiding the risk of standardization that comes with recognition; the imposition of new rules of assimilation by single entities must be avoided. So far indigenous political participation has been subject to conditions, but the challenge now is for local territorial entities and indigenous forms of government to be managed by their ancestral methods so that indigenous communities can exercise their right to manage resources under their own rules.

In Mexico, for example, although there are 2,000 indigenous government institutions nothing allows for the effective recognition of indigenous government. In Paraguay, although political decisions are made at different levels and in different contexts the result has been to make indigenous government â&#x20AC;&#x153;disappearâ&#x20AC;?. In Bolivia indigenous peoples were recognized in the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s when they staged demonstrations in favour of constitutional and legal reforms. However, bad experiences of indigenous local government become obvious when it is impossible to stop the corruption that permeates relationships, structures and political resources in different countries; furthermore, the problem of accountability by governments in office, independently of their order or level, is still unsolved. Successful experiences in some countries appear to be the result of eliminating corrupt practices, improving training and the involvement of stakeholders from outside the community.

(Spanish 38)

Principal challenges to governance When reviewing different countries’ cases and experiences it was noted that a constitutional reform was enacted in Mexico to recognize indigenous rights; unfortunately the consultations did not include any significant indigenous representation. Lessons learned point to the need to break away from the tradition of assimilating indigenous peoples into dominant structures as a means of strengthening their autonomy, and to legitimize, both legally and pragmatically, indigenous peoples as subjects in their own right and valid stakeholders in representing their interests at all levels. It was also noted that Mexico has no institutional policy to include indigenous peoples and representations when demands are presented or in policy areas; in other words, diversity is not considered in the country’s formal structures of democracy, not even to include indigenous candidates.

the Mexican army and by the Zapatistas, indigenous people began to be forcibly displaced. The exodus worsened after 1994 and mainly affected those in the northern, central and highland areas of Chiapas. Before the 1994 conflict local government responded to traditional forms of local-level decision-making and to the mechanisms of political power wielded by caciques (local political bosses) in the region. A mayor was appointed under local usages and customs, the president met with the territory’s councillors occupying positions of service to the community by rotation and a very important community government was formed. Since 1994 the State has been present not to recognize indigenous rights but rather to impose its own institutions; starting in that year municipalities were strengthened and the result was the breakdown of the previously existing holistic order. At present communal government in Mexico has no guaranteed rights and there is no compliance with Article 2 of the national Constitution on the right of self-determination of peoples. Therefore, a series of reforms are still pending because: there has been no compliance with the San Andrés Accords; the government has not kept its promise concerning the peace process which is still inconclusive. The great difference between today and the earlier situation is that now resentments that used to be directed at the upper echelons are between the indigenous peoples themselves; it is unfortunate that nothing is being done to make the right of participation a plural process. The cause of one resentment is the failure to respond to the question about how to balance the exercise of individual and collective rights.

In the Mexican state of Chiapas an attempt was made to summon various political stakeholders including legitimate indigenous representatives who were allowed to form electoral districts in their own languages and with priority given to an identification system; however, the attempt failed. It follows that effective indigenous political participation depends on the will of the people as well as on their relationship with the State which, in the case of Mexico, is steeped in inequality. This, in turn, has to do with the existence or otherwise of transparent community consultation mechanisms. Other legal and legitimate methods are needed to reinforcing indigenous political participation, for example by allowing indigenous lawyers to be part of the judiciary. In Chiapas in 1994 it was agreed to hold talks between indigenous representatives, the EZLN in particular, and the federal government. The first talks were held in San Miguel, and continued in San Andrés until these were broken at the end of 1996. In that decade, following acts of violence in the region by paramilitary groups trained by

The above is important because government rhetoric presents a view focused on attending to the vulnerabilities of different sectors of Chiapas society while taking as a guide whether the Millennium Development Goals are being met under the so-called Chiapas-UNO Agenda and the Plan

(Spanish 39)

to Combat Poverty, a programme that seeks to: go beyond welfarism; promote equal opportunities through management and participation by different social groups; and transversalize gender equality at all levels of government work, including listening to the demands of the indigenous peoples.

In Chiapas part of the state budget has been allocated for work in the 28 municipalities with the lowest Human Development Index (HDI) of which 14 also have the lowest national HDI level. Eighty-five per cent of the indigenous population lives in these municipalities and it is planned to address a historical backwardness and improve how basic services are delivered. A change is being seen because abundant resources are now being channelled from the centre and budgets are available at the different levels of government. However, results show these institutional efforts are still insufficient and there is still much to be done to protect collective rights and the indigenous peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; autonomy and representation.

In Chiapas, so as to harmonize public policies in all sectors affecting citizens, action was taken to include the Millennium Development Goals in local planning and consultations were held at state level, although much remains to be done. First of all, legally established authorities (councils) were convoked to allow all their members to issue a resolution (plural representation). Organizations used linking mechanisms to contact local/ traditional authorities to tell them about action taken by the government and, even though not many people took part in the consultation, the response was positive. Action was taken with officials to raise awareness so that they could bring the laws to the attention of the most disadvantaged; subsequently an initiative was presented to the state Congress, and unanimously accepted, about including the MDGs in the state Constitution. Now a move has to be made from the general rule to the regulations, since there are no requirements in regulatory policies that the budget has to reflect how government the dependencies perform concerning the MDGs.

In Guatemala the main problem of governance is that the State and the political parties lack legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of society in general and of indigenous peoples in particular. Society is in a state of flux and the high concentration of state policies and resources produces economic and political impunity that accentuates a lack of confidence. There is no effective recognition of collective indigenous rights and public administration is inadequate because local institutions fail to provide opportunities to negotiate or agree to encourage democratic processes that are harmed by short-term conflicts. It might be said that democratic governance is impeded because the people have lost confidence in their government representatives. Based on the Peace Accords signed in Guatemala in December 1996 it was agreed to promote participation at all levels starting with the community to ensure legal protection of the collective participation pact. Decentralization was introduced and organizations created which, at least in theory, allow grassroots political participation. The present government has politicized these decentralized institutions that make local decisions about projects, while political parties retain the lionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s share and bypass citizen participation.

Government public policy, its prioritization of municipalities with the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lowest Human Development Index, and how the gender focus is transversalized or mainstreamed, has led to participation by more indigenous women who have come together to engage in productive activities. However, as these are not grassroots proposals as indicated in Convention 169 but come from the government this is still a top-tobottom process.

(Spanish 40)

Despite the difficulties, three basic levels of participation have existed since 1985 and the National Council for Urban and Rural Development, a product of the Peace Accords, included the community structure. This initiative creates Local Development Committees which, when meeting as an assembly, comprise the Municipal Development Committees governed by the elected mayors. Together this group forms the Departmental Council that includes the departmental governor and national State representatives. Even though there is still no structure for the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regions there is one for the Regional Council.

indigenous population with welfare programmes and no other stakeholders are allowed to work with them. For the time being not even UNDP is taking action in this respect. The government budget for resource management is administered by the municipalities and resources that reach the mayoralty are administered and protected by the mayor. Nonetheless, community authorities (indigenous council) provide accountability using Western standards and not necessarily to the community, as indigenous governance prescribe. The Indigenous Council, under other forms of administration and stewardship, then has to adapt resource management to the Western structure: that is a draft budget and investment project must be delivered; procedures have to be followed that are not typical indigenous customs; and this occurs in an area of government where there is usually little transparency and corruption is common. Another contradiction is that land ownership is not fully granted to indigenous peoples since the subsoil and its resources remain the property of the State.

On the other hand, a community consultation process is a characteristic mechanism used by indigenous peoples to make decisions that affect the community and, to abide by the mandates of Convention 169, still need to be adapted, consolidated and linked to local councils. Those in power, and especially the municipal councils, have a firm commitment to their people and engage in collective consultations. So far the councils have led the consultations although with departmental and regional interests in mind; because the local councils have not been sufficiently strengthened Congress has to take action in this respect.

This model has been in effect in Colombia for 20 years and despite two decades of the indigenous government being prevented from managing resources and power it has been possible, within the constitutional framework, to guarantee indigenous communities rights over 28 per cent of the territory and to protect them when social conflict occurs, even though there are still many shortcomings. Guaranteeing indigenous territories promotes and strengthens the indigenous peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; defence of their rights.

For their part, civic committees founded on indigenous participation and community principles have been maintained over time and are supported by a resistance mechanism that poses a challenge to the State. An indigenous mayor was even elected twice in Guatemala and this allowed the community to participate while arrangements were made for genuine community participation. However, this has not occurred everywhere; for example, in the Ixil area the civic committee was co-opted by outside interests.

For their part, indigenous authorities in southwestern Colombia have faced a cruel war waged by drug traffickers and guerrillas, and the indigenous authorities take command by employing a system of local uses and customs and earning them local respect as guardians and defenders of the territory, while also taking advantage of the rights conferred by the Constitution. Among indigenous people power brings respect.

More details about Colombia are provided in Section III. As mentioned, in the southern part of Amazonia coca leaf cultivation is growing in importance and is obviously linked to drug trafficking, guerrilla warfare and State occupation of territories. The State provides the growing urban

(Spanish 41-42)

In practice, indigenous communities have been allowed to establish and preserve their domestic institutions: “inward” governance permits them to integrate and reproduce their own cosmogony and become part of the system of institutional government, the structure of authority and the government of each community and population group. While “external” governance recognizes the rights of local-level electoral participation and resource management, the relationship between the State and communities is established through national coordination mechanisms.

of land reform, the emergence of labour unions has upset the territorial order and indigenous peoples have been dispossessed of their lands. It must be recognized, however, that social movements have emerged from these dispossessions and since 1990 indigenous people have mobilized from the lowlands to meet with those indigenous peoples of the highland (the Aymara and Quechua). The Law of Popular Participation, associated with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was passed as a result of these mobilizations. They have been instrumental in promoting local (municipal) level participatory processes and to contribute to alleviate poverty. However, the progress towards reducing poverty has been limited, in spite of the popular participation. One of the major problems of decentralization has been the lack of cooperation between different levels of government.

Regarding the problem of electoral participation, because laws allow political parties (there are now two) the indigenous peoples of Colombia have their own parliament and representatives. However, electoral turnout is low due to the ongoing armed conflict in indigenous regions and to high levels of illiteracy among the population. Approximately 40 municipalities in Colombia have indigenous mayors.

This has caused to question the role of neoliberal approaches in politics and economic policy and to seek alternative governance and policy models. In this context, indigenous authorities initiate movements, marches and demonstrations in cities and in the countryside in a time of turmoil when conflicts arise over water and natural gas, and the incumbent president is forced to resign.

In Bolivia indigenous peoples can now participate directly through their organizations. Minorities are also entitled to appoint a small number of representatives (seven of 166) to the Plurinational Assembly and the Departmental Assemblies. The indigenous struggle today revolves around fully implementing the new Constitution that promotes pluralism and recognizes the right of all peoples to directly participate in State structures. Nevertheless, indigenous peoples face obstacles imposed by the Left as well as the Right.

Putting the nomenclature, the New Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, uses the term original indigenous and peasant peoples to expand the margins of inclusion and ensure recognition of all forms of self-identification of the country’s indigenous peoples in their different territories.

The Bolivian land reform of 1953 triggered a land struggle against the haciendas (large ranches) in the highlands and changed the system of land ownership while at the same time causing fragmentation of the original indigenous territory and establishing a difference between land and territory. In the lowlands, by contrast, land reform facilitated the expansion of livestock and agro-industrial latifundia (large agricultural estates) in detriment to many small territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. In some cases

Bolivia has regulatory laws and all government bodies deal with indigenous issues; the most serious problem is how these laws are applied and, as there is still much to be done in this respect, the struggle continues for rights to be recognized. So that, even when there is legal, political, economic and social pluralism, questions remain about how rights can be exercised in a national multiethnic society. There have been

(Spanish 42-43)

many problems in terms of the work done on models of autonomy because opposing forces encourage departmental autonomy to discourage nationwide changes and this, unfortunately, has tainted the debate about a government of their own.

Problems in that Andean country concerning indigenous people and local government are described in Section III. Furthermore, it may be said that the Peruvian State has now turned its back on the people inhabiting Amazonia, a region where local governments are very weak, and although a transfer of power is taking place it is very complex, faces many obstacles and has had little success. At the same time, regionalization is under way in the 25 departments of Amazonia but, because it has not yielded the expected results, indigenous people take very little part in local government.

An important role has been played by UNDP in negotiations to end the conflict and in processes concerning agreements to connect the different levels of government and support both the legislature assemblyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commissions and the indigenous organizations involved in the debate. Work is also done on disseminating information together with attempts to produce culturally relevant development indicators with as broad and transparent an outlook as possible.

Throughout Peruâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history the regions with the highest density of indigenous populations (Andes and Amazonas) have gone through very different processes: in the Andean region there was a campesinization of the population during the government of Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975) when the indigenous people lost their true identity by becoming campesinos or farmers; however, this did not occur in Amazonia where the government strengthened peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sense of identity by recognizing their indigenous character.

Use has been made of Territorial Networks to try to promote economic development. It can be assumed that autonomies will be more economic and consistent if intertwined with other processes; this, however, will undoubtedly require much coordination and cooperation between different stakeholders. It is suggested that work be done, both horizontally and vertically, to coordinate networks at different levels of government to support economic development; this task requires instruments designed to help stakeholders to promote initiatives that will have an impact on the indicators, while using the networks implies strengthening planning to take account of the indigenous question.

Moreover, in Amazonia there is a heavy concentration of mining activity and almost the entire region is licensed under conditions that are very irregular and lack transparency. The government, without engaging in a dialogue with communities or allowing local and regional governments to participate in negotiations with mining companies, has been awarding concessions to extractive industries; in June 2009 this led to the conflict in Bagua when most of the territory involved was declared to be in a state of emergency and social protest was criminalized by modifying procedural and penal codes. The conflict left 33 dead and 200 wounded and there are still unresolved legal proceedings. During the conflict the indigenous population was fragmented and this is reflected in the ever-changing discourses during the negotiations, as well as in a lack of representation among indigenous leaders.

In Peru the recent law transferring authority to local governments still has many downsides: on the one hand, it transfers resources but not capacities so that the resources are only transferred to be administered. There are already indigenous mayors, aldermen and local government authorities but still with very limited participation; however, the rules concerning participatory structures are very rigid and do not promote indigenous social participation.

(Spanish 43-44)

As a result, the Public Ombudsman’s Office, UNDP and the Catholic Church’s humanitarian aid called on the government to reflect, to set up roundtables and allow dialogue to take place. For its part the government called for international involvement and mediation so that even today support is still provided by ILO and UNDP and both have established direct communication with the indigenous population; they are listened to because they are identified as allies of the indigenous representatives, and the government also identifies UNDP as a necessary platform for dialogue. This is a good example of the Programme’s strength in the region.

In Paraguay no legal framework recognizes indigenous governments in any district or department, but this does not mean there are none. The State government remains centralized and has limited capacity to respond to the demands of indigenous peoples within its territory. Very little is done by public policies or the State to permit timely responses to be given to indigenous peoples’ demands; also, action taken by those holding positions of power is more personal than institutional. When local indigenous governments first became autonomous there was total ignorance about the extent to which the rights of indigenous peoples were recognized; there is also a huge lag between the country’s existing legislation and the Western legal system concerning the demands of Paraguay’s indigenous peoples and laws concerning their specific rights.

Territoriality as a Means of Acquiring Indigenous Autonomy A territory is an area where indigenous autonomy can be acquired and therefore, governance always has a territorial base. The concept of territorialized communities, of indigenous communities, refers to the space inhabited by territorial autonomies.

are they disallowed? Procedures adopted in the different countries show that the line is always drawn according to how resources are managed; another indication is how fiscal and legal frameworks function because it is at these levels that indigenous structures of power and authority always have to conform to Western standards; if the scenarios were different the indigenous path and project would be chosen.

This principle makes it clear that managing indigenous territorial entities should be based on their ancestral customs in exercising their collective civil rights as citizens in multiethnic countries which, to confirm their democracies, should recognize the right of indigenous peoples to manage their resources under their own rules. Because conditions do not allow this, enormous challenges still remain in differentiating between local and national. Concerning the unequal relationship between indigenous and Western institutions the following question may be asked: to what extent are indigenous institutions allowed in national scenarios and to what extent

In Bolivia, although fiscal centralization processes have been almost automatic it does not mean there are no cases of local authority mismanagement and corruption. Political systems weigh very heavy when it comes to procedures: cattle interests play a part in keeping indigenous peoples in conditions of servitude; there is also a predominance of local interests, of domination and exclusion of indigenous peoples from the geographical areas and regions or territories they share with other sectors of the population.

(Spanish 44-45)

The Bolivian experience shows two paths can be followed to help the indigenous peoples. One path is that adopted during the 1990’s when several lowland communities obtained constitutional recognition to own their lands; these areas may cross several municipalities and the intention is that the original inhabitants be granted the right to become autonomous indigenous governments, which implies a long and complex process. The other, more expeditious, path to follow is that inhabitants of a given municipality hold a referendum to decide whether they could become an autonomous indigenous government. So far 12 municipalities have done so and today 11 of them have already designated officials according to their uses and customs. The referendum was lost in the twelfth municipality in spite of the concentration of indigenous inhabitants. This will be repeated and expanded in the country in the next few years and, as established in the Constitution, indigenous governments will have access to fiscal resources formerly given to the municipalities. There are now four forms of autonomy in Bolivia with legal power: national, departmental, municipal and indigenous, and a fifth (regional) without legislative authority.

the area of health, for example, does not depend solely on local authorities and capacities but has to be supported with resources and by taking a broader view. As to the problem of indigenous peoples’ territoriality in the region, land ownership is crucial and here different aspects must be considered. On the one hand, because the subsoil and its resources are considered to be State property, the land is not always given in its entirety to the indigenous inhabitants. In this respect the United Nations made several recommendations in 2009 for national States to grant total land rights to their indigenous inhabitants; it also recommended prior and informed consultation whenever it is intended to exploit resources on their territories. When environmental issues are dealt with only from the perspective of land conservation and the inhabitants’ vulnerability, all factors of democratic governance are not taken into account. The issue of territoriality is very complex, especially in regard to the territorial division, and it challenges how governance mechanisms should be structured between those who declare themselves to be indigenous and those who do not accept the classification because they have different rights of access to resources. Some claim to be campesinos and owners of their plots, which originary authorities disagree because they want to work according to their own worldview. Perhaps, therefore, every territory should be able to define its own form of organization and government.

In the Andean region it is important to develop the indigenous population’s capacities and to connect local territorial development to all other levels of government; this is because developing the local economy is not in itself enough to solve structural problems, manage resources and deal with the challenges of poverty, among others. Thus, in the local government structure Some proposals in this respect were to:

1. Establish a territorialized system of uses and customs to elect authorities. 2. Defend micro-regional territorialized representation by making it possible to reconstitute populations by reinventing the community with territorialized governments and a micro-voting system. 3. Promote electoral reform to strengthen the gender quota in indigenous territories.

(Spanish 45-46)

Worldview as an Alternative Approach

to the Relationship between Society and Nature more developed and Hispanicized they also become more alienated from their own values. No development process has yet taken place in Bolivia to let the indigenous inhabitants retain their own government structures; even though their participation is growing there is still a colonizer, colonized and colonizing outlook among both individuals and groups.

Because life is the driving force of individual and collective activities indigenous organization is related to the different peoples’ cosmogony: life is everything and everything is alive; everything is inter-related. As mentioned earlier, in indigenous societies a promise is taken very seriously because it has great value and is a question of honour. Even though the institutional system requires indigenous governments to leave a written record of their operations, the word alone is enough to endorse any cause, to make a contract or a commitment, etc.

It is worth questioning whether people depend on the model or whether the model depends on people: should the model be changed or should the people be helped to apply the model? Indigenous people have underlying indigenous values that offer advantages depending on who occupies a position of more or less formal control, and who has an active relationship with the community. The principles of indigenous government can be characterized by:

Government and indigenous governance are, therefore, linked to the worldview, to thought and emotion, and in that sense the indigenous peoples in Bolivia – considered to be a developing country – want to participate in national decision-making to enjoy their own life style and ensure their own well-being; as they become

1. The concept of indigenous local government based on the pursuit of equality; 2. Discrete, appropriate and satisfactory conflict management that simply seeks to reset the balance without expressing opinions for or against; 3. The implicit and insistent value placed on accumulating prestige and a lack of interest in accumulating power; and 4. Respect and solidarity as principles of government. based on local realities. This is known as “autonomy within autonomy” and implies that indigenous regions and different territorial levels structure their own degrees of development.

The worldview associated with governance starts with the idea that for there to be order there must be chaos and therefore, to the Quechua-Aymara way of thinking, conflict is not a problem; the problem is in not knowing how to manage it. The order-chaos logic is a product of the indigenous mind set. On the other hand is the issue of norms established and based on necessary agreements (common law) that are also logical in community law: every community has internal rules that establish a criminal code

Indigenous peoples seek their own economic, political and social structures based on what they have preserved, learned and rebuilt. What inputs do indigenous men and women have to permit them to decide about their collective well-being?

(Spanish 47)

cultural constitution is not explicit in terms of the Maya people’s territorial concentration. Because there is significant social mobility, in some municipalities the population is 50 per cent indigenous.

It has been seen that land can be managed by using the communities’ worldview; a characteristic of indigenous government is to look after the well-being of the municipality by making proposals about how it should be managed and what form it should take. The Guatemalan

Legal and Structural Framework for Democratic Governance subject to conditions. A focal point is the political system and the different types of national governance; because, for example, there are other non-electoral or political participation mechanisms, officials are not necessarily appointed as a result of voting/elections. The Plurinational Bolivia State recognizes the rights of its AfroAmerican populations.

Regarding the legal framework on indigenous peoples’ rights, the existing body of laws has failed to give specific recognition to their rights either because the required regulatory mechanisms have not been established or because national governments are not fully aware of them. Here one of the urgent challenges is to effectively apply the commitments of Convention 169, an essential document concerning the rights of identity, land, water ownership, membership, and participation in all representative bodies; even though this is a crucial starting point it has not been possible to promote it in all the national States analysed in this document. There are gaps in how the Convention is being applied: for example, the exploitation of resources is not regulated and in several countries no account is taken of indigenous peoples’ collective rights.

In view of the above, work has to be done on political participation in the different indigenous communities. The territory is seen as being shared and so is political participation; in other words, the mechanisms that define political representation and the exercise of government in each country. Where that has not occurred, a solid basis on which to begin the intercultural reconstruction of Latin American States would be to apply all chapters of Convention 169. In practice, the terms of the Convention have allowed indigenous communities to establish internal institutions of government within the framework of national governance. This “inward” governance, in turn, allows them to include their own cosmogony in how they are represented and in government functions, and to recover the structures and government systems of each community and culture. As to “outward” governance, it recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to participate by using coordination mechanisms foreseen under the law and, as specified in the Convention, expressed in how they are represented in democratic structures.

Three countries studied (Bolivia, Peru and Colombia) have recognized Convention 169. In Bolivia it may be said that power and government are exercised by organizations at territorial and state levels. In Peru there are no mechanisms to implement the provisions of the Convention and indigenous rights are denied. Finally, in Colombia legislative advances have been made but they are inevitably diminished because indigenous organizations are caught in the middle of an armed conflict between paramilitary forces and drug traffickers. However, Peru and Colombia have sought to assimilate indigenous populations into the national State and both have indigenous participation mechanisms albeit it is

(Spanish 48-49)

On the other hand, this links local governance to the separation of two parallel legal orders because indigenous common law conflicts with the Western legal system which, in several countries considered, does not recognize any indigenous legal systems. It is essential, therefore, to create a fourth floor in the government structure to take account of community autonomy and for the State to recognize social diversity and the urgent need for inclusion.

The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples presents a valid but not exclusively indigenous viewpoint; in that respect, when discussing problems faced by local indigenous governments it is important to consider making way for sectors within indigenous societies while, at the same time, accepting the need to reconstitute and strengthen community governance by recognizing regional-level municipal diversity with the creation of a “multi-level regime”.

In Bolivia autonomy has been one of the most complicated focal points in the country’s constitutional reform. Political agreements have helped to recognize four levels of government with legislative powers: national, departmental, municipal and indigenous. The country is now beginning to prepare legislation and the first initiatives include the statement that in municipalities with a large indigenous population the people will establish their own government and it will be recognized as such; it will be established according to indigenous uses and customs, and recognition may be given to the first territories with legal pluralism that apply traditional forms of justice. Because half of the municipalities in Bolivia have a large indigenous population, government systems must increasingly include the two views of governance: Western and indigenous.

In this context institutional challenges are related to the legal rules that pit indigenous governance against Western governance and, therefore, the legal framework developed should focus on Western institutions making way for institutions based on uses and customs and local government systems.

All Latin American countries have signed international conventions on indigenous rights and the rights of women; however, no country has effectively followed up these commitments. Regional and national differences exist as do other structural variables and barriers built around the indigenous peoples’ class subordination, together with barriers in indigenous communities concerning gender and the environment; there are also de facto obstacles imposed by the countries’ formal democracies by failing to offer indigenous peoples alternatives.

In Colombia indigenous peoples have only recognized the Constitution as a document of State since they first began to feel they were part of a structure that reaches beyond their internal organization. This explains the country’s many successful cases of local indigenous governance.

Mexico’s laws protecting the rights of indigenous peoples did not result in comprehensive changes in hierarchical relationships between indigenous governance structures and national systems; but even when it might be thought institutions have been re-structured without changing the State-indigenous peoples balance of power, the reality is that since the 1990’s these relationships have undergone a gradual process that has included all indigenous sectors.

(Spanish 49-50)

Indigenous Peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Local Government Models: Cases Discussed

Indigenous Peoples’ Local Government Models: Cases Discussed8

• GUATEMALA: Maya Programme • NICARAGUA: Autonomous Territories, the RAAN and the RAAS • BOLIVIA : The Ayllu - Indigenous Territorial Management (GTI) and Communal Territories of Origin (TCO) • PARAGUAY: Three emblematic cases

his chapter reflects on the experiences of local indigenous governments in the region. The Mexican participants did not give details about the specific experience of Good Government Boards in Chiapas although reference is made to their relations to local governments.

GUATEMALA: Maya Programme The inter-agency (OHCHR, UNICEF and UNDP) Maya Programme funded by the Norwegian Embassy is intended:”To help to improve the situation of the Maya as well as the Garifuna and Xinka peoples to achieve the full exercise of their rights in the legal, education and political systems and thereby support the transformation towards a Plural State better able to develop more sustainable and improved ways of combating poverty in Guatemala”. UNDP is responsible for leading the Political Participation Component that cooperates with 23 organizations of which 91 per cent are indigenous and are in 12 departments with an indigenous majority. The work of the organizations helps to achieve “A more representative and legitimate democracy at local and central levels through better training programmes and political representation of Maya leaders, both men and women, so that they can exercise their legitimate rights and interests.” 9 REFERENCES 8. Based on presentations by José Eusebio Guoz, Martha González de Paco, Christian Jette, María Rosario Saravia Paredes and Jorge Servín. 9. Impact sought by Component 3: Political Participation, under the responsibility of UNDP, in the framework of the Maya Programme.

(Spanish 53)

It is founded on: ÐÐ

Indigenous peoples with substantially increased official registration and documentation to guarantee the exercise of their civil, economic, social and political rights.

ÐÐ

Indigenous leaders, both men and women, with improved representation in local and central political systems to allow their people to better exercise their rights and specific interests.

ÐÐ

Strengthening the Maya authorities’ ancestral organization, institutions and advocacy capacities.

ÐÐ

A sustainable dialogue between Maya leaders and the State.

ÐÐ

Improving how indigenous peoples can exercise their collective and individual rights by complying with Convention 169.

The lessons learned from this exercise of governance have shown the need to define concepts such as multiculturalism, interculturalism and pluriculturalism and how they are, or are not, connected to how indigenous people suffer dispossession, discrimination, co-optation, assimilation, paternalism, protectionism, exploitation and oppression. On the other hand, it is clear that attention paid to indigenous peoples in public policies must be transversalized and mainstreamed and should go beyond what up to now have been good intentions and lip service. Finally, it is shown that consideration must be given to the true dimension of their indigenous knowledge and skills and how they can be used to help build a better society.

a legal framework and with the authorities to find an alternative to these two mindsets, that is to say, the two different but complementary concepts needed to build a society based on fairness and equality. In Guatemala it has been shown that: politics should be managed nationally instead of locally; a culturally pertinent political, social and economic framework must be created, a system that respects diverse citizen participation and with operational activities, baselines and solid indicators in development plans and projects; relevant, feasible and objective mega-programmes must be implemented based on the peoples’ values and principles where authority means unselfishly serving the community.

Lessons are learned by recognizing how indigenous people participate in local, municipal, departmental, regional and national politics. In Guatemala indigenous authorities can be found in positions to which they were appointed according to the norms and principles of their ancestral legal system and by their own way of electing representatives; they occupy unpaid positions agreed and decided upon by consensus according to the peoples’ particular worldviews legitimized throughout history; this explains the need to interface with a State hierarchy, with

If well-being is to be achieved account must be taken of each municipality’s cultural diversity. Methods proposed by indigenous peoples are centred on how they view the territory and on cohabiting in municipalities with their own people and cultures.

(Spanish 54-55)

Here the methodologies used must be mentioned. On the one hand, the assessments are what give life to a development project and should produce changes in the traditional outlook, i.e. short term, reductionist, little or no participation, bias, no validation, etc. Because they are so important, analyses should not be vertical or subject to time limits but become effective participatory tools, i.e. based on how indigenous people view time periods and life itself. Therefore, the facilitator’s role must be redefined to produce the best possible analyses; because multiple analyses have been made for each municipality, many of them have already been

over-analysed without the people being aware of it, so they must be brought up to date, combined, and based on bottom-up community participation. An analysis with these characteristics considers the peoples’ creativity; it divides data by sex, rather than simply counting men or women, to more precisely reflect the power relations existing between different social groups within and outside indigenous communities concerning gender relations, age, health, education, etc. The importance of existing natural and cultural assets in each community and their impact on local governance should also be made known.

NICARAGUA: Autonomous Territories, the RAAN and the RAAS enous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Rivers Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maíz) and this is the first contradiction in the country’s laws. However, Law 445 recognizes indigenous territories and territorial governments and there are now five levels of government in the country with their own representations: Community Government; Territorial Government; Municipal Government; Regional Government; and National Government. The challenge is for all levels of government to have a close relationship without infringing upon one another’s authority or powers, and guaranteeing indigenous and Afro-descendent people genuine participation at all government levels. This means there should be no structure of government at any level without the presence and full representation of indigenous and Afro-descendent people. Territorial and community governments are now obliged to have representatives from each community.

In Nicaragua, as in other countries, the State fragments indigenous territories that cross national borders. The Nicaraguan Caribbean coast, with 13 per cent of the population, covers 47 per cent of the national territory. This area has been invaded by the Mestizo people who through no fault of the indigenous peoples, were displaced by armed conflict that caused inter-community tensions. The ethnic groups are: Miskito in the northern and southern autonomous areas and extending along the Atlantic coast of Honduras; Sumu-Mayangna in the ecological reserve; Afro-descendent Garifuna in the southern Caribbean without their own language; Creole in the autonomous regions; and Rama located in southern Nicaragua. The Caribbean Autonomous Region is divided into two subregions: RAAN (North Atlantic Autonomous Region) and RAAS (South Atlantic Autonomous Region). National law provides for intermediate governments in these subregions and promotes participation by all indigenous peoples. The 45 regional councils elected in 15 districts are not necessarily the same as the municipalities mentioned in the Constitution or the indigenous territories established by law (Law 445 on Communal Property Regime of the Indig-

(Spanish 55-56)

The Sumu-Mayangna people are an example with a national government covering nine territories and with 60 communities (15,516 inhabitants with 7.69 per cent of the national territory) where democratic and economic issues concerning all sectors of the population are dealt with, thus strengthening social cohesion and allowing them to prepare plans on territorial development, community, and human well-being.

The Sumu-Mayangna region has its own population, status, language, and community service; the people elect community authorities who elect territorial authorities who, in turn, elect the nation’s government. At present the discussion focuses on mechanisms under which territorial governments can administer their territorial resources; the Sumu-Mayangna nation proposes to obtain resources from the national budget for projects on development, education, health, food, and others.

BOLIVIA: The Ayllu In Bolivia there are some modern territories that apply autonomy exercises from ancestral cultures. The Ayllu highland territories are united and interdependent and based on comprehensive planning and legislative, educational and health organization, etc. With the Ayllu as an example, a local analysis is prepared, plans are drawn up and priorities established by taking available natural, cosmic, technical and political indicators as a basis. The role of the indigenous authority and its organizations is to ensure food production and then to systematize Ayllu political practice.

Indigenous governance mechanisms include different levels of community territorial planning expressed in departmental forums and councils; ancestral society also has forms of political organization including the territory’s political management. The indigenous political project, therefore, intends to demonstrate the Ayllu model taking into account the difficulties of participating given the persistence of internal and external colonialism, opportunism and party interests.

Indigenous Territorial Management (GTI)

and Communal Territories of Origin (TCO)

Numerous minority indigenous peoples settled in the lowlands have obtained recognition of their TCOs (Communal Territories of Origin) many of which cover two or more municipalities and two or more provinces, and are sometimes found in more than one department. For 28 years lowland peoples seeking ways to become autonomous have been organized as an active indigenous movement.

In the Yuracaré and Lomerio communities work has been carried out on GTI (Indigenous Territorial Management). The experience of indigenous land management in communal territories of origin has resulted in indigenous territories being consolidated at different levels of territorial planning. They have also boosted their own management systems with: GTI; comprehensive normative systems; by working in the GTIs; and by preparing working rules and regulations on managing the territory’s resources.

(Spanish 56-57)

Concerning gender equality, although the movement’s historical struggle has always included women, their participation was not recognized; is it only since 2006 that indigenous women’s opinions have been sought in public decisions and in self-government.

During the Constituent Assembly of 2006 debates took place between the five national indigenous organizations about more than 50 per cent of the indigenous proposals embodied in the New Constitution. Preparation of the constitutional rules and regulations was completed in 2010 and discussions are now taking place on indigenous autonomy; however, its application is being hindered because for communities to acquire autonomy they must have more than 3,000 inhabitants.10 Achieving a breakthrough implies allowing communities to elect their own indigenous mayors; however, that would not necessarily ensure good municipal management.

To a certain extent the territory’s own government organization responds to the need to make sustainable use of renewable natural resources, as well as to defend a regulatory system that led to bylaws being passed on managing the territory’s resources. Indigenous local governance also identifies the need to train local and community-based technicians to manage their territories and strengthen their impact on public and private institutions.

Because the participation rate of 50 per cent indigenous candidates has not yet been respected, and they are still unable to freely elect their candidates, the Bolivian electoral participation experience has made indigenous peoples reflect on the need to have their own political instruments. In many cases they directly participate through their organizations and, to a lesser extent, by holding elections. One demand is for the Constitution to recognize participation in State structures by 36 of the country’s original peoples. As mentioned earlier, this has been blocked by both the Left and the Right even though some of their constitutional demands are backed by Convention 169.

To start these indigenous governance exercises it is proposed to carry out demonstration projects taking into account the potentialities of each region; in Bolivia, the Project School for Indigenous Peoples (ESIPIRO) has prepared 32 projects financed by the hydrocarbon resources. The indigenous peoples’ historic struggle for a new constitutional pact has helped in the creation of the TCOs Land Management Model. A March for Territory and Dignity took place in 1990 because no constitutional article acknowledged their existence and the movement resulted in a new agrarian reform law being approved that led to the TCOs being established.

It is not easy for the State to readily recognize the indigenous people’s historical struggle; whatever successes they have had to date have been achieved by their own sacrifices. However, a debate is now taking place about legislating laws relating to the indigenous movement.

REFERENCES 10.The Law finally approved in July 2010 establishes that in the territory there should be a population basis equal or greater than ten thousand (10,000) in the case of nations and indigenous peoples of campesino origin in highlands, and in the case of indigenous nations and peoples with campesino minorities, a population basis equal too or greater than a thousand (1,000), according to data from the latest official census.

(Spanish 57-58)

PARAGUAY: Three emblematic cases There are no recognized indigenous governments in any district or department in Paraguay; there are, however, community governments with leaders, women as well as men, politicians and members of religious orders.

bathrooms (with septic tank); fewer than five per cent have garbage collection; and 10 per cent have electricity. The same source reveals indigenous children attend school for an average of just over two years, far below the national average of seven years.

In Paraguay 1.7 per cent of the population is indigenous – about 108,000 people – according to census figures on 20 indigenous communities.11 Because 91.5 per cent of indigenous people live in rural areas and only 8.5 per cent in urban areas the problems they face are mostly rural.

It is in this context that the relationship between indigenous peoples and their leaders with UNDP has been developing thanks to a combination of efforts and a willingness to help reverse their high degree of social, political and economic marginalization.

Just as in other countries in the region, Paraguay has a broad legal framework favouring its indigenous peoples; nevertheless, the figures in the last National Indigenous Census in 200212 are discouraging and show a high degree of exclusion from basic services. For example: only 2.5 per cent of households have access to running water, while the national average in rural areas is around 40 per cent; one per cent have modern ÐÐ

Experiences point to the need to establish impact and governance links between the stakeholders, with special consideration given to indigenous organizations that have emerged in the country in recent years. Three emblematic cases of community efforts to build indigenous governance can be identified:13

The Ayoreo Totobiegosode case is one of support provided to isolated peoples with whom first contact was made following a request to UNDP-Paraguay by the Organización Payipie Ichadie Ayoreo Totobiegosode (OPIT) towards the end of 2006 to organize an inter-institutional roundtable with the principal objective of uniting efforts to protect and secure the Ayoreo Totobiegosode Natural Cultural Heritage (PNCAT) in the department of Alto Paraguay. From 1993 to date the Paraguayan State has guaranteed indigenous peoples about 100,000 hectares of the 550,000 they originally requested. The main task of the inter-institutional roundtable is to guarantee the rest of the land, but primarily the part known as the “the nucleus zone area”, to safeguard the rights of all indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, and to try to counteract deforestation and rampant livestock advance.

REFERENCES 11. Data from the Indigenous Household Survey, 2008. 12. Second National Indigenous Population and Housing Census 2002. Indigenous Peoples of Paraguay. Final results. Directorate General of Statistics, Surveys and Census. Fernando de la Mora, Paraguay, DGEEC. 2003. 13. See complete publication at www.undp.org.py.

(Spanish 58-59)

ÐÐ

The Case of Coordination for Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (CAPI)14 followed a legitimate claim by the indigenous peoples for their rights and, in particular, because of their interest in governing their own communities and controlling their natural resources. In 2008 the indigenous CAPI leadership joined UNDP to support the preparation of a public policy proposal. That was the year of a historic event in Paraguay when the government changed after the elections in April. By April 2009 the proposal was ready and delivered to the country’s principal authorities. As indicated in the document, the proposal was the result of the State’s failure to take appropriate action to remedy the indigenous peoples’ critical situation and it was planned to do so by adopting the following measures: respecting self-determination; creating new institutions; establishing specialized indigenous jurisprudence and legislative reforms.

ÐÐ

The Mbyá Guaraní case concerns part of their population living in the south of the country between the departments of Itapúa and Caazapá who made a claim for territory and the full exercise of their systems of government in their communities so that they could keep their own systems of inter-community relationships and land management. The territory in question is the reserve area for the San Rafael National Park15 which coincides with the ancestral Mbyá Guaraní territory called Tekoha Guasú by the indigenous inhabitants.16 Over the past few years, and with UNDP assistance, discussions have taken place between the Association of Indigenous Communities of Itapúa (ACIDI), the indigenous organization Teko Yma Jee’a Pavë and the Environment Secretariat (SEAM), with agreements and disagreements until a rapprochement was reached with information exchanged between the parties about SEAM activities in San Rafael, and in an agreement being signed. The agreement and its annex, the Study and participatory community mapping of the occupation, use and traditional knowledge of the Mbyá Guaraní Peoples of Itapúa and Caazapá became an important milestone for the country as it resulted in a reconciliation between an environmental public institution and the indigenous peoples’ representatives; it also helped to build a shared vision about a territory that is exceptionally rich biologically as well as culturally.

REFERENCES 14. Now the Federation for the Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (FAPI). 15. In 1992 the government created the reserve area of about 78,000 hectares for the San Rafael National Park where there are a number of indigenous and non indigenous land owners; on the other hand, in 2008 the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) issued a resolution recognizing the “Mbyá Guaraní or Tekoha Guasú as ancestral territory as a reserve for the San Rafael National Park….”. 16. Big house in the Guaraní language.

(Spanish 59-60)

Gender Outlook in Local Governments

Gender Outlook in Local Governments17 • Women’s Political Participation and Gender Transversalization • Political Participation of Indigenous Women: UNDP

Women’s Political Participation

and Gender Transversalization

requires re-thinking about the rights of indigenous peoples and local stakeholders looked at from a gender perspective understood as human dignity, and with a focus on the right of women to equity whatever their situation. This approach should help by encouraging those who work on the theme to support indigenous women living in indigenous populations by including the gender perspective when preparing a project.

ndigenous women struggle for equal participation with men and non-indigenous women. If indigenous women are to become part of the political transversalization approach the balance between them and non-indigenous women must be adjusted, and then the balance between women and men. The United Nations gender perspective must be directed at the specific rights of indigenous women and equity has to be promoted by the women themselves. UNDP should start by adhering to the principle, contained in their documents and followed in practice, making it an obligation to work with a perspective that takes account of gender and of the interests of indigenous stakeholders. This

REFERENCES 17. Based on presentations by Paloma Bonfil and Otilia Lux de Coti.

(Spanish 63)

Positive action includes: providing information; encouraging participation; developing participatory methodologies; raising awareness about the issue of participation within and beyond borders; giving priority to strengthening women’s participation in decision-making; following up on States’ international commitments; supporting existing female leaders; and reconciling the relationship between indigenous leaders at different levels of government. The capabilities of grassroots organizations and of women must be improved to enable them to prepare projects on infrastructure, administration of resources, public expenditure management, accountability, etc.

The indigenous peoples’ dream of a harmonious lifestyle includes a desire for joint and complementary participation. In fact, in some indigenous cultures power is based on duality, that is to say it is shared equally by men and women; if a woman or a man is elected as an authority, then so is her or his companion, but this only applies when they are in positions of power. Human dignity has to be considered as meaning equity. It is obvious that in many communities the equal power relation has been broken (it is a de jure but not a de facto duality so that women can neither express opinions nor decide); therefore, equity must be re-established if everyone’s (women’s and men’s) dignity is to be considered. It is important to emphasize the rights of women if an end is to be put to exclusion.

UNDP has a mandate to work with a gender perspective. The focus on rights, gender, ethnicity, and on using inter-agency and local gender groups must ensure that indigenous women are included when programming UNDP projects. This approach is helped by guaranteeing local stakeholders, both men and women, participate. Transversalization should apply to the content and to all processes involved from designing to evaluating actions, always keeping in mind the interests of indigenous women and men. Participatory appraisals should break down the results, not only by counting men and women but also by making a more detailed gender and age analysis and including education, health, and natural and cultural goods.

Because of the many contexts, the approach has to be different in each country; in all cases the processes and how to address problems must be clearly understood. Determining the context requires knowledge of who the local indigenous authorities consider to be leaders and women and men stakeholders. Indigenous local government includes other factors of social and cultural transformation. The emergence of women as social stakeholders has come in the midst of tensions in the relationship between indigenous structures and women’s rights organizations and, because the debate about the meaning of political participation by indigenous women has not yet been resolved, this is not an easy issue.

Transversalization approaches to rights and gender rights have to begin with male and female stakeholders and with a redefinition of the terms used. Experiences of indigenous people should also be systematized to account for the specific nature of women’s local government participation: their activities, demands, and needs. This would allow a determination to be made of the value of their experiences of governance, and to learn about opportunities to participate in indigenous governments, especially for women and young people, both male and female.

Government public policy and how it is prioritized in municipalities with a low HDI, and how the gender approach is transversalized, has resulted in more indigenous women participating and coming together to make their best efforts to engage in productive activities. However, these are top-to-bottom government proposals instead of coming from the grassroots as indicated in Convention 169. Transversalization is an invitation to adopt a practical approach to a more tangible pragmatism rather than vague concepts, and with a clear position being taken by the indigenous peoples. Electoral reform can increase the municipalities’ gender quota.

(Spanish 64-65)

Political Participation of Indigenous Women: UNDP Indigenous women’s political participation is recognized as an opportunity for UNDP, and experience of working in this area includes preparing a comparative analysis of their political participation in six Latin American countries: Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. There is a new generation of indigenous women with higher levels of schooling and with other scenarios of participation in their communities. At the same time, because of the ongoing debate about the meaning of indigenous women’s political participation, links with women’s rights organizations have not been easy.

This analysis was made by using information campaigns, encouraging participation, developing participatory methodologies, and highlighting the issue of participation within and beyond borders. It begins with the conviction that UNDP can play an important role by insisting priority be given to strengthening women’s participation in decision-making in order to promote female leadership, to follow up on existing international commitments assumed by States, and to assist indigenous leaders at different levels of government.

The possibilities of UNDP intervening in these countries were explored and the relationship made clear between UNDP and civil society organizations interested in strengthening indigenous women’s leadership based on their knowledge of political participation processes. One of the findings was that while all countries have signed international conventions on indigenous and women’s rights not one has followed up or met the commitments. There are regional and national differences as well as other structural variables and barriers caused by: class subordination of indigenous peoples; gender barriers within and outside indigenous populations; and obstacles imposed when countries’ formal democracies fail to offer alternatives to indigenous peoples.

(Spanish 65)

Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous Peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Governance

Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous 18 Peoples’ Governance • The Role of UNDP in relations with Indigenous Peoples • The work of UNDP in the region - Decentralization in the Context of Indigenous Rights and Autonomy - Forced displacement • Proposals, demands and challenges

UNDP and Indigenous Peoples

to encourage intercultural dialogues in territories where communities can democratically define programmes and projects. Intercultural dialogues, communities, and indigenous leaders must be given support.

ecause States have very little structure to care for indigenous peoples there are windows of opportunity for UNDP to have an impact on citizens in countries such as Bolivia and Peru. In countries where the State’s structure is very strong, Mexico for example, resources should be targeted at filling any gaps. At the same time, UNDP can play an important role by communicating with civil society.

The position now occupied by indigenous peoples and their political empowerment in the world agenda is due to the strength of the indigenous movement that has been accepted since the 1990’s. The struggles for natural resources have been taken up by the indigenous and campesino movements without any local, state or national governments, or even universities, participating.

The United Nations provides technical assistance. Latin American countries are leading the pace concerning indigenous rights. The Programme has promoted dialogue with representatives of indigenous organizations and recognition of indigenous territories. It is in a position

REFERENCES 18. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor, José Eusebio Guoz, Jesús Virgilo Rivera, Mario Solari, Jorge Servín, Beatriz Fernández, Fernando Medellín, Leonel Cerruto, Paloma Bonfil, Christian Jette, Marco Stella, María Rosario Saravia Paredes, and Oscar Torrens.

(Spanish 69)

It often happens that, because the outlook is institutional, autonomous experiences of community self-government are not thought of as local government. References to Western-style governments eclipse the experiences of indigenous peoples who have their own rules, institutions, norms, etc. as forms of government. That is why the idea of democracy must be recon-

sidered in terms of cultural diversity rather than with a colonizing outlook. Recognition has to avoid the risk of everything being standardized by imposing new rules of assimilation. Thus, without ignoring self-government, the very concept of local government must be rethought and an indigenous government appointed.

How can UNDP promote activities with indigenous peoples at local-level from its four areas of work? The issues must be thoroughly understood given that the situation is one of exclusion, disadvantage, and unequal power. As this is not easy, emphasis must be placed on the importance of consultations; it is also essential that work be done with and bottom-up support given to indigenous organizations. Ways must be found to communicate with indigenous peoples; however, this is no easy task because of fragmentation and the absence of spokespersons to represent them; therefore, because the impact made depends on how projects are addressed, great care has to be taken to focus on the work to be done. UNDP is committed to helping indigenous peoples and one of its guidelines is to find the best way to work with their communities. Work by UNDP can serve as a bridge between the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Programme. The Forum is an inter-agency group working with indigenous peoples and whose experts advise the Human Rights Council by carrying out studies on relevant themes. UNDP offices should employ indigenous staff whose experience in these areas could be helpful. This would involve updating and improving the U.N. organizational structure that is outdated in many of these areas. As all cultures on the continent must be allowed their own social, political, and economic structures, there is no single policymaking method and it is now time to open the door to political diversity. The objective has always been for constitutions to recognize communal types of government. If indigenous management is to be possible the many limitations of intellect, conscience, and identity these issues have to be tackled and solved.

(Spanish 70)

The work of UNDP in the region Decentralization in the Context of Indigenous Rights and Autonomy Local governance makes sense when it is able to reconstruct institutions. People in the region see decentralization as a gift from above so it is important that UNDP consider what can be done concerning regional-level governance.

There are also some local territories where indigenous leaders have governed and are still governing, but because they are not necessarily recognized as indigenous representatives, they have a different capacity to govern elsewhere.

How can decentralization be decreed from below? Given that the ways in which indigenous peoples govern are different from and challenge State structures, the issue of indigenous governance calls into question not only the decentralization that has occurred in some countries but also the very concept of State. Communities like the Mestizo and campesino do not have the capacity to demonstrate their diverse principles of governance.

Given that indigenous authorities may have a broader and better view of how to reach the Millennium Development Goals, UNDP should work with them to assess the impacts of meeting them. Regarding regulations, recent laws transferring powers to local governments have many downsides. As already mentioned, because they transfer resources but not capacity the result is a de facto transfer of resources to be administered. The same goes for participation: there are indigenous mayors, aldermen and local government authorities but with very limited participation. On the other hand, very strict rules about allowing organizations to participate tend to produce the opposite effect.

Several examples show solidarity is an important characteristic of indigenous organization and that indigenous governments have significantly different concepts of justice; they see governance as being holistic in contrast to the decentralized sectorial view. How indigenous governance functions challenges existing institutions; it has a political role, a political sense of transformation, of suggestion.

UNDP has opened offices in the interior of some countries to start a decentralization process that has shown good capacity-building results; resource management has been improved and, where necessary, organizations have been restructured. They have also worked on empowerment issues.

Political participation is intended to allow indigenous voices to have an impact beyond their own territories. This is not an internal matter but rather a question of how indigenous communities can express an opinion and how their political position can influence public policies. Societies must be transformed by changing laws and this has to be done without altering the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing fabric. Inter-cultural dialogue is just as essential for participation, that is to say consultation mechanisms must be supported and meeting places made available where agreement can be reached.

However, regionalization has not gone far enough and the transfer of powers does not in itself produce results in a centralized country with weak regions. Very different regions must follow the same rules; however, when resources are managed these differences are not taken into account by inflexible Economy and Finance Ministries. Regions are now confronting central governments and demanding improvements to allow the proper use of resources.

(Spanish 71)

As mentioned above, UNDP should include indigenous staff who can use their experience to deal with issues pertaining to their areas. They could work with United Nations agencies in general and accomplish specific tasks with UNDP.

The agenda should include the issue of democratic governance and indigenous peoples, specifically concerning the environmental problem that has been addressed only from the point of view of conserving the territory and its inhabitantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; vulnerability.

Many indigenous people do not live in their own territory. Some occupy rural areas while many others live near cities where they are at risk of losing their identity and recognition as a community; they also face the dangers of urban insecurity (crime, prostitution, food insecurity, violence, etc.). As of now UNDP is not taking action on this issue while the State is developing welfare mechanisms without permitting others to do likewise.

Capacities of local and national indigenous organizations must also be strengthened and information provided about successful cases of dialogues between indigenous peoples and governments while, at the same time, a description is prepared about the quality of local indigenous administration. While UNDP can make available intercultural meeting places in different territories, the communities are capable of democratically defining programmes and projects. It is important that support be given to indigenous leaders and communities to allow intercultural dialogues. UNDP has made a commitment to indigenous peoples and has set guidelines about interacting with them.

If representation is allowed the person chosen must be the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legitimate representative. As there are no uniform criteria to define representation, UNDP should help to prepare a definition. Also to be considered is the complex issue of how indigenous movements have become fragmented.

Some structural elements in the eastern part of Bolivia and the Paraguayan Chaco are not touched upon by the constitutions, elections, UNDP, etc. and there are two obvious work areas: (i) with indigenous organizations and (ii) with State institutions. In addition, UNDP is mandated to work with a gender perspective.

It is proposed that work be done at different levels of government on establishing horizontal and vertical networks to support economic development; tools are also needed to make it easier for stakeholders to become involved in promoting initiatives that have an impact on the indicators. Increased use can be made of networks to improve plans to deal with the indigenous question.

Concerning the conflict in Bolivia, UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work played an important role during negotiations to help end the conflict and helped to reach an agreement by seeking to link different levels of government. It also supported legislative assembly committees and indigenous organizations that joined the debate, as well as working on promoting information systems. The lastmentioned task was accompanied by attempts to produce culturally relevant and as broad and transparent as possible development indicators.

Local development issues must be dealt with at all levels given that, by itself, local autonomy cannot challenge structural systems. Areas such as health, education, and labour rights, for example, do not depend only on local authorities and capacities. It is suggested that UNDP work concerning indigenous peoples in different areas be transversalized.

(Spanish 72-73)

humanitarian aid of the Catholic Church consisted in issuing communications seeking a government response and in organizing workshops and forums for dialogue.

The RED (Rural Economic Development) programme in particular is being prepared and indigenous leaders and communities are already being trained and, at the request of indigenous leaders, it is planned to hold workshops to promote it in communities.

In Paraguay, when some members of the Guaraní people were isolated UNDP arranged for talks with representatives of indigenous organizations and, as a result, indigenous territories were recognized and an agreement signed between the Ministry of the Environment and the indigenous organizations.

In Peru the social protest mobilized by the dispute concerning land rights has been criminalized, even in reforms made to the penal codes, and the conflict continues. Action taken by the Peruvian Ombudsman’s Office, UNDP and the

Forced Displacement Because for many years this and other problems concerning the conflict have been ignored, it is considered an achievement that forced displacement has been placed on UNDP’s agenda. In Chiapas it is clear that, pending the solution of the state’s armed conflict, it will be impossible to legislate and no legitimate proposal can be presented. Despite the government’s refusal to recognize the unresolved armed conflict in the state, the Zapatistas are still there and the conflict continues.

More than 15 years after the events in Chiapas, the issue of internal displacements remains unresolved and the displaced victims are marginalized between the Zapatistas and the Mexican State. Because there nothing in Mexican law gives the displaced population access to justice, the first component and principal objective of the programme on displacements is to make internal displacement a legal matter. It is hoped that the issue of internally displaced persons will be placed on the legislative agenda, at least at State level, and that the State will compensate for the territorial damage suffered.

It has been a challenge to sub-offices in Chiapas and Yucatan to deal with such an important issue that had not previously been taken into account. Inter-agency coordination is among its challenges; no one agency is in charge and each one operates according to its own mandate: Drugs and Crime attends to legal aspects; UNESCO culture and education; UNICEF children; and UNDP questions concerning development. It is noteworthy that because the programme on displaced persons is headed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime controversy has arisen about how the United Nations defines the conflict.

A second component of the programme is to seek to build bridges of understanding and dialogue to make peace between the parties, i.e. between good government councils (the Zapatista movement’s civil groups). Meanwhile, the State has not reached out to the displaced communities who, though not Zapatistas, have no access to government services. The programme will work in the municipalities of Salto de Agua, Yajalón, Tila, and Tumbalá where the population displaced by White Guards (property owners’ private armies) and paramilitary groups is located, and also in the municipal seat of Ocosingo where people displaced by the Zapatistas have been settled.

(Spanish 73-74)

Proposals, demands and challenges. What more can be done? ÐÐ

Allow a space for dialogue between indigenous and social stakeholders and institutions.

ÐÐ

Strengthen the operations and capabilities of indigenous organizations and institutions and the ways in which they express their proposals so they can be presented more clearly at dialogue roundtables.

ÐÐ

Inform the indigenous people about their rights, build indigenous stakeholders’ social skills and facilitate the dissemination of information on matters being discussed.

ÐÐ

Facilitate partnerships with indigenous organizations, make preparations about strategic issues, and provide for effective participation with the resources assigned.

ÐÐ

Strengthen indigenous social networks and work with authorities in communities and localities.

ÐÐ

Emphasize each country’s particular context when devising national strategies.

ÐÐ

Map stakeholders and define their relationship to give them better support.

ÐÐ

Promote the preparation of a free, prior and informed consent protocol, adjusted to each country, by arranging discussions between all parties concerned.

ÐÐ

Be on the lookout for the reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights so that governments are aware of studies on Latin America prepared according to the standards of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.

ÐÐ

Encourage the preparation of a project to support indigenous women and populations where activities are being undertaken with people working on promoting the gender issue.

ÐÐ

Ensure all internal activities include the opinion of indigenous people.

ÐÐ

Give priority support to capacity building for men, women and young people by such means as: informed public consultation; providing participation opportunities; controlling and monitoring public resources; electoral participation; and others. In this respect two aspects should be considered: (i) their own Worldview and (ii) the State’s view.

ÐÐ

Strengthen existing uses and customs and recover those that have been lost by improving the communities’ own legal systems, for example in such cases as IFV.

ÐÐ

Assess, recognize and articulate traditional forms of organization to help communities define as broadly as possible their own agendas and political participation in the State.

(Spanish 74-75)

ÐÐ

Become involved in and help build the capacities of indigenous and nonindigenous State institutions to enable them to give their prior, free and informed consent to large public and private projects and investments.

ÐÐ

Establish mechanisms to ensure public resources are allocated for political participation by indigenous organizations.

ÐÐ

Indigenous populations in these regions must decide about their own development model for it to be adopted by the government. Other countries’ experiences and best practices can also be adopted.

ÐÐ

Support the preparation of an indigenous public policy agenda. Because they have not yet been sufficiently represented, indigenous leaders are now seeking a place in different local government levels.

ÐÐ

Strengthen the indigenous population’s capacities to enable them to clarify and systematize their message to the government: concepts of consultation, territory, and land in Western and indigenous terms need to be clarified so that they have equal weight without one being preferred over the other.

ÐÐ

Improve the Human Development Index by ensuring indigenous communities match the Western development rate.

ÐÐ

The agenda should include the issue of democratic governability and indigenous peoples; in Colombia environmental issues have only been dealt with from the point of view of conserving the territory and the vulnerability of its inhabitants.

UNDP country offices ÐÐ

Transversalize work areas on issues concerning indigenous peoples.

ÐÐ

Ensure these activities are integrated in territories where work is already being done.

ÐÐ

Facilitate processes, act as bridges, and ensure there are opportunities for dialogue between governments and indigenous organizations.

ÐÐ

Besides requesting information from UNDP Country Offices, make sure they also receive it so that there is a flow of information within UNDP itself.

ÐÐ

UNDP should help to execute the observatories proposal, the key to their success being building the system with local situations in mind rather than with what might be expected by implementing the Declaration.

(Spanish 75-76)

National counterparts ÐÐ

Besides local governments, these include indigenous organizations, NGOs, and traditional authorities.

ÐÐ

At local level they should take a lead in preparing processes and implementing projects.

RBLAC, regional centre, BDP ÐÐ

Prepare initiatives and open working spaces that are difficult to establish at national level.

ÐÐ

Help to create a regional image: learn about each office’s activities to ensure synergies and thus become more efficient and effective.

(Spanish 76)

Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples

Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance 19 and Indigenous Peoples • Actions needed • Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples

Actions needed

rom the analysis presented earlier prepared in plenary discussion sessions and at roundtables, proposals and strategies were outlined to address the problems. The results cover a wide range of issues relating to the dynamics and inner workings of UNDP as well as to how best to include indigenous representatives in local government structures, and their complex and varied relationship with national political administrations.

REFERENCES 19. Based on presentations by Maria Rosario Saravia Paredes, Marco Stella, Jorge Servin, Leonel Cerruto, Diego Iturralde, Guillermo Tapia, Mario Solari, Paloma Bonfil, Fernando Medellín, Otilia Lux de Coti, Blanca Ruth Esponda, Aracely Burguete, Jose Eusebio Guoz and Jesus Virgilio Rivera.

(Spanish 79)

Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous People Thought has to be given to how, while mindful of vulnerabilities and supporting freedom, inclusive and non-discriminatory cohabitation can be achieved for complete social cohesion. One of the most significant proposals for action was to promote reforms and modifications in national legislations to give effective recognition to both indigenous structures of government and to the right of indigenous peoples and their representatives to participate in national decisions; this would be part of a gradual process of decolonizing States, their policies and government practices. Action to be taken in this respect should include: ÐÐ

Promoting a reform of the Law on Decentralization in Guatemala to allow indigenous authorities to participate in politics.

ÐÐ

Establishing the so-called fourth floor in Mexico’s political-administrative government structure which, together with institutions at federal, state and municipal levels, would recognize and allocate resources and areas of authority to community forms of government.

ÐÐ

Creating a regulatory regime that recognizes common law or traditional (uses and customs) systems in elections for local authority offices in countries and regions where they do not yet exist (in Mexico, for example, this system is recognized in some states but not in others).

ÐÐ

Encouraging indigenous territorial representation at micro-regional level to ensure effective participation and government by all indigenous peoples living in determined areas to promote the reconstitution of indigenous peoples and the restoration of community social fabric; this would have the effect of reinventing a community with its own distinctive structures of authority, such as a territorial alderman (regidor) for example.

ÐÐ

Encouraging electoral reforms and effective positive discrimination practices and quotas to promote women’s role in local and municipal government and include dialogue between women leaders and their peoples’ organizations and authorities; capacities of grassroots organizations and of the women themselves should also be strengthened to enable them to design their own projects on infrastructure, resource administration, public expenditure management, accountability, etc.

ÐÐ

Developing conceptual methodologies and frameworks to enable indigenous communities to define the limits and structures of their self-appointed microlocal level governments and recognized as authorities capable of making binding decisions; indigenous political stakeholders should also be identified whose representation ensures that dialogues with and interventions by governments and UNDP do not disrupt the community social fabric or cause greater divisions in indigenous societies.

(Spanish 79-80)

ÐÐ

Promoting effective recognition of: indigenous authorities’ election processes; their government forms and values such as occupying unpaid posts and providing a community service; and their own culturally established and internationally protected decision-making and conflict-solving mechanisms as legitimate forms of indigenous groups’ social identity so that they can maintain, where appropriate, a horizontal relationship with municipal governments or regional institutions.

ÐÐ

Developing viable relationship and coordination mechanisms between different local-level government entities and indigenous governments in a setting of inclusion and equality when exercising functions and managing resources; this will ensure participation and representation by all indigenous peoples in strengthening indigenous government institutions, from allocating sufficient resources to carry out their functions to promoting the appointment of indigenous leaders in indigenous regions.

ÐÐ

Recording and studying relations between local indigenous governments and national systems to recognize successful practices that can be adapted to other scenarios; an example is external governance in Colombia that has mechanisms to coordinate the relationship between the State and the indigenous communities. This is possible because a law provides for creating national coordination and electoral participation mechanisms such as parliament and indigenous representatives, as well as establishing indigenous political parties.

ÐÐ

Supporting and disseminating information about measures that have enabled indigenous peoples to establish their own “inwards” institutions or governance mechanisms where cultural elements identifying them are integrated and expressed, as well as their particular ways of exercising power and administrating resources and justice. This is to be combined with “external” governance that allows the right to participate in a formal democracy to be included in national and local government electoral processes, as well as the right to have access to public resources. In Colombia, for example, these mechanisms have allowed indigenous communities to survive even in times of heavy armed conflict and, to a certain extent, have permitted them to safeguard their territory.

ÐÐ

Encouraging civil registration and official documentation among the indigenous population. This is an important means of guaranteeing the individual and collective exercise of civil, economic, social and political rights as part of measures to ensure local-level indigenous governance.

ÐÐ

Strengthening technical capacities of national administration and government policy structures to recognize and support indigenous local governments as a mechanism to guarantee the exercise of the indigenous peoples´ rights by taking relevant, effective and timely decisions.

(Spanish 80-81)

ÐÐ

Encouraging the use of culturally appropriate and socially contextualized measures to solve conflicts assuming that tensions are due to the opposing parties’ histories and identities and that standardized forms of intervention, besides having little effect, result in an uncalled for imposition on indigenous societies and priorities. Note is taken of the need to allow different national and local indigenous communities to solve conflicts according to their own cultural practices.

ÐÐ

Helping to strengthen local indigenous government so that communities can prepare their own political projects, consolidate territorial and community governments, and improve their relations with municipal administrations in their regions.

ÐÐ

Developing mechanisms to strengthen political ideas and the discourse about indigenous governance with a sense of inclusion, representation, and social validation to project them from local to regional and national levels; this can be done by using different experiences of giving indigenous peoples access to national political structures, as well as increasing community participation in the national affairs of the region’s countries.

ÐÐ

Promoting recognition of the ethical principles and moral values that support indigenous government functions, as well as appropriate national and local governance participation and authority mechanisms; also to be considered are local indigenous governments’ specific vulnerabilities. This, however, does not prevent the relationship from bolstering inclusive and non-discriminatory mechanisms that help local and national indigenous systems to coexist and support the resulting social cohesion.

ÐÐ

Identifying the main indigenous political processes and measuring their achievements based on indigenous peoples´ knowledge and cultural experience that shape their view of municipal territory and ownership.

ÐÐ

Developing an image of municipal management by establishing a pertinent political, cultural and economic system that respects: participation by citizens, society in general and indigenous peoples; the diversity of public policy proposals and intervention models that allow more pertinent and feasible action to be taken with objectives that have been agreed, are socially based and guarantee continuity and sustainability of government actions by including such indigenous values and principles as building well-being.

ÐÐ

Encouraging the inclusion of indigenous peoples when defining national and local development models and activities so that the latter meet the population’s needs and priorities. This proposal can be supported by recording and disseminating information about successful experiences in building indigenous political agendas in countries where the indigenous population has submitted proposals that governments have addressed. That is to say, an indigenous agenda must be promoted on national public policies.

(Spanish 82)

ÐÐ

Strengthening indigenous local, regional and national impact and leadership capacities as a strategy to counter exclusion and lack of indigenous representation in decision-making and government, and to encourage joint and integrated political views and concepts.

ÐÐ

Promoting indigenous participation in government by: developing participatory methodologies; systematizing experiences within and beyond borders; fostering the specific involvement of women in public decision-making; following up on international commitments by national governments; promoting existing female leadership; and mediating between indigenous leaders and national power structures at their different levels of government.

ÐÐ

Promoting intercultural dialogue between indigenous systems of local and national government by using consultative mechanisms, meeting places and get-togethers between indigenous and non-indigenous authorities to transform national discriminatory, exclusionary and racist structures and strengthen their own and community government structures.

ÐÐ

Assessing the impact of local indigenous government in complying with the MDGs and that would undoubtedly be strengthened by accepting indigenous proposals about how they might be achieved.

Because the relationship between countries is unfair and indigenous peoples are prevented from exporting in a world of free markets, it would be helpful if changes could be made and consideration be given to a new international economic and political order. This could be done by reforming constitutions but also by adhering to international treaties that take precedence over national legislations. Work has to be done with new models and outlooks on global as well as local governance.

As to how to put an end to the tensions in indigenous regions, each nation must find its own solutions instead of copying others, as usually happens. The causes of conflict are different in each culture and each one should decide its own alternatives. For example, how should the problem of transnational corporations or that of changing business and production models be solved?

(Spanish 82-83)

ANNEX Seminar Agenda

ANNEX

ANNEX: Seminar Agenda • Panels • Round Tables

Panels Panel 1. Context.

Opportunities and Challenges of Local Governability and Indigenous Peoples in Latin America. GUATEMALA, Otilia Lux de Coti FLACMA, Guillermo Tapia CHIAPAS STATE, Blanca Ruth Esponda

Panel 2: Advances, Challenges and Lessons.

Experiences in Mexico and Central America. What has been done? Results, Lessons, and what more can be done? CHIAPAS, Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor GUATEMALA, José Eusebio Guoz NICARAGUA, Jesus Virgilio Rivera BOLIVIA, Christian Jette PERU, Mario Solari COLOMBIA, Marco Stella

(Spanish 87)

Panel 3: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes:

Indigenous land management in community territories of origin. BOLIVIA, María Rosario Saravia Paredes PARAGUAY, Jorge Servín

Panel 4: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes. MEXICO, Paloma Bonfil Sánchez BOLIVIA, Martha González de Paco

Panel 5: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes. CHIAPAS, Óscar Torrens BOLIVIA, Leonel Cerruto

Panel 6: Sub-national Space as a Platform for Promoting

Actions on Themes of Indigenous Peoples: Challenges and Opportunity. Mexico, Diego Iturralde UNDP-NY, Beatriz Fernández UNDP-Colombia, Fernando Medellín

ROUNDTABLES Roundtable 1: Regulatory/Legal. Roundtable 2: Decentralization, public management

and government programmes.

Roundtable 3: Participation of the indigenous population

in electoral processing and decision-making.

Roundtable 4: Dialogue and building agreements.

(Spanish 88)

ACRONYMS ACIDI

- Association of Indigenous Communities of Itapúa (Paraguay)

BDP

- Bureau of Development Policy

CAPI

- Coordinator of Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (Paraguay)

ESIPIRO

- School of Projects for Indigenous Peoples (Bolivia)

EZLN

- Zapatista Army of National Liberation

FLACMA - Latin American Federation of Cities, Municipalities and Local Government Associations GDP

- Gross Domestic Product

GTI

- Indigenous Territorial Management

HDI

- Human Development Index

IFV

- Intra-Family Violence – Domestic Violence

ILO

- International Labour Organization

INEC

- National Institute of Statistics and Census of Nicaragua

MDG

- Millennium Development Goals

OACNUDH - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights OPIT

- Organización Payipie Ichadie Totobiegosode (Paraguay)

PNCAT

- Ayoreo Totobiegosode Natural Cultural Heritage

RAAN

- North Atlantic Autonomous Region

RAAS

- South Atlantic Autonomous Region

RED

- Rural Economic Development

RBLAC

- Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean

SEAM

- Environment Secretariat (Paraguay)

TCO

- Communal Territories of Origin

UNDP

- United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO

- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF

- United Nations Children’s Fund

(Spanish 89)