Village Earth Blog

Opacity and “Development”

2009-03-10T15:15:00.000-07:00

By George Stetson, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Colorado State University

Leaving aside, for the moment, the questions of whether or not mainstream development actually works, what are the ethical implications of treating people as development-objects? Is it possible to get away from the inherent logic of “development,” which suggests that people are under-developed, and that they need us (the West) to develop them, to fix them, and in the end to save them.

I recently presented an academic paper in Montreal, Canada at the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) Conference to explain how Village Earth was doing something quite different than mainstream development. The key shift, I argued, was a move away from the logic of project-management to the logic of alliance-building, which opens up the possibility to work WITH people as partners and as co-subjects rather than as development-objects. More concretely, it then becomes possible for an NGO, like Village Earth, to strategically use its geopolitical position in the world to acquire resources, to advocate for, and to collaborate with our allies on their ongoing projects, ideas, and creations. To be clear, this does not imply that we at Village Earth cannot be involved in local projects like water, health, or micro-enterprise development, but that our involvement is based on the terms of our alliance, rather than on the terms (and logic) of development per ser.

One of the best examples is the Village Earth approach to participatory filmmaking. Children of the Anaconda, a documentary co-produced, co-filmed, and co-edited with the Shipibo in January of 2005, among other things, increased the bonds of trust and friendship between Village Earth and the Shipibo, leading to multiple projects, workshops, partnerships, and (this summer) to the First Indigenous Tribunal of Chiefs in the Ucayali Region. The act of making a film WITH the Shipibo, of literally giving the cameras to the Shipibo, so that they could present themselves to the world through their own eyes, was built upon a logic of trust and solidarity, as opposed to a logic project-management where outsiders assume the role of “expert” and “manager.” It is this same logic that guides the Village Earth relation with the Lakota on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The coordinator’s approach is much less about managing projects than it is about collaborating WITH the Lakota on multiple projects, ideas, and Lakota creations. The Adopt-A-Buffalo program, the videos about land issues, and working WITH Lakota tiyospayes (roughly translated as extended families) to recover land, I would argue, has been successful because of a move to dignify people as partners (and friends) rather than objects of development.

In my own work as a scholar, I relate this very logic to the ideas of Edouard Glissant, a Caribbean poet and novelist. For Glissant, all peoples of the world have a right to opacity. Glissant’s message almost counter-intuitive hinges on a critique of the West’s obsessive desire for truth and transparency. Glissant argues that reducing things to the “Transparent” is a potentially violent act of appropriation. Even the simple, seemingly benign process of understanding, by rendering all things transparent, by making the Other (other peoples, cultures, etc.) perfectly knowable, introduces the potential to control and dominate the Other. Glissant’s advice is simple, but radical: “For the time being, perhaps, give up this old obsession with discovering what lies at the bottom of natures.” Glissant invites us to stop reducing the Other to something that we (in the West) are fully able to understand, something that we render transparent and visible. Opacity is to respect diversity (even to celebrate it) without creating a hierarchy that inevitably is based on something Western or “modern.” It prevents us (as an outside NGO) from digging too deep into the inner-workings of local communities, reminding us that there are certain places that might be “off limits,” and certain questions that might be offensive.

I bring in Glissant to highlight that the logic of project management, based on transparency and reduction, might not only be inefficient but unethical. Anyone who is involved in development should consider the ethical implications of rendering people transparent and manageable. Is there inherent violence built into questionnaires, excessive planning, analysis, diagnostics and, in general, the process of acquiring information so that it is possible to manage projects? This is not to deny the seriousness of poverty, but only to consider the human dimensions of development planning and project-management. The shift from project management to alliance building in these Village Earth projects is promising precisely because it gets away from treating people as (transparent) objects to be developed. Rather, it dignifies people as empowered subjects, recognizes and celebrates diversity, and inspires relations of alliance, friendship, and solidarity.

Winter 2009 Newsletter

2009-02-23T14:35:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, Dr. Maurice Albertson, one of the founders of Village Earth, recently passed away. Thank you to all of our supporters from around the world who sent their love and support. His memorial service had a wonderful turnout and was a really beautiful event in his honor. He was an inspiration to everyone at Village Earth and we are honored to carry-on his bold vision for the world.

Also, THANK YOU to all of our supporters who made our end of year fundraising campaign a great success!! This year we plan to continue to improve and expand our training programs, while continuing to work with communities as they direct their own path of development and work toward a sustainable future. And we hope you will be able to continue with us on this path as allies!

________________________________________________________
Cambodia Evictions
By Drew McDowell, Cambodia Project Coordinator

It’s been 1 month since the eviction of the Dey Krahom community in Phnom Penh. During most of this time my ability to concentrate and work at a computer has been diminished, but I have been on the ground getting our school going again and helping our students the best I could.

After the eviction the school was an open oozing wound, literally and figuratively. The oozing is the sewage problem that has arose, and the wounds are sometimes emotional, and sometimes cuts on feet, etc. Neither of them received the usual attention we give because our problems were so mounting. A part of our daily jobs is to take care of problems, and often get involved in people’s lives on a very personal level. For the past weeks so many people around me all had serious problems occurring at the same time, and it hurt me badly to see the suffering and not be able to help like I would like to.

For those that didn’t get my initial email, on January 24^th the bomb was dropped immediately outside my school (I always say ‘our’ school, but this was personal). Maybe it could be better described as a staged series of bombs orchestrated by the government and developer 7NG. The morning of January 24^th, after sleeping on top of the desks for 2 hours, I woke to the sound of chaos, and as I walked closer to the edge of the slum I saw a mass of people aimed at destruction. A destruction of houses and lives.

As the reality unfolded, my priorities were to gather information, provide logistical support, emotional support, and try to think to the next hour, 6 hours, 12-18 hours... The luxury of longer term thinking was still far off. I had to take inventory, and every resource needed to be utilized, but we had staff out of town and lots of challenges. An Emergency Response was needed to the crisis that enveloped my every sensory, in panoramic view, in the form of loud noises from houses being bulldozed, piles of rusty nail filled debris that needed to be traversed to be able to go anywhere, and a blur of things happening; my phone ringing and receiving text messages, trying to gather and disseminate information, sunburn, students crying, pressure from the officials to clear everything out, anger coming out of my body in the form of tears, irritability, not knowing what to do next, moving people’s things out of their collapsing houses… It was a day far unlike any other in my life, and I have never been called upon like I was that day.

Life continued in a similar vein for the next days, until the trauma started to wear off and we could start to think about how to help on another level, when we began addressing getting kids back into public school, housing, hiring someone to cook meals, keeping our school clean, getting our sink fixed, and giving care to traumatized people… I’ve never been so focused. I didn’t talk to anyone unless there was something that needed to be said, like “can you…?”

To write what we did would take a lot of effort. We found housing for at least 6 families/people, we’re providing daily transportation to school for over 40 kids to come 20km from the relocation site, where they are homeless, give them breakfast and lunch, delivered clothing and other donations, provide a doctor, kid activities, day care, professional counseling, and a thousand other things, most I am not yet aware of. Our team leaders are amazing, and what we did could not be attempted without a mass of dynamic people. Many friends came at a time of need and their efforts were true kindness. We didn’t do it to be nice, but felt we needed to be there for them because their situation was so dire, and couldn’t not help. Many generous donations came in as well, some from people I have never met, and for that we are incredibly grateful. I hope to write thank you notes soon.

Today the last family will move out of our computer lab, but we still have extra students living in the school and no great solution to their housing problem. Patience often is a good strategy, and they will find solutions. We’ll be here for them and do our best to make sure they continue with their education, and are stepping with aid as appropriate. Every Aziza student’s family that was evicted has received some assistance from us.

The people that were evicted fall into 4 categories, from a housing perspective; owners with house numbers, unrecognized owners, renters, and people from the market (market stall owners). By now, the vast majority of the owners who were recognized have taken a house at the relocation site, 20km from Phnom Penh. They didn’t want this house, and many have simply put a lock on the gate and left it empty while they have found a place to stay or rent close to their jobs in the city. They are the lucky ones. There are 335 families from the latter 3 categories living without a roof over their head, in terrible conditions, and the situations is getting worse as their resources are depleted. The future of the people living homeless is unknown, and they feel they need to camp in front of the developers office, as instructed, in hopes that they will be given some compensation, such as a small plot of land somewhere undesirable. Included in this mass of haggard souls are some of our students. Beautiful, intelligent, hard working, committed to a better future, and trying to keep it together through an unbearably tough time, sleeping without security or hygiene. Some of our students living there are high school girls, and I worry about them the most. Actually, I try not to think about them because it is so sad. Their situation was tough to begin with, then a mob of men came and broke down their house while they scrambled to salvage their personal belongings, and now they are camping far outside of town with no toilets or running water.

Other stories turned out better, but in our research of the effects on students education in the aftermath of the eviction (to present to the government), when questioning just the people camping at the relocation site, we found 45 students had dropped out of school because of the eviction. Others went through a tough time, but are getting back on their feet. It will be a life event for all who went through it. We have received some generous donations that made our assistance possible, but will need lots more to continue to help them. Thank you for caring. It means the world to me, and was crucial to getting me through a tough time.

Click here to view a Photo Essay of the evictions.

To make a donation directly to this project, click here.

________________________________________________________________

Lakota Bison Caretakers Cooperative

By David Bartecchi, Pine Ridge Project Coordinator & Executive Director

This January, the Lakota Buffalo Caretakers Cooperative launched retail sales of packaged grass-fed buffalo meat raised on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The Lakota Buffalo Caretakers Cooperative (LBCC) is a 100% Native American owned and operated cooperative association on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Its membership is made up of small family buffalo caretakers who respect the buffalo and the land.

Buffalo raised by members:

Live on open ranges, never in feedlots
Eat wild grasses their entire lives
Are Free from antibiotics and hormones
Respectfully harvested in the field

Members of the LBCC are committed to the restoration of the northern plains ecology, self-sufficiency and strengthening the sovereignty and self-determination of the Oglala Lakota Nation and all indigenous peoples. To the best of our knowledge, the LBCC is the only Native American run cooperative of small family buffalo caretakers in the United States.

Village Earth helped to establish the LBCC starting in 2007. The LBCC was officially incorporated in South Dakota August of 2008. The LBCC has partnered with the Fort Collins based Allied Natural Meats, LLC. which will function as its fair-trade distribution partner. The LBCC currently has the capability to ship wholesale orders throughout the country. However, at this time, the LBCC and Allied Natural Meats, LLC are only set up to do online retail sales in the Fort Collins, Colorado area but plan to be selling national via mail order soon. For more information please visit the LBCC website at http://www.lakotabuffalocaretakers.org.

The Lakota Buffalo Caretakers Cooperative (LBCC) is a 100% Native American owned and operated cooperative association on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Its membership is made up of small family buffalo caretakers who respect the buffalo and the land. Members of the LBCC are committed to the restoration of the northern plains ecology, self-sufficiency and strengthening the sovereignty and self-determination of the Oglala Lakota Nation and all indigenous peoples.

The roots of the LBCC come from the Adopt-A-Buffalo program initiated by Village Earth, a not-for-profit organization based in Fort Collins, Colorado. Adopt-A-Buffalo was started to support Lakota families to utilize their legally allotted lands, over 60% of which was being leased out, primarily by non-tribal members. Through this initiative, Village Earth helped recover over 2000 acres for buffalo restoration, releasing over 82 head of buffalo onto these lands. Some of the families Village Earth worked with were just getting started, others were already raising buffalo on their lands. Over the years, these families helped one another care for their herds. In 2007 the Lone Buffalo Project, the Knife Chief Buffalo Nation, and the Black Feather's began discussing the possibility of forming a cooperative to help market their natural grassfed buffalo. By August of 2008 the cooperative was officially incorporated in the State of South Dakota and by November their labels were approved by the USDA.

While the members of the LBCC seek to earn some income from their herds, their overarching goal is to restore the buffalo, restore the native ecology on Pine Ridge, and help renew the sacred connection between the Lakota people and the buffalo nation. By purchasing meat from the LBCC you are supporting these goals. We also invite you to visit us and the buffalo on Pine Ridge.

___________________________________________________________________

Update from Guatemala
By Ann Jefferson, Guatemala Project Coordinator

Here’s a little update on the Women’s Association of San Pablo Xucaneb’, the Mayan village where we have been working since 2002. Last summer we began building on the land managed by the Women’s Association. Now we have a little house made of wood, the standard building material in this area of Alta Verapaz. It is all finished, except it has no furniture yet, and it’s the most wonderful little house you can imagine. Everything in it except the nails, the tin roof and the lock on the front door is completely handmade of local pine, some of it taken from the Association’s own land. The husbands of the women in the Association provided most of the materials and did the work. And out behind the house they made a lovely little all-wood latrine over a hole they proudly told me is “two meters deep!” That should last us awhile.

MOL.E.R. wants to use the land and the house to demonstrate some of the new techniques that are being employed in rural areas of the developing world. We will soon be working with an organization that comes to villages in Central America to show people how to build closed-box stoves with chimneys, combining the advantages of cleaner air, home heating, and fuel efficiency. This will be a departure from the norm for these villagers whose usual practice is to build a separate little structure for the kitchen and to have an open fire there which does heat that part of the home, but at a high cost to women’s and children’s respiratory systems. The kitchen is women’s workplace, and they and the kids are there nearly all day long, especially in the winter when it’s cold and the kitchen is the only warm place to be.

In addition to helping us build our house, your donations have gone a long way toward paying our technical assistants. Adriana Lázaro, the Cobán coordinator of MOL.E.R. for the past 6 years, continues to spend a day a week in the village, providing assistance with micro-lending, crochet classes for interested women, and management of both the scholarship program we have been operating for five years and the one-acre lot where the women plant vegetables for their families and for sale in local markets. She has also been working with a men’s group in the village to help them go through the bureaucratic process of legalizing their group so they can apply for various programs made available by the Guatemalan government and non-governmental organizations that work in Alta Verapaz.

We also get assistance from a technician who is a member of a different Q’eqchi’-speaking village in the area. Macario Can Pop, who has been trained in community organizing, serves as a translator, supervisor of the scholarship students from his village, and advocate for members of the Q’eqchi’ community around Cobán. We would like to hire Macario to visit Xucaneb’ once a month to help the Women’s Association, but this would mean paying him Q.150 each time (about $20) and we’re not sure we can afford to make that a regular monthly commitment. His work is needed though, and Macario is not only a native Q’eqchi’ speaker and trained community organizer, but has demonstrated his commitment to the Alta Verapaz Q’eqchi’ communities, so it would be a boost to the Women’s Association if we could contract his services.

We also pay $100 a month to our office person, Aliria Ruiz, a struggling university student and computer whiz who manages the office in Cobán, and does all our bookkeeping. Aliria also tutors scholarship students when they need help and visits the village from time to time.

One outcome of the project is that the members of the Women’s Association are learning to understand, though not often speak, Spanish; as a result they have a better understanding of what’s going on around them and are beginning to feel more connected to the world outside their village and more able to move about in the larger community. For one thing they have a bank account, which was a big step. Next they’re going to work on learning the alphabet and how to sign their names. Only two of the older members, about 12 women, can sign their names; the usual way of authorizing documents is with a thumbprint.

So that’s a quick sketch of what we’re up to at the moment, or would like to be up to if we could afford it. To those of you who have donated to the Guatemala project, I want to convey the deep gratitude of everyone involved with the project: the U.S. coordinators, Flora Terán (Colorado) and me; our employees, who desperately need the work; and the members of the Women’s Association who open every meeting with a prayer and never neglect to put in a word for their Northamerican sponsors.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information about the upcoming Peru Solidarity Tour, click here.

To see more about upcoming training opportunities, visit:

For online courses, click here

For the Community Mobilization Intensive Workshop, click here

New Village Earth Video on Our Philosophy and Approach

2008-12-02T16:09:00.000-08:00

NEWSLETTER FALL 2008

2008-11-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

A Message from the Executive Director

By Mark Horowitz

Year end greetings to all of Village Earth’s friends throughout the world! The past year has been very satisfying for me as Executive Director. There were a number of significant events during the year, including:

A very successful Village Earth fundraiser – the 90^th Birthday Gala for Maury Albertson - was attended by over 260 people. The keynote speaker was Dr. Bernard Amadei, founder of Engineers without Borders. Dr. Amadei was the first recipient of the newly created Albertson Medal for Sustainable Village Development.
The launching of a close relationship with Engineers Without Borders, in which we will be providing training for their chapters, based on two pilot trainings we held in Santa Barbara and Champaign-Urbana.
The development of a new four day Community Mobilization Intensive Workshop, and the completion of a major grant to enable Village Earth to expand our reach and services throughout the world.
Our Pine Ridge project received additional bison calves to continue building the herds of the Lakota Bison Caretakers Coop members. In addition, the Coop was recently incorporated, a milestone in its development. We were also awarded a grant from the Indian Land Tenure Foundation to expand our strategic land planning work on the reservation.

Village Earth is now at a take-off point, with an invigorated Board, a new Executive Director and a very successful fundraiser. We are already preparing for our fundraising event next year, and we hope that many more of you can join us. I wish you all a great New Year.

Mapping for Change on Pine Ridge

Land issues on Native American Reservations are extremely complex and masked by layers and layers of bureaucracy. The old axiom, knowledge is power, is the name of the game. But the game has changed with the advent of computerized mapping such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) which has created a common platform for the exchange, creation, analysis, and presentation of geographic information. In the past, geographic information was stored deep in filing cabinets, hard to comprehend, and controlled by a few gatekeepers. GIS has now allowed us to democratize this information making it more accessible and more understandable. Decolonization theorist Frantz Fanon recognized the importance of this early on when he said, “The colonial world is a world divided into compartments. Yet, if we examine closely this system of compartments, we will at least be able to reveal the lines of force it implies. This approach to the colonial world, its ordering and its geographical layout will allow us to mark out the lines on which a decolonized society will be organized.” Edward Said mirrored these comments when he said that “the slow and often bitterly disputed recovery of geographical territory which is at the heart of decolonization is preceded--as empire had been--by the charting of cultural territory."

Village Earth's work with the Oglala Lakota on Pine Ridge is a good illustration in how mapping can be a powerful tool for decolonization, but to understand how requires a look back at the history of land issues for Native Americans. Between the period of 1492 to 1887, Native Americans were left with a territory that consisted of only 150 million acres of land. Furthermore, the practice of communally managing lands by some tribes was viewed by the Federal Government as a non-productive and irrational use of resources. To address these interests, the U.S. Congress passed General Allotment Act (GAA) also known as the Dawes Severalty Act in 1887. The purpose of the act was to liquidate Indian land holdings by dividing the land into 40-160-acre allotments to heads of households. After all the allotments were issued, remaining tribal lands, which totaled over 60,000,000 acres, were opened up to homesteaders. Along with the liquidation of nearly 2/3rds of all “surplus” Indian lands, the GAA also created several contradictions for the use and inheritance of the remaining lands that would have deep implications for virtually all aspects of life for Native Americans:

It broke apart communally managed lands into individually owned parcels destroying the ability of many communities to be self sufficient on already limited and marginal lands.

It disrupted traditional residency patterns, forcing people to live on allotments sometimes far from their relatives, eroding traditional kinship practices across many reservations.

Forced Fee Patenting, introduced with the 1906 Burke Act, amended the GAA to give the secretary of the interior the power to issue Indian allottees determined to be “competent,” fee patents making their lands subject to taxation and sale. According to the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, nearly 27,000,000 acres of land was lost as a result. The affects of this are still felt today.

Indian allottees determined to be “incompetent” under the Burke Act were not allowed to live on or utilize their allotment, instead it was leased out by the Federal Government to oil, timber, mineral, and grazing interests.

Under the GAA the land allotted to Individual Indians is not really owned by them, rather it is held in Trust by the Federal Government. This means the land can be used by the allottee but not sold. This situation has severely limited the ability of Indian landowners to develop assets on their lands including housing, business, and other infrastructure because they are not able to use it as a guarantee for loans.

With financial support from the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, we are developing a “land recovery atlas” of the Pine Ridge Reservation to provide the information necessary to clarify the steps to identify, consolidate, and utilize their lands. It contains instructions and diagrams on how landowners can use the descriptions from their “interest reports” (a Tribal land title created by the Federal Government) to locate maps of their lands, instructions and procedures for consolidating lands, and how to remove lands from the Federal leasing program, partition lands, and create wills. It also contains maps of the current leasing patterns as well as maps of the traditional communities that were broken apart by the Dawes Act and federal housing programs. In conjunction with a series of strategic land-planning workshops, one-to-one consultation, and by training a corps of local land-planning consultants in each district, we hope to help reverse some of the damages created by 120 years of exploitative land policies on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Summer Solidarity Tour to Peru

By Adam Hafnor, member of FACT at Colorado State University (CSU)

This summer myself and six other student activists from CSU were lucky enough to travel to the Peruvian Amazon with Village Earth to experience first hand the community work being done in solidarity with the Shipibo nation. From the moment we arrived we were greeted as if we were royalty, which is really a testament to the way that the village adored Village Earth. The community had prepared a ceremony to welcome the seven CSU students. Throughout the week, we were able to truly be immersed in the Shipibo culture and we were also able to share parts of our culture as well.

One of the first days we went fishing with several Shipibo fishermen and learned a few of the techniques that the locals use. We were able to tour a nearby university and also meet several members of the indigenous rights group ODDPIAP, which is a group focused on fighting for the empowerment of the Shipibo people. ODDPIAP from its beginnings has maintained a close relationship with Village Earth and one of the members of the group had even visited Ft. Collins during his work with Village Earth. We were all shocked to meet a Peruvian wearing a Colorado State University T-Shirt. During the trip we were also lucky enough to visit the site of a reforestation project that the Shipibo have been working on. The lands surrounding San Francisco have repeatedly been infringed upon and it was so encouraging to see the reclamation of village land and the positive actions being taken to return the land to its organic state. We were able to form a more comprehensive view of so many issues facing the Shipibo and the ways in which Village Earth is working in solidarity with the Shipibo people.

New Training Opportunities

Village Earth in partnership with the International Institute for Sustainable Development at Colorado State University are working to continually expand and update our training opportunities. We are increasing our range of training services to create specialized courses for groups like Engineers Without Borders and for service learning organizations that send young people abroad to do volunteer work and study programs.

One new workshop that we have developed is our Community Mobilization Intensive Workshop. This workshop has been designed for busy development practitioners, community organizers, and government officials interested in learning how to use a participatory approach in the work they are doing. The aim of this intensive workshop is to offer participants a basic understanding of several tools and principles that can be used to support communities in their efforts toward self determination and access to resources. We believe that for projects to be successful and sustainable, communities must be involved in both the planning, implementation and evaluation of those projects. Thus anyone interested in developing strategies to better engage communities in the planning, design and implementation of their vision and related projects is invited to participate. For more information about this workshop, please visit: www.colostate.edu/Orgs/IISD/Short_Course

We also have some new online courses to complement our Certificate Program in Community-based Development including Gender Equity in Development, Communications and Networking in Development, Participatory Project Preparation and Research Methodologies, and Community-based Forestry. Check out our schedule online to view upcoming course offerings for 2009: www.colostate.edu/Orgs/IISD/Online

Visioning for a New Iraq

This past August, Village Earth was invited to provide a short workshop in our methodologies to a group of 16 Iraqi students visiting Colorado State University. Village Earth facilitated a visioning session with these future Iraqi leaders to learn from them their vision for creating a new Iraq. Their vision included more transparency and social responsibility, realization of human rights, acceptance of diversity, but most importantly, they added, was to love each other. We could all stand to learn something from this group of optimistic young Iraqis.

The students found Village Earth’s empowerment approach consistent with their values and hopes for the future. When asked if these methods could be useful in their home communities they responded that they believed visioning was an important facet in democracy and added that they liked the Village Earth approach of both structural and personal empowerment as being the basis for inclusive, sustainable development.

Upcoming Events

November 19 – Join us for Giving Twice Night at Ten Thousand Villages in Fort Collins, CO. 10% of all sales from 4-7 p.m. go to benefit Village Earth.
For more information: www.villageearth.org

Visit the Village Earth Online Fair Trade Store

www.villageearth.org/Store/index.html

Do your holiday shopping quick and easy online while supporting Village Earth and indigenous artisans!

Lakota quillwork jewelry, Lakota leather medicine bags, Shipibo paintings, Village Earth t-shirts, Shipibo jewelry, Village Earth DVDs, Shipibo fabrics and tapestries.

Appropriate Technology Library
Holiday Sale (Nov 17-Dec 17, 2008)

$100 off Regular Price

The AT Library contains the full text and images from over 1050 of the best books dealing with all areas of do-it-yourself technology. Portable and easy to use on 27 CDs or 4 DVDs.

To order your CD or DVD set today,

call: (970) 491-5754

or go online: www.villageearth.org/Publications/ATLibrary/

Focus on Home Community

2008-10-07T11:38:00.001-07:00

by Village Earth Intern Michael Battey

Village Earth was doing more than promoting our projects and training seminars in our booth at the Sustainable Living Fair in Fort Collins, Colorado this past September. Although our work usually takes us to remote corners of the world, we decided to ask people attending the fair about their vision for sustainable living right here in our own community.

Respondents to the query wrote a brief statement summarizing their vision on a piece of paper and taped it to a banner behind Village Earth’s booth. Many respondents’ visions for a more sustainable Fort Collins were very simple. A lot of people just wanted more local fresh food at a reasonable price and better public transportation. Other respondents said they would like to see efforts to encourage more people to become bilingual in an effort toward more global solidarity and an initiative to end the use of plastic grocery bags.

“Village Earth believes that social change can only be achieved when a community comes together and creates a vision for the future,” said Kristina Pearson, Village Earth’s Director of Marketing. “If you just focus on individual problems, you can spend your whole life solving one problem after another without ever creating the change you ultimately wish to see.”

The community is the basic unit of planning and action in Village Earth’s approach to sustainable development. Our cornerstone belief is that the everyday people who live and work in a community should set a community’s priorities and vision for the future. Village Earth seeks to empower groups of people by forming an alliance and working with those people to help them meet their own goals. Our future plans include working with an alliance of local organizations finding solutions to combat poverty right here in our home community.

Summer 2008 Newsletter

2008-08-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends of Village Earth,

A MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

As the new Executive director of Village Earth, I want to introduce myself to our “family”. I have served as Vice Chair of Village Earth since March of last year. Over that time period, I have gotten to know the staff and the programs of Village Earth and the many challenges in front of us. With a small but highly motivated staff, Village Earth has had remarkable accomplishments. When the Board asked me to assume the Executive Director role (Ed Shinn, who had served as Executive Director remains a Board member of Village Earth), I pledged that I would transition Village Earth into a more mature organization with added capacity to impact the development world.

As a former Peace Corps Volunteer (Philippines 1965-67) I find the mission of Village Earth to be affirming of the wisdom and knowledge that local people have, which often is not recognized by aid agencies. Village Earth’s approach to development results in sustainable development controlled by the people, not by an outside agency. How refreshing to bring this perspective to the development world which has so often made financial aid the primary contribution to villages around the world. How much better to empower the people to be their own advocates and shapers of their destiny. If I had been trained in this philosophy 43 years ago when I went overseas as a PCV, I am sure that my small contribution to my town would have been more lasting than it was.

I joined the board of Village Earth in January 2007 after a chance encounter with Maury Albertson, who was very persuasive about my being a part of Village Earth. After a few free lunches with Maury in which he gave me the background and promise of Village Earth, he had me hooked.

I hope to meet as many of our supporters as possible in the coming months and look forward to working with each of you to strengthen Village Earth and to broadcast its empowering message to peoples living in the hundreds of thousands of villages throughout the world.

Dr. Maury Albertson’s 90^th Birthday Gala

On August 23 Village Earth will honor its co-founder Dr. Maury Albertson on his 90^th birthday with a Gala event at 6 p.m. at the Fort Collins Marriott hotel. The Birthday Gala will honor this extraordinary man and the many selfless contributions he has made over a remarkable career in the engineering and international development field. Maury’s contribution in establishing and fostering Village Earth is well-known, but Village Earth is only a small part of his illustrious career. He was the founder of the Bangkok Technical Institute, author of the initial proposal for the organization and operation of the U.S. Peace Corps, Vice President of the CSU Research Foundation, and Centennial Professor at Colorado State University. Under Professor Albertson’s leadership, CSU developed the world’s largest water resources program in the 1950’s.

Dr. Bernard Amadei, Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Colorado Boulder will be the speaker at the Gala. Dr. Amadei is the founder of Engineers Without Borders, an organization with student chapters on over 200 colleges and universities in the U. S. and colleges worldwide. EWB students work on engineering projects in the developing world, assessing and designing projects, working to obtain funding for the projects and returning to the village to oversee the construction of each project.

Music for the event will be provided by the Fort Collins band, After the Fire. Tickets are $60 and can be purchased by clicking here.

MAY 2008 TRAINING COURSE

Village Earth welcomed 13 participants from around the globe for our latest Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development, or PPSD, training. Community workers, government program coordinators, NGO administrators, and field workers came together for two weeks to share ideas and build their toolbox in the area participatory sustainable development. With workshops that put the Village Earth guiding philosophy of participation into action, as well as case studies that illustrate both the practice and the flexibility of the Village Earth approach, participants and facilitators alike gained a new perspective on their role as development workers.

Some things participants had to say about the training…..

“I learned it is more sustainable and impactful when the people, or communities who need help, are actively involved in the process of gaining development.”
“I learnt that involvement/participation of the members of the community in identifying their needs leads to suggestions/ideas/opinions from them on how to develop and move a community forward. In addition, by active participation/recognition a project is sustained even without a catalytic agent.”
I learned that …”That communities are different and have different structures and so it is important to learn and understand how they function first.”
“…the Village Earth model is flexible, interactive and a useful way to organize and re-organize your way into another world culture.”
Using the vision we have, we are able to identify the major factors that contribute to our vision, then we are able to raise questions, see how we can implement them, line out a task after which we are able to evaluate.
“ …people are ready to embark on discussion, to defend their ideas and speak from their experience. So it is difficult not to lose the vision, the end goal, and end up in a never ending discussion. The importance of a good facilitator who engages the group, knows how to promote exchange of ideas and channel the energy of the group towards a common goal.”

Our participants came from many different countries and brought many different experiences and perspectives to the discussions. The dynamic nature of this special two week workshop, along with the practical skills developed and shared, made this another successful training at Village Earth.

PROJECT UPDATES

For updates about Village Earth's Projects on the Pine Ridge Reservation, visit the blog: http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Projects/Pine_Ridge/pineridgeblog/index.html

For updates about Village Earth's projects in the Peruvian Amazon, visit the blog: http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Projects/Peru/perublog/

NEW TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

NEW 4-DAY "COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION INTENSIVE WORKSHOP"

When: October 28-31, 2008
Where: Colorado State University, Fort Collins
REGISTRATION OPEN
For more information click here or contact Nancy Murray (nancy@villageearth.org) or +1-970-491-5754.

NEW SPECIALIZED TRAINING FOR ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS

For more information click here or contact David Bartecchi (david@villageearth.org) or +1-970-491-0633.

TALLERES Y CURSOS ESPECIALIZADAS

Ahora tenemos cursos de desarollo sostenible disponible en español/ castellano. Para más información haga clic aqui, póngase en contacto con Kristina Pearson, (kristina@villageearth.org) o por teléfono al 970-491-5754.

Upcoming Online Courses

Fall Session 1
(Sept 12-Oct 17, 2008)
Registration deadline Sept 9

Approaches to Community Development
Community-based Disaster Management
Community-based Forestry
Community-based Mapping
Participatory Project Preparation and Research Methods

For more information about our online certificate program in community-based development click here.

Thanks for your continued support of Village Earth!

Sincerely,

The Village Earth Family

Spring 2008 Online Newsletter

2008-02-27T15:11:00.000-08:00

Happy Spring 2008! Village Earth continues to learn and grow as we expand our efforts as allies with indigenous communities and through our training programs. Village Earth believes it pays to be small and non-bureaucratic. This gives us the flexibility to be responsive to the grassroots and the ever-changing nature of the community empowerment process. Furthermore, our staff is committed to the people and communities we work with and relate to them as partners and friends rather than as experts or managers. This solidarity encourages honest communication and dialog necessary to determine what is working and what is not. Just look at what we're accomplishing...

Oil Exploitation will NOT bring "Development"

Besides working with indigenous organizations in the Peruvian Amazon to defend their territories against oil exploitation, Village Earth is working with communities on micro-livelihood projects. These projects such as small-scale communal fish farms, women's artisan cooperatives, and a micro-credit program will allow the indigenous communities to take their futures into their own hands. For hundreds of years indigenous Amazonians have been at the mercy of large plantation owners, mining, and other extractive industries for any kind of income. By working with indigenous communities to create their own business ventures they can be proactive and take control of their own livelihoods in a sustainable manner with the income and working conditions being controlled by the indigenous peoples themselves. The Peruvian government uses poverty as the excuse to open up the Amazon to oil exploitation as if no sustainable alternative development opportunities exist. Yet, oil exploitation will only further impoverish the people of the Amazon as it destroys the natural resources on which they depend. By expanding Village Earth's efforts to include more indigenous communities in these micro-livelihood business ventures they can take a stand against the oil "development" proposed by the government.

Village Earth recently supported and accompanied a Shipibo leader to attend an important oil meeting at the Houston Petroleum Club. There, PeruPetro, the state-run oil licensing agency of Peru, was present to try to sell off the remaining 30% of the Amazon rainforest to oil companies. Fortunately the presence of the Shipibo leader and the information he was able to give investors about the risks of investing in oil exploitation in the Amazon helped to turn potential investors away from this very risky investment. However, the discourse of PeruPetro continues to be that oil exploitation will bring "development" to the Amazon region. After a speech by the Shipibo leader asking the oil companies to stay off indigenous lands, Daniel Saba, President of PeruPetro, said to the group of potential investors to visit the Amazon and see the poverty. He says there is no way the people of the Amazon "want to live like they did in the past" with 66% of the population in poverty. However, in the decades of oil exploitation throughout the Amazon in places like Northern Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, oil exploitation has brought nothing but severe health problems, environmental devastation, and an influx of new migrants to the Amazon-all with severe consequences for the indigenous peoples who call this region home. Children in Northern Peru have toxic levels of lead and other carcinogens in their blood from an oil-contaminated environment. The Camisea pipeline in Southern Peru has ruptured multiple times causing untold environmental damage. As well, the roads and infrastructure built by the oil companies opens up the Amazon to colonists and logging companies.

Together we can offer alternatives to the unsustainable development offered by the government and corporations, and instead, the people of the Amazon can determine their own futures.

For more information, visit the Peru Project Blog

Advanced Training Program on Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development at Bidham Chandra Krishi Viswavidyala - Calcutta, India

A team from Village Earth and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) held our flagship course Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development at Bidham Chandra Krishi University in Calcutta, India. January 25th through February 1st, 2008 a group of approximately fifty graduate students attended the seminar jointly organized by IISD and Bidham Chandra Krishi University. The training was well received by the students who all plan to work to support village development across India after they complete their studies.

For more information about organizing a specialized training courses for your group or organization, please visit International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Guatemala Scholarship Program

Providing annual $150 scholarships for Xucaneb, Guatemala students (as pictured above) has been a big success.

For just $150 a year, a student can pursue a ninth-grade certificate, which hugely increases their opportunity for a job with a future. Book groups and others have each sponsored a student, so that we have been able to provide a total of 50 scholarships since 2003. With that success has come a tremendous word of mouth, such that this year we have double the number of students hoping to participate. Checks to sponsor a student ($150) or smaller checks toward a scholarship can be sent to Village Earth, P.O. Box 797, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
For more information, contact MaryLou Smith at mlsmith@aquaengr.com.

Cambodia Education Project Update

The Cambodia Education Project has expanded, and moved to a new room not far away. "The staff has increased their capacity, and we have some really dynamic students, who are taking on a lot of initiatves. The best feeling is showing up and learning what is going on. By giving them so much control it has a life far beyond what I could have ever provided," said Project Coordinator Drew McDowell.

To read more, visit the Cambodia Project Blog

Appropriate Technology Library Sale

SALE - $100 off March 2008 only!

The Appropriate Technology (AT) Library is one of the most comprehensive technology resources for anyone working in the field. The AT Library is full of thousands of small-scale, do-it-yourself technologies on everything from alternative energies to sanitation.

To purchase your library today, visit the AT Library webpage.

Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development Training Course

May 19-30, 2008
Colorado State University campus
Fort Collins, CO USA

Registration deadline May 2.
Join development practitioners, community leaders, activists, and academics from around the world in this important course.

For more information visit the International Institute for Sustainable Development
or contact nancy@villageearth.org

Upcoming Online Courses

Spring Online Courses begin March 21. Registration ends March 17.

The following courses will be offered:

Approaches to Community-based Development
Technology & Community-based Development
Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation
Community Capacity Building
Community-based Mapping

For more information about the online certificate program, please visit the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Village Earth Efficiency Indicators

2007-12-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

Why should you donate to Village Earth? With all the different appeals you get from charities throughout the year and especially during the holiday season, it makes it difficult to choose how to make the most impact with your donation. Here's some reasons why we think you should choose Village Earth.

Rather than simply treating the symptoms of poverty and powerlessness, we engage in a long-term dialog with communities to reveal and transform the underlying, and often inter-generational causes poverty. For Pine Ridge that means helping Lakota families claim more control over their land base. In Peru that has meant helping to create a regional organization of indigenous Shipibo communities to unify their struggle against illegal logging and the contamination of their rivers.
Rather than focusing on problems impacting communities, we start with a community's long-term vision for the future. If communities only focus on "fixing" problems, they may not actually be transforming the underlying structural contradictions afflicting them. By first clarifying a long-term and shared vision for the future, communities are free to imagine an entirely different future and begin working to create it.
Village Earth is small and un-bureaucratic. This allows us to be responsive to the bottom-up and flexible to the ever-changing nature of a genuine community development process. Furthermore, our staff is committed to the people and communities they work with and relate to them as partners or allies rather than as experts or managers. This solidarity encourages honest communication and dialog necessary to determine what is working and what is not.
Because we are small and un-bureaucratic we are able to focus our energy on what's important - our mission. We use our resources efficiently. According to our most recent 990 Report to the IRS, our total income was $164,081. Over 87% of that income went directly to support projects, only 10% went to support administration of the organization, and only 4% on fundraising.

Our fundraising efficiency for 2006 (total dollars raised / total dollars spend on fundraising) was also high at 92%. That means we spent only 8 cents for every dollar raised. (see graph below)
Because of what we have accomplished! In 2006 we:

(Click on the links to see pictures and read more about each accomplishment.)

Village Earth’s Adopt-a-Buffalo program expanded with the release of 19 more buffalo onto Lakota lands, which too increased by 1800 and 320 acres, not to mention the dozens of off-spring from previously released herds. To-date this program has helped to restore the plains ecology through sustainable bison restoration— impacting over 7000 acres of reservation lands and returning an important cultural symbol to the Lakota.
Facilitated the first ever Indigenous Tribunal (regional gathering of indigenous leaders) in the Ucayali Region of the Peruvian Amazon.
Established a community center run by local women in Cobán, Guatemala. As well ten Mayan students received scholarships to continue studying, and the Guatemalan project coordinator attended Village Earth’s yearly training course Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development.
Helped form the Organization for the Defense and the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of the Peruvian Amazon (ODDPIAP) and get legal status so they can begin accessing much needed resources and start working for the people;
Expanded the women’s microfinance project in Purulia, India – more than doubling the amount of women participating to over 160 women! The women have stopped migrating to the city in search of work and now have economically-viable ventures within their own communities. These women’s micro-finance groups have also now formed Forest Protection Committees that work on creating eco-friendly livelihood strategies.
We supported a Shipibo women's craft cooperatives with funding from Aid to Artisans and by connecting them with international markets;
Trained Sri Lankan government officers to better engage local farmers in participatory practices as they work to empower local farmer organizations to take ownership over rural infrastructure maintenance in an effort to reduce poverty.
Supported a Shipibo leader, Limber Gomez, to attend Village Earth's training course in the states - which he then returned to Peru and replicated the course with community leaders and in local universities.
Helped launch the new Shipibo website: www.shipibonation.org
so they can represent themselves and for ease of communication between the region and the world.
And using Geographic Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology, we have worked closely with several communities to teach them this technology, create maps, use satellite imagery to detect illegal deforestation and cattle ranching on indigenous lands, and assisted in the legal process of demarcating territorial borders.
Facilitated community-based film workshops for Zapara, Kicwa, and Bora communities along Peru's remote Rio Tigre.

If you would like to support the continuation of this work please contribute today!

Use our secure Online Payment System.
Or, Send a Check or Money Order

Village Earth
PO Box 797
Fort Collins, Co 80522

Or, pay by credit card over the phone by calling 970-491-5754.

For international payments we accept Bank Wire Transfers and PayPal. For more information please contact info@villageearth.org.

Northern Colorado Weekly Writes Exposé on Village Earth's Work Along Peru's Rio Tigre

2007-11-08T07:58:00.000-08:00

This week's edition of the "Rocky Mountain Chronicle" features an exposé on oil exploitation in the remote region of Northern Peru along the Rio Tigre where Village Earth facilitated a community-based film workshop with Kichwa, Zapara, and Bora communities in the region. The expedition took place over 5 weeks, November through December of 2006. The community-based film workshops, developed by Village Earth, allow entire communities to work together link past, present, and possible futures into a shared narrative with the express purpose of communicating with outsiders to raise awareness and support for their situation while attempting to mitigate the distortion or framing of issues by outsiders. The workshop is also designed to allow communities to preserve a degree of opacity that they decide is appropriate. According to Stetson (2007) "opacity permits a shift in the Western ethno-colonial gaze from a concern for authentic representation of indigeneity to a concern for collective expression and transformation.

The roots of this approach stem from the cinéma-vérité approach Village Earth utilized in earlier films such as Pine Ridge Session One (2004) and REZONOMICS (2005). In these films we attempted to limit our influence on the subject and topic by avoiding elaborate staging, lighting, large-intimidating cameras, and even narration. However, even with these precautions it was difficult to avoid framing the issues from the outside through the selection of subjects and especially while in the editing room. Yet, despite these limitations the power that these films had to giving form to an emerging narrative for issues on the Reservation, especially the growing movement to recover and utilize lands, was readily apparent. It became clear that film would be a powerful tool, not only to educate outsiders about complex issues but also to mobilize communities for collective action.

Village Earth's believes that western values are not determinative and that all communities have the right to self-determination. This core belief has guided our work with indigenous communities around the world and has allowed us to be allies despite our position as 'outsiders' and with our less than complete understanding of their world-view. Furthermore, we recognize that leading up the end of the 20th century there emerged a growing crisis for the Western world-view. The crisis of scientific positivism brought about scholars such as Kuhn and Feyerabend, the delegitimazation of cultural imperialism, the rise of cultural relativism, and the acceptance of the environmental crisis caused by capitalist globalization created a paradigm shift for the totalizing meta-narratives of the Western worldview. According to the French Philosopher Jean François Lyotard, these meta-narratives were the basis of the social bond for western society, in their absence society is faced with a crisis of legitimacy especially in how it defines "development". According to the Arturo Escobar, "First, modernity’s ability to provide solutions to modern problems has been increasingly compromised. In fact, it can be argued that there are no modern solutions to many of today’s problems. This is clearly the case, for instance, with massive displacement and ecological destruction, but also with development’s inability to fulfill its promise of a minimum of well-being for the world’s people... Second, if we accept that what is at stake is the recognition that there are no modern solutions to many of today’s modern problems where are we to look for new insights?"

In the absence of the meta-narratives of the West (summarized by Escobar by the concept of modernity) we must create new narratives that become the raw material of a new society and a renewed social bond. But for this new society is to be based on equality, reciprocity, and compassion we must exchange the totalizing meta-narratives of the modern era, based on the on a notion of "Truth" and exchanged and monopolized for past several centuries by the Western States for a more relativistic notion of "truths" and the acceptance of differing world-views. Thus, this is a two part processes for individuals and communities. The first is rejecting the legitimacy of western knowledge as being implicit because of its reference to the Western meta-narrative of logical positivism. The second is creating new, more localized narratives where legitimacy comes from self-reflexive dialogue and community consensus. According to Lyotard "A collectivity that takes narrative as its key form of competence has no need to remember its past. It finds the raw material for its social bond not only in the meaning of the narratives it recounts, but also in the act of reciting them." While this may be a paradigm shift in western world-view its the basis of the social bond for many indigenous communities who have been able to avoid, for whatever reason, the assimilation and acceptance of western meta-narratives.

Another principle that guides our work is the right that communities have to opacity. "For Glissant, "opacity boils down to the “irreducible density of the Other,” suggesting that it is not possible to ever fully know, understand, or be the Other. More importantly, Glissant recognizes the inherent violence in appropriations of the Other and warns against the types of appropriations that are evident in the social sciences and that tend to dominate the Western way of thinking. Western understanding, in this context, is based on transparency, measurement, and reduction. Glissant argues that in the West, “In order to understand you and thus accept you, I have to measure your solidity with the ideal scale of providing me with the grounds to make comparisons and, perhaps, judgments. I have to reduce” (Glissant 1997, 190). Moreover, the seemingly benign act of understanding, from an etymological perspective, constitutes an aggressive act."(Stetson, 2007)

[A] “right to opacity,” which is a right not to appropriated, not to be objectified, not to be essentialized, and not to be understood (too deeply), arguing that is time to give up the “old obsession with discovering what lies at the bottom of natures”. [Glissant] develops a theory of difference that rejects pure... In this sense, opacity acts as an ethic that encourages a shifting of the gaze away from objectifying the other. However, while it leads us away from essentialization or objectification, (Stetson, 2007)

In 2006 Village Earth was invited to facilitate a community-strategic planning session with the Shipibo-Konibo of Peru's Amazon Basin. After a discussion with community members it was agreed to structure the planning around the creation of a shared narrative of drawing from the past, present, and possible futures. The reasons for this decision were multiple: For one, it was thought that this approach would be more practical since at the end of the workshop they would not only have a plan but a compelling way to share that plan with other's in the community who were not present at the workshop but also to outsiders and potential funding agencies. The other reason was that it was thought this would engage the participants more as they saw their story take shape. We also decided to venture further away from creating films of people to facilitating communities to create their own films and thus have greater control over the framing of the issues, the level of opacity, and the creation of their own narrative.

The central idea was to create a cohesive narrative of the community, what it was, what it is, and what it could be. By participating in the creation of the community's story, workshop participants take an active role in framing and re-framing a shared narrative of the community and archetypal images. While also framing their own representation(s) for people outside of their community. Simultaneously creating a narrative that is empowering internally to your own community – addressing the role of individual/community agency but also analyzing the structural changes that has limited personal/community agency and self determination.

The process of the film workshop has four steps: 1. Identify important defining images/stories from the past, answering the question “who were we and how did we live?” this is accomplished by writing or drawing pictures on pieces of paper. 2. Identifying important defining images/stories form the present answering the question “who are we and how do we live today?,” 3. Identifying important defining images/stories for the future “how would we like to live and who do we want to become?” The final stage of the workshop is tying together past, present, and future by identifying narrative “threads.” An example might look/sound like this: “In the past our rivers were clean and full of fish (past). Today, because of the oil companies drilling upstream, our rivers our contaminated and there are no more fish (present). However, we plan to organize with other communities along the river to make our voices be heard and let the world know about what these companies are doing (future).” (See below)

(Above: The Creation of Narrative Threads)

Once the group has come to consensus on the most important threads, the next step is creating a storyboard. We accomplish this by having the workshop participants break into groups, one for each thread. We then give a brief explanation of “shots” and “scenes.” Scenes are collections of individual shots that tell a story. A particular thread might contain several scenes. For example, to tell the story of river contamination you might want to have a scene explaining how children get sick from swimming in the river. This scene might have several shots – children swimming, a sick child, an interview with a doctor, or whatever the participants believe will tell the story best. Once they are satisfied with their scenes they create a “shot list,” basically a list of of their shots, where they will do them, and who will be responsible to get it done. Finally we give a brief explanation of how to use the cameras and then let them go out with their teams to start working on their lists. Each night we would collect the footage, digitize it and work with each team to edit together their scenes (below).

Photo: Ralf Kracke-Berndorff

The final evening of the workshop was the film premiere of the Shipibo's new, completely participatory, documentary which they decided to title Paromea Ronin Bakebo, which is Shipibo for The Children of the Anaconda. Many people from the community showed up and there was quite a buzz throughout the village about Village Earth and the film. This was very exciting for everybody involved. The film premiere was amazing. As one American observer remarked, "It was like the Shipibo Academy Awards." After many long speeches, songs, and special recognitions, the film was projected onto a make-shift screen in the community hall for all the people to see. Everyone was very happy with the film and the children were so excited to see themselves on the big screen.

The impact of the film was readily apparent. According to one participant, "Working on our Cosmovision has brought us together and gave us an opportunity to keep the dreams of all the particpants' families with us." Stetson writes, "in the video the Shipibo express themselves in terms of the possibility of re-living or re-making Shipibo culture (via language, traditional medicine, pottery, dress, reciprocity, sharing, and community integration). The film also reveals practical and material needs such that the interests in getting micro-projects funded
reflects the reality of being indigenous in a modern world. As mentioned, the video deals with the real structural constraints that both individuals and communities face. However, to look at the Shipibo only in these terms would be a mistake. The workshop participants, in Children of the Anaconda, framed Shipibo culture in terms of the past, present, and future. The past is dignified, beautiful, and even romantic; the present is a crisis, economically, environmentally, and culturally; but the future is potentially bright, given the potential to re-live and re-new Shipibo culture, of course, with the help from, and relation, to the world."

For more information about Village Earth's community film projects, facilitation or training in this approach contact Ralf Kracke-Berndorff.

VE - Sri Lanka Collaboration

2007-11-02T16:30:00.000-07:00

Village Earth recently concluded a two-week training/consultation with key officers from the Supporting Infrastructure Maintenance to Reduce Rural Poverty (SIMRRP) project team of the Government of Sri Lanka. The SIMRRP project team came to Village Earth with the request to learn techniques to better engage the local farmer organizations with whom they work.

"We want to go to the villages and discuss what we have learned with the farmers. This training is very useful for how we can engage with the farmers."
- Technical Officer, SIMRRP

Village Earth facilitated workshops on Community Mobilization, Common Property Resource Organizations, etc. as a way for the farmer organizations to take ownership over the rural infrastructure and sustainably maintain it. Village Earth also took the SIMRRP project team on a site visit of the North Poudre Irrigation Co. to see the world-class irrigation organization in Northern Colorado, so SIMRRP could take what they learned here and apply it to their system in Sri Lanka.

Above: Key Village Earth training staff and SIMRRP project team.

If you are interested in Village Earth's specialized training programs or consultations, contact: info@villageearth.org or +1-970-491-5754

For more information about our training programs, visit our training partner: International Institute for Sustainable Development at Colorado State University.

State of the Village Report

2007-09-28T13:28:00.001-07:00

Fall 2007 Online Newsletter

2007-09-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

We are pleased to inform you of this summer's accomplishments, which were only possible with your support. Thank you!

New Indigenous Organization

During the Indigenous Tribunal this past June, Shipibo leaders from throughout the Ucayali region of the Peruvian Amazon decided to form a grassroots development organization. The new Organization for the Defense and Development of the Indigenous Peoples of the Peruvian Amazon, or ODDPIAP (as they call it), will work to bridge the gap between the poorly represented indigenous peoples and the government as they work to defend their territories and provide development assistance.

Above: The newly elected President of ODDPIAP.

Village Earth is currently working with the democratically-elected leadership to build the capacity of and support for ODDPIAP. We are also working together to raise the funds necessary to legalize ODDPIAP so that it can be officially recognized by the Peruvian government. The leaders of ODDPIAP are busy planning workshops throughout the region to mobilize students and community leaders to work together, and they are already preparing for the next Indigenous Tribunal to be held January 2008. Village Earth will continue to ally with ODDPIAP in their struggle for the self-determination of the indigenous peoples of the Peruvian Amazon.

For more information, visit the Project Blog or contact the project coordinator, Kristina Pearson, kristina@villageearth.org.

Appropriate Technology Grants Program

The Appropriate Technology Library now has a new discount pricing scale for low-income organizations. For more information, check out the new Appropriate Technology Grants Program.

VE Training Empowers Global Leadership

Above: Training participants on tour at a local organic farm.

Participants learned the theory behind the Village Earth Approach and how it is constantly refined through action and reflection as the Approach is put into practice in the field. One highlight of the training included the participation of Limber Gomez from Peru and Adriana Lazaro from Guatemala, two Village Earth project partners, who contributed their perspectives and experiences as "internal activators" within Village Earth-sponsored activities and illustrated the effectiveness of the Approach as applied in their communities. The two-week workshop also included lively discussions about the importance of Appropriate Technology to building sustainable communities, the role of Monitoring and Evaluation, and a new section of the course focusing on non-governmental organization (NGO)-Community dynamics.

The group also decided to form a global network of development practitioners as the focus of the strategic planning session part of the workshop. Far from seeing themselves as competing NGOs, participants saw the need to pool their resources in a common task of building a dynamic network where expertise could be shared globally.

We are very grateful for the level of wisdom and experience that each participant brought to the training that helped to make this course a truly consciousness-raising experience.

For more information, please contact: info@villageearth.org

Village Earth Partners with the Indian Land Tenure Foundation to do Strategic Land Planning on the Pine Ridge Reservation

Village Earth is now accepting applications from allottees who own undivided interests on the same allotment(s) on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to do land planning workshops. For more information, visit the Pine Ridge Project Blog Contact: David Bartecchi - david@villageearth.org, 970-491-5754

Village Earth Founders Recently Returned from West Bengal, India

Drs. Maurice Albertson and Ed Shinn visited Milan Dinda and the Purulia project team on their way home from teaching at Trisakti University in Indonesia. They hope to return soon and hold a Village Earth training program with students from the agricultural university in Calcutta. For more information, visit the Purulia Project Blog.

New Guatemala Project Website and Blog

Adriana Lazaro, coordinator for the Village Earth Guatemala project, recently attended the Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development Training Course in Fort Collins, CO. Check out the new website and Guatemala Project Blog. We look forward to keeping you updated as our projects progress.

And we would love to hear from you - we welcome comments, questions, and feedback to our newsletter editorial board. You can reach us at: editor@villageearth.org.

Sincerely,

The Village Earth Team

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS DECLARATION ON RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES;

2007-09-13T20:19:00.000-07:00

‘MAJOR STEP FORWARD’ TOWARDS HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, SAYS PRESIDENT

Vote: 143 – 4 ( Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) -– 11;

The General Assembly today overwhelmingly backed protections for the human rights of indigenous peoples, adopting a landmark declaration that brought to an end nearly 25 years of contentious negotiations over the rights of native people to protect their lands and resources, and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.

By a vote of 143 in favour to 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which sets out the individual and collective rights of the world’s 370 million native peoples, calls for the maintenance and strengthening of their cultural identities, and emphasizes their right to pursue development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

A non-binding text, the Declaration states that native peoples have the right “to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties” concluded with States or their successors. It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them.

The Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration in June 2006, over the objections of some Member States with sizeable indigenous populations. The Assembly deferred consideration of the text late last year at the behest of African countries, which raised objections about language on self-determination and the definition of “indigenous” people.

“The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated,” said General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa in a statement delivered by Assembly Vice-President, Aminu Bashir Wali of Nigeria.

She warned that, even with the progress achieved by events such as the 1995 first United Nations International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the beginning of the Second International Decade last year, native peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival; and, suffered from a lack of access to health care and education.

“I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of over two decades of negotiations,” she said, and stressed that, by adopting the Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It was also actively demonstrating the General Assembly’s important role in setting international standards.

Countries voting against the Declaration said they could not support it because of concerns over provisions on self-determination, land and resources rights and, among others, language giving indigenous peoples a right of veto over national legislation and State management of resources.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the text was adopted, Canada's representative said that, unfortunately, the provisions in the Declaration on lands, territories and resources were overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting into question matters that have been settled by treaty.

The representative of the United States said that it was disappointing that the Human Rights Council had not responded to his country’s calls, in partnership with Council members, for States to undertake further work to generate a consensus text. The Declaration had been adopted by the Council in a splintered vote “…and risked endless conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States at its adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States could not lend its support to such a text”.

Australia’s representative said his Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the text. Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population groups. It also applied where a particular group with a defined territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights. Australia supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government.

In an informal meeting following adoption of the text, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said: “This day will forever be etched in our memories as a significant gain in our peoples’ long struggle for our rights as distinct peoples and cultures.” While she respected the interpretive statements made by Member States, indigenous people believed the significance and implications of the Declaration should not be minimized in any way. That would amount to discrimination. “For us, the correct way to interpret the Declaration is to read it in its entirety or in a holistic manner and to relate it with existing international law,” she said.

She said that effective implementation of the Declaration would test the commitment of States and the whole international community to protect, respect and fulfil indigenous peoples’ collective and individual human rights. “I call on Governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity,” she concluded.

Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus, said that, with the adoption of the Declaration, the United Nations and indigenous people had found common ground. The text did not represent the sole viewpoint of the United Nations, nor did it represent the viewpoint of all the world’s indigenous people. It was based on mutual respect. It contained no new provisions of human rights. It was based on rights that had been approved by the United Nations system but which had somehow, over the years, been denied to indigenous peoples. It was a framework for States to protect and promote the rights of indigenous people without exclusion or discrimination.

In other business today, the Assembly adopted without a vote, a resolution on the zone of peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic.

It also adopted a text by which it would include an item on the agenda of its upcoming sixty-second session on “the prevention of armed conflict”. It also decided to defer consideration of the first annual report of the Pecebuilding Commission and include it on the draft agenda of the sixty-second session. In a related decision, the Assembly, acting on the recommendations of the Secretary-General, deferred to its sixty-second session consideration of the report of the Peacebuilding Fund.

The Assembly also approved a draft decision contained in paragraph 14 of the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (document A/61/1044). By that action, the Assembly decided to defer the convening of a substantive session of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to its sixty-second session. It also requested the Working Group to meet from 3 to 7 December to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at the sixty-second session.

The Assembly began its work today on a sombre note, holding a moment of silence in tribute to the memory of Angie Elisabeth Brooks, President of the Assembly’s twenty-fourth session, and Gaston Thorn, President of the Assembly’s thirteenth session, both recently deceased.

Assembly President Sheika Haya said that Ms. Brooks-Randolph had been the first Associate Justice of Liberia and had a distinguished career in Government administration, legal education and the promotion of gender equality. In 1969, she became the first African woman to be elected President of the Assembly.

She said that Mr. Gaston had a long and prominent career as a politician and businessman of Luxembourg and had also served as Chairman of the European Commission from 1981 to 1985. “Ms. Brooks-Randolph and Mr. Thorn played an outstanding role in this Organization and made a major contribution towards the achievement of the objectives of the Charter of the United Nations,” she said.

Paying tribute were the representatives of Zimbabwe (on behalf of the African Group), Philippines (on behalf of the Asian States Group), Montenegro (on behalf of the Eastern European States Group), Paraguay (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Switzerland (on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group), Liberia and Luxembourg.

The representatives of Peru introduced the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote were the representatives of New Zealand, Russian Federation, Benin and Colombia.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote were the representatives of Argentina, Japan, Chile, Norway, Bangladesh, Jordan, Mexico, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, Iran, India, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Indonesia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Slovakia, Turkey, Philippines, Nigeria, Cuba, Montenegro and Egypt.

Making a general statement after the vote was the Foreign Minster of Bolivia.

The representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Guatemala, Finland, Ecuador, Costa Rica and France also spoke.

The representative of Angola introduced the resolution on the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic.

The representative of the United States spoke in explanation of vote before action on that text, and the representative of the United Kingdom spoke after the vote.

The Assembly will meet again at a time to be announced.

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to pay tribute to the memory of Angie Elisabeth Brooks, President of the Assembly’s twenty-fourth session, and Gaston Thorn, President of the Assembly’s thirteenth session, both recently deceased.

The Assembly was also expected to take action on draft resolutions concerning the prevention of armed conflict (document A/61/L.68), zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/61/L.66), and the report of the Human Rights Council, which included a draft resolution on a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (document A/61/L.67).

Also before the Assembly for action were the first report of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission (document A/61/1035), the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (document A/61/1044), and the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (document A/61/1042).

Introduction and Action on Draft Resolutions

The Assembly adopted without a vote, the resolution on the prevention of armed conflict (document A/61/L.68).

Following that action, ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), chair of the permanent committee on the zone, introduced the draft resolution on zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/61/L.66), saying more than 20 years ago, the United Nations had declared the South Atlantic a zone of peace and cooperation among its members. Today, the zone was an effective interregional mechanism for cooperation in the areas of development, peace and security among its 24 member States. Among others, in the area of crime prevention and combating drug trafficking and the illicit trade in small arms, including piracy, the members of the zone were committed to cooperate, among others, for the full implementation of the relevant United Nations programmes of action and ensuring the exchange of information, experiences and lessons learned related to the reinforcement of boarder security, arms control policies and systems.

Before action was taken ROBERT HAGEN ( United States) said that Angola’s efforts in sponsoring the resolution were to be commended. Nevertheless, the United States would disassociate itself from the text, or abstain from a vote if there was a vote, because of the belief that internationally recognized zones of peace should be created through multilateral regional forums, rather than by United Nations resolutions. It also had concerns about the texts’ reference to marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Further, the United States did not give legally binding non-use assurances to States within a zone unless its ships and aircraft may pass through the zone without having to declare whether or not they were carrying nuclear weapons.

The Assembly adopted the text without vote.

After action, KAREN PIERCE ( United Kingdom) said that her delegation welcomed continuing cooperation between States in the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic. However, with reference to the Luanda Declaration issued by those States, the United Kingdom would reiterate its position on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom’s position was well known and had last been set out by British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry in a letter to the Secretary-General on 15 January. The United Kingdom had no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. There could be no negotiations on the sovereignty of those Islands unless and until the Islanders so wished.

Next, acting on the recommendation of the Acting Chair of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, the Assembly decided to defer consideration of the year-old body’s annual report, issued as document A/62/1035, and include it on the draft agenda of the Assembly’s upcoming sixty-second session.

Following that decision, the Assembly approved a draft decision contained in paragraph 14 of the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (document A/61/1044).

By that action, the Assembly decided to defer the convening of a substantive session of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to its sixty-second session. It also requested the Working Group to meet from 3 to 7 December to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at the sixty-second session.

Acting on the recommendations of the Secretary-General, the Assembly then decided to defer to its sixty-second session consideration of the report of the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (document A/62/137).

Introducing the text on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/61/L.67), LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ BASAGOITIA ( Peru), noting that indigenous peoples were among the most vulnerable, noted that the process had begun in 1982. Thirteen years later, a preliminary text had been submitted to the former Human Rights Commission. In 1995, the draft had been put to a group of the Commission. For the first time, representatives of indigenous peoples had taken part in work on the text, giving legitimacy to the text. During recent months, many efforts had been made to meet the concerns expressed by various Member States on the draft, which had been approved by the Human Rights Council. As a result of such efforts, a revised version produced several changes to the text. Those changes had been duly communicated to Member States and representatives of indigenous peoples. The changes had not undermined the protection of indigenous peoples and should ensure the Declaration’s adoption.

With the conclusion of a 25-year process, he thanked the President for her efforts in bringing the parties together. The text would set the foundations for a new and sound relationship among indigenous peoples, States and societies, where and with whom they shared their lives.

ROBERT HILL ( Australia), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said Australia had actively worked to ensure the adoption of a meaningful declaration. Australia had worked hard to ensure that any declaration could become a tangible and ongoing standard of achievement that would be universally accepted, observed and upheld. The text of the Declaration failed to reach that high standard and Australia continued to have many concerns with the text. Australia had repeatedly called for a chance to participate in negotiations on the current text and was deeply disappointed that none had been convened.

Regarding the nature of the Declaration, he said it was the clear intention of all States that it be an aspirational Declaration with political and moral force, but not legal force. The text contained recommendations regarding how States could promote the welfare of indigenous peoples, but was not in itself legally binding nor reflective of international law. As the Declaration did not describe current State practice or actions that States considered themselves obliged to take as a matter of law, it could not be cited as evidence of the evolution of customary international law. The Declaration did not provide a proper basis for legal actions complaints, or other claims in any international, domestic or other proceedings.

The Australian Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the Declaration, he said. Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population groups. It also applied where a particular group with a defined territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights. The Government supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government.

On lands and resources, he said the Declaration’s provisions could be read to require recognition of indigenous rights to lands without regard to other legal rights existing in land, both indigenous and non-indigenous. Any right to traditional lands must be subject to national laws, or the provisions would be both arbitrary and impossible to implement, with no recognition being given to the fact that ownership of land might lawfully vest in others. Australia would read the lands and resources provisions in line with its existing domestic laws, including the Native Title Act.

Australia had concerns that the Declaration expanded any right to free, prior and informed consent too far, as the scope of that proposed right was too broad. It could mean that States were obliged to consult with indigenous peoples about every aspect of law that might affect them. That would not only be unworkable, but would apply a standard for indigenous peoples that did not apply to others in the population. Australia could not accept a right that allowed a particular sub-group of the population to be able to veto legitimate decisions of a democratic and representative Government. Australia also did not support the inclusion of intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples.

On third party rights, he noted that, in seeking to give indigenous people exclusive rights over property, both intellectual, real and cultural, the Declaration did not acknowledge the rights of third parties, in particular the rights of third parties to access indigenous land, heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national law. The Declaration also failed to consider the different types of ownership and use that could be accorded to indigenous people and failed to consider the rights of third parties to property. Australia was also concerned that the Declaration placed indigenous customary law in a superior position to national law. Customary law was not “law” in the sense that modern democracies used the term, but was based on culture and tradition. Australia would read the whole of the Declaration in accordance with domestic laws, as well as international human rights standards.

Wile the Declaration would not be binding on Australia and other States as a matter of international law, he was aware that its aspirational contents would be relied on in setting standards by which States would be judged in their relations with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, the Australian Government had been concerned throughout the negotiations to ensure that the Declaration was meaningful, was capable of implementation and enjoyed wide support in the international community. The Declaration failed in all those respects and Australia could not support it.

JOHN MCNEE ( Canada) said that his country had long-demonstrated its commitment to protecting and promoting indigenous rights at home and around the world. It had strongly supported the work of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the relevant United Nations special rapporteurs. Canada also had a constructive and far-reaching international development programme targeted specifically at improving the situation of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, and it also continued to make further progress at home within its constitutional guarantees for aboriginal and treaty rights, and with its negotiated self-government and land claims agreements with several Canadian aboriginal groups.

Canada had been an active participant in the development of the Declaration over the past 20 years, he continued. And while it had long been a proponent of a strong and effective text promoting indigenous peoples’ fundamental freedoms without discrimination, and a text that promoted harmonious agreements between indigenous peoples and the States in which they lived, the text presented to the Human Rights Council last year did not met those expectations. Canada’s position had remained consistent and principled and the country had stated publicly that it had significant concerns with the wording of the current text, including provisions on lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations on indigenous peoples, Member States and third parties.

For example, the recognition of indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources was important to Canada. He said that Canada was proud that land and treaty rights had been given strong recognition and protection in its Constitution. Canada was equally proud of the processes that had been put in place to deal with aboriginal claims respecting those rights and was working actively to improve those processes to address claims more effectively. Unfortunately, the provisions in the Declaration on lands and territories were overly broad, unclear and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting into question matters that had been settled by treaty.

Similarly, some of the provisions dealing with the concept of free, prior and informed consent were unduly restrictive, he said. Provisions in the Declaration said that States could not act on any legislative or administrative matter that might affect indigenous peoples without obtaining their consent. While Canada had a strong consultative process, reinforced by the Courts as a matter of law, the establishment of complete veto power over legislative action for a particular group would be fundamentally incompatible with Canada’s parliamentary system.

Overall, it was unfortunate that Canada, and a number of other States with large indigenous populations, could not support the adoption of the text as a “meaningful and effective” United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Regardless, Canada would continue to take effective action, at home and abroad, to promote the rights of indigenous people based on its existing human rights obligations and commitments. By voting against the text, Canada put on record its disappointment with both the substance and the process. The Government understood that the Declarations was not legally binding and had no legal effect in Canada.

ROSEMARY BANKS (New Zealand), speaking in explanation of vote, noted that New Zealand was one of the few countries that from the start had supported the elaboration of a declaration that promoted and protected the rights of indigenous peoples. In New Zealand, indigenous rights were of profound importance, and were integral to its identity as a nation State and as a people. New Zealand was unique: a treaty concluded at Waitangi between the Crown and New Zealand’s indigenous peoples in 1840 was a founding document of the country. Today, New Zealand had one of the largest and most dynamic indigenous minorities in the world, and the Treaty of Waitangi had acquired great significance in the country’s constitutional arrangements, law and Government activity.

The place of Maori in society, their grievances and disparities affecting them were central and enduring features of domestic debate and Government action, she said. New Zealand also had an unparalleled system for redress, accepted by both indigenous and non-indigenous citizens alike. Nearly 40 per cent of the New Zealand fishing quota was owned by Maori, as a result. Claims to over half of New Zealand’s land area had been settled. For that reason, New Zealand fully supported the principles and aspirations of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The country had been implementing most of the standards in the Declaration for many years. She shared the view that the Declaration was long overdue, and the concern that indigenous peoples in many parts of the world continued to be deprived of basic human rights.

New Zealand was proud of its role in improving the text over the past three years, turning the draft into one that States would be able to uphold and promote, she said. It was, therefore, a matter of deep regret that it was unable to support the text before the Assembly today. Unfortunately, New Zealand had difficulties with a number of provisions of the text. In particular, four provisions in the Declaration were fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the principle of governing for the good of all its citizens, namely article 26 on lands and resources, article 28 on redress, articles 19 and 32 on a right of veto over the State.

The provision on lands and resources could not be implemented in New Zealand, she said. Article 26 stated that indigenous peoples had a right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that they had traditionally owned, occupied or used. For New Zealand, the entire country was potentially caught within the scope of the article, which appeared to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and did not take into account the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. The article, furthermore, implied that indigenous peoples had rights that others did not have. The entire country would also appear to fall within the scope of article 28 on redress and compensation. The text generally took no account of the fact that land might now be occupied or owned legitimately by others, or subject to numerous different or overlapping indigenous claims.

Finally, the Declaration implied that indigenous peoples had a right of veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management, she said. She strongly supported the full and active engagement of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes. New Zealand also had some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world. But the articles in the Declaration implied different classes of citizenship, where indigenous had a right to veto that other groups or individuals did not have.

While New Zealand took international human rights and its international human rights obligations seriously, it was unable to support a text that included provisions that were so fundamentally incompatible with its democratic processes, legislation and constitutional arrangements. The text was clearly unable to be implemented by many States, including most of those voting in favour. The Declaration was explained by its supporters as being an aspirational document, intended to inspire rather than to have legal effect. New Zealand did not, however, accept that a State could responsibly take such a stance towards a document that purported to declare on the contents of the rights of indigenous people. The history of the negotiations on the Declaration and the divided manner in which it had been adopted demonstrated that the text did not state propositions that were reflected in State practice, or which would be recognized as general principles of law.

ROBERT HAGEN ( United States) said the United States had to vote against the Declaration’s adoption. While the United States had worked for 11 years in Geneva for a consensus declaration, the document before the Assembly had been prepared and submitted after the negotiations had concluded. States had been given no opportunity to discuss it collectively. It was disappointing that the Human Rights Council had not responded to his country’s calls, in partnership with Council members, for States to undertake further work to generate a consensus text. The Declaration had been adopted by the Council in a splintered vote. The process had been unfortunate and extraordinary for any multilateral negotiating exercise and set a poor precedent with respect to United Nations practice.

The Declaration, if it were to encourage harmonious and constructive relations, should have been written in terms that were transparent and capable of implementation, he said. Unfortunately, the text that had emerged from that failed process was confusing, and risked endless conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States at is adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States could not lend its support to such a text.

He said the United States views with respect to the text’s core provisions could be found in a separate document, which would be circulated as an official United Nations document. The document discussed the core provisions of the Declaration, including but not limited to self-determination, lands and resources, redress and the Declaration’s nature. Because the flaws in the text ran through its most significant provisions, the text as a whole was rendered unacceptable.

While the United States was voting against the Declaration, his Government would continue its efforts to promote indigenous rights domestically, he said. Under United States domestic law, the Government recognized Indian tribes as political entities with inherent powers of self-government as first peoples. In its legal system, the federal Government had a government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. In that domestic context, that meant promoting tribal self-government over a broad range of internal and local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, social welfare, economic activities, and land and resources management. At the same time, the United States would continue its work to promote indigenous rights internationally. In its diplomatic efforts, it would continue its opposition to racial discrimination against indigenous individuals and communities and continued to press for full indigenous participation in democratic electoral processes throughout the world.

He said his delegation was deeply disappointed that, in seeking to make a practical difference in the lives of indigenous people around the globe, the international community had not been presented with a text that was clear, transparent or capable of implementation. Those fundamental shortcomings meant that the document could not enjoy universal support and become a true standard of achievement.

ILYA ROGACHEV ( Russian Federation) said that his delegation had supported the rights of indigenous people and the development of international standards in that regard. Such an all-encompassing document should be balanced and its elements carefully weighed. Unfortunately, the text being considered was not such a document. It was not a truly balanced document, in particular regarding land and natural resources or the procedures for compensation and redress.

Further, the Declaration did not enjoy consensus support and had not been duly approved by all interested parties, he continued. In addition, a non-transparent forum had been chosen to negotiate the text, which meant that, at a decisive stage in the process, some States with large numbers of indigenous people had been excluded from the talks. His Government hoped that the way in which the Declaration was being adopted would not create a negative precedent at the United Nations. The Russian Federation could not support the Declaration and would abstain in the vote. Nevertheless, as ever, the Russian Federation would foster cooperation in order to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

JEAN-MARIE EHOUZOU ( Benin) said his country was in favour of the text. During the procedure, countries had raised legitimate concerns, and his delegation supported the African position to allow the Assembly to take into account the misgivings expressed by the continent. Benin would vote in favour of the text, despite the flaws, which had been highlighted by some delegations. He hoped the Declaration would fall on fertile ground. While the text contained imperfections, it would be desirable if the text could be implemented for the time being and improvements introduced, in order for the text to receive approval by all delegations.

JAIRO MONTOYA ( Colombia) said his country had incorporated a wide range of rights within its national system. Under the framework of the 1991 Constitution, Colombia stood out as one of the most advanced with regard to recognizing the collective rights of indigenous peoples. For the State, the recognition of traditional territories for the different communities was fundamental. Colombia had some 710 reservations occupying about 32 million hectares. By the end of 2007, the area should reach 29 per cent of the national territory. Those properties could not be seized or transferred. Reservations participated in the central government budget transfer system. All members of the various communities were covered by health services that were subsidized by the State.

Colombia had also been a leader internationally, he said, noting that dialogue with indigenous people was a priority for the State. In the long-term, the State was developing policy for indigenous communities, including in terms of human rights and self-government. His delegation had supported the initiative to postpone a decision, as it was important to find agreement that would allow for the adoption of a Declaration acceptable to all States. In spite of the fact that the Declaration was not legally binding for the State, some aspects of the Declaration were in direct contradiction with Colombia’s internal legal system, including provisions of articles 30, 19 and 32, forcing Colombia to abstain on the text.

Colombia remained committed to the protection of the rights of indigenous people, he said. The decision to abstain from voting on the text, given its legal incompatibilities, did not affect Colombia’s commitment to carry out the constitutional provisions and internal norms and assumed obligations aimed at preserving Colombia’s multiethnic nature and diversity.

Before action on the text, the representative of Guatemala asked what delegation had asked for the vote.

The General Assembly President noted that Australia, New Zealand and the United States had requested a vote on the text.

The Assembly then adopted the Declaration by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 4 against ( Australia, United States, New Zealand and Canada) with 11 abstentions.

Speaking after action on the text, Mr. ARGUELLO (Argentina) noted that, at the time of the draft’s adoption by the Human Rights Council, Argentina had regretted that it had had to abstain, despite its clear political will in support of the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. Argentina had also expressed its disappointment at not having more time to work on making the references to self-determination compatible with the principle of territorial integrity, with national unity and the other organizational structure of each State. Fortunately, the efforts undertaken to resolve the question without affecting the rights contained in the Declaration had been successful. Thanks to those efforts, Argentina was pleased to join the voting in favour of the Declaration.

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( Japan) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the Declaration. The revised version of article 46 correctly clarified that the right of self-determination did not give indigenous peoples the right to be separate and independent from their countries of residence, and that that right should not be invoked for the purpose of impairing the sovereignty of a State, its national and political unity, or territorial integrity. The Japanese Government shared the understanding on the right and welcomed the revision.

Japan believed that the rights contained in the Declaration should not harm the human rights of others. It was also aware that, regarding property rights, the contents of the rights of ownership or others relating to land and territory were firmly stipulated in the civil law and other laws of each State. Therefore, Japan thought that the rights relating to land and territory in the Declaration, as well as the way those rights were exercised, were limited by due reason, in light of harmonization with the protection of the third party interests and other public interests.

ARMIN ANDEREYA ( Chile) said that his delegation had also voted in favour of the Declaration, supporting the important role indigenous peoples played in the development of all societies. The Declaration was a significant step. Chile reaffirmed its internal legal system, which aimed to develop, promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples, and supported their efforts to build their own communities. The Declaration would serve to strengthen such national efforts.

KAREN PIERCE ( United Kingdom ) welcomed the Declaration as an important tool in helping to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The United Kingdom regretted that it had not been possible to reach wider consensus on the important text, and that some States with large indigenous populations had felt that they had no recourse but to call a vote on it. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom recognized the efforts that had been made to reflect many concerns raised in negotiations. The United Kingdom was pleased to be able to support its adoption.

The United Kingdom fully supported the provisions in the Declaration which recognized that indigenous individuals were entitled to the full protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms in international law, on an equal basis to all other individuals. Human rights were universal and equal to all. The United Kingdom did not accept that some groups in society should benefit from human rights that were not available to others. With the exception of the right to self-determination, the United Kingdom did not accept the concept of collective human rights in international law. That was without prejudice to the United Kingdom’s recognition of the fact that the Governments of many States with indigenous populations had granted them various collective rights in their constitutions, national laws and agreements.

In that regard, the United Kingdom strongly endorsed preambular paragraph 22 in the Declaration, which it understood to distinguish between individual human rights in international law and other collective rights bestowed at the national level by governments to indigenous peoples. Her delegation read all the provisions in the Declaration in the light of the understanding of human rights and collective rights. The United Kingdom understood article 3 of the Declaration as promoting the development of a new and distinct right of self-determination, specific to indigenous peoples. She understood the “right” set out in article 3 of the Declaration to be separate and different from the existing right of all peoples to self-determination in international law. Subsequent articles of the Declaration sought to set out the content of that new “right” which was to be exercised, where it applied, within the territory of a State and was not intended to impact in any way on the political unity or territorial integrity of existing States.

Continuing, she said the United Kingdom understood the commitments of articles 12 and 13 on redress and repatriation as applying only in respect of such property or of such ceremonial objects and human remains that were in the ownership or possession of the State. She emphasized that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied. The United Kingdom had, however, long provided political and financial support to the socio-economic and political development of indigenous peoples around the world.

PATRICK RITTER ( Liechtenstein) said his country had been a long-standing supporter of innovative approaches to the right of peoples to self-determination, in order to fully explore the potential of the concept for the promotion and protection of human rights. He was pleased, therefore, that the Declaration contained a number of provisions that marked an important new step in the way the United Nations was dealing with the concept of self-determination. The introduction to the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to internal and local affairs, including their financial aspect, offered a promising new approach which would help to genuinely address the aspirations and needs of many peoples to create an enabling environment for the full protection and promotion of human rights, without resorting to violence and strife.

It was his understanding, he added, that the reference to “political unity” in article 46 did not preclude a gradual granting of increasing levels of self-government to such peoples, which was based on a democratic process and the promotion and protection of minority rights. It also did not exclude any democratic decision on the State structure.

HEE-KWON PARK ( Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea had voted in favour of the Declaration given its belief that it would become an important milestone for the promotion, protection, and further enhancement of indigenous people’s rights. Adopting the Declaration, which was the outcome of more than 20 years of work, constituted a solemn pledge and sent a clear message for the survival and well-being of indigenous peoples, especially in support of their dwindling culture, language and their rights to pursue their vision of economic, social and cultural development. His Government hoped that Declaration’s adoption would contribute to further strengthening the international human rights system as a whole, by achieving equality and non-discrimination for all.

JOHAN L. LOVALD ( Norway) said that the Declaration set the standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of cooperation. Norway would work with the Sami people, recognized as indigenous by the Government. Several articles in the Declaration dealt with the exercise of self-determination and stipulated that such rights should be exercised in the framework of international law. The Norwegian Government had signed agreements with the Sami parliament setting out cooperation and legislative matters. The question of land was a crucial issue to cultural identity and, in that regard, Norway referred to the relevant language of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169.

ISHRAT JAHAN AHMED ( Bangladesh) said that her delegation supported the rights of any group that was disadvantaged. Bangladesh adhered to all major international human rights instruments and supported the rights of indigenous peoples. However, the Declaration, in its present form, contained some ambiguities, particularly that “indigenous people” had not been identified or explicitly defined in any way. Further, the text did not enjoy consensus among Member States. Under such circumstances, Bangladesh had abstained in the vote.

SAMAR AL-ZIBDEH (Jordan) said that her delegation had voted in favour of the text, but would stress that the right of self-determination referred to therein should be exercised within the framework of the United Nations Charter and did not interfere with the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States.

Ms. ROVIROSA ( Mexico) welcomed the adoption of the Declaration and reaffirmed her Government’s pride in its multiethnic population. With the anniversary of its independence, Mexico had enjoyed the recognition of its indigenous peoples, who supported the country’s national identity. She also welcomed the provisions of the Declaration in accordance with the provisions of Mexico’s Constitution. Article 2 of the Constitution recognized the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, granting them autonomy to determine their internal form and system of norms for conflict resolution. She understood, however, that the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, autonomy and self-government shared be exercised in accordance with Mexico’s Constitution, so as to guarantee its national unity and territorial integrity.

ULLA STROM ( Sweden) said that her Government was pleased that the Assembly had finally adopted the Declaration. Sweden had supported the Declaration throughout the negotiation process, had voted in favour of the text and hoped that its implementation improved the situation of indigenous peoples. At the same time, the Declaration included several references to collective rights. While the Swedish Government had no difficulty in recognizing such rights outside the framework of international law, it was of the firm opinion that individual human rights prevailed over the collective rights mentioned in the Declaration.

She went on to say that the Sami people were recognized as indigenous by the Swedish Parliament, and the Government had based its relations with the Sami on dialogue, partnership and self-determination, with respect and responsibility for cultural identity. To that end, Sweden looked forward to discussing the implementation of the Declaration with Sami representatives. She stressed that the political discussion on self-determination could not be separated from the question of land rights. The Sami’s relationship to the land was at the heart of the matter and the Swedish Government must maintain a balance between competing interests of different groups living in the same areas of the north of the country.

She said that some clarification of her country’s interpretation of the Declaration was necessary. For instance, the text’s reference to self-determination should not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. She noted that a large part of the realization of the right to self-determination could be ensured through article 19 of the Declaration, which dealt with the duty of States to consult and cooperate with indigenous peoples. In fact, that article could be implemented in different ways, including through a consultative process between institutions representing indigenous peoples and Governments, and through participation in democratic systems, such as the current Swedish system. It did not entail a collective right of veto, she added.

Among other examples, she said that her Government interpreted references in the Declaration to ownership and control of land to apply to the traditional rights of the Sami people. In Sweden, those rights were called reindeer herding rights and included the right to land and water for the maintenance of reindeer herds by Sami herding communities, as well as the right to build fences and slaughterhouses for the reindeer and the right to hunt and fish in reindeer herd areas. Article 28 did not give Sami people the right to redress for regular forestry by the forest owner.

Ms. PUNKRASIN ( Thailand) said that her delegation had voted in favour of the text and was in agreement with its intent, despite the fact that a number of paragraphs raised some concerns. The draft just adopted was an improvement over the text that had been put before the Third Committee last year. Thailand understood that the articles on self-determination would be interpreted within the framework of the principle set out in the Vienna Declaration. Thailand also understood that the Declaration did not create any new rights and that any benefits that flowed from the Declaration would be based on the laws and Constitution of Thailand.

PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGO ( Brazil) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the text. Brazil had believed that the text adopted by the Human Rights Council, the body most able to deal with such issues, should not have been reopened. Nevertheless, Brazil welcomed the text and appreciated the flexibility of delegations that had brought the Declaration before the Assembly today. He said that his country’s indigenous peoples were crucial to the development of society at every level, including the development of spiritual and cultural life for all. Brazil would underscore that the exercise of the rights of indigenous peoples was consistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the States in which they resided. At the same time, States should always bear in mind their duty to protect the rights and identity of their indigenous peoples, he added.

GEORGE WILFRED TALBOT ( Guyana) said he had voted in favour of the text. In supporting the Declaration’s adoption, his delegation was motivated by the commitment to preserving the dignity and well being of all peoples and to safeguarding the rights of all individuals, including Guyana’s original inhabitants. It was further motivated by the consideration that the Declaration represented a good-faith effort to address the genuine concerns and special needs of indigenous people everywhere. Today’s adoption marked a historical milestone in recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. It also took note of the fact that the Declaration was political in character as opposed to being a legally binding document, though not without potential legal implications.

Some of its provisions could give rise to expectations that could be out of consonance with its fundamental intent, he said. He hoped that the Declaration would not become an instrument of division within States or societies. At the national level, all citizens without distinction enjoyed equal status before the law. It was a pity that the Declaration had become the object of division. It was his hope that the international community would, in the future, be able to arrive at consensus and ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.

Mr. MACDONALD ( Suriname) placed great importance on the promotion and protection of all human rights, including those of indigenous peoples. Suriname had voted in favour of the text. The amendments had addressed some concerns in the original text. Indigenous people comprised a significant part of Suriname’s population and the Government had a responsibility to all its constituents to prevent discrimination and marginalisation of any group in society. Granting special rights to one party might run contrary to the concept of equal treatment. The Declaration could not be understood to initiate any activity that would jeopardize a State’s territorial integrity and political unity.

He said his Government accepted the fact that the State’s should seek prior consultation to prevent a disregard for human rights. The level of such consultations depended on the specific circumstances. Consultation should not be viewed as an end in itself, but should serve the purpose of respecting the interest of those who used the land. The nation had the inalienable right to take complete possession of its national resources to the country’s benefit. He hoped all groups would be inspired by the Declaration and that the Declaration would be placed in its politically correct context.

BAGHAEI-HAMANEH ( Iran) said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution. The protection of the rights of indigenous people around the world was a matter of principle for Iran, although Iran did not have any indigenous peoples, as such. He hoped that the Declaration’s adoption by an overwhelming majority would further contribute to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, who had long been subjected to discrimination due to colonization. The rights of indigenous peoples should be protected and enhanced within the context of national and international law, including the purposes of the Charter, namely respect for territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

AJAI MALHOTRA ( India) said his country had consistently favoured the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. The fact that the working group had been unable to reach consensus was only reflective of the extreme complexity of the issues involved. While the Declaration did not define what constituted indigenous peoples, the issue of indigenous rights pertained to peoples in independent countries who were regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region which the country belonged, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retained some or all of their socio-economic, cultural and political institutions.

Regarding references to the right to self-determination, it was his understanding that the right to self-determination applied only to peoples under foreign domination and that the concept did not apply to sovereign independent States or to a section of people or a nation, which was the essence of national integrity. The Declaration clarified that the right to self-determination would be exercised by indigenous peoples in terms of their right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as means and ways for financing their autonomous functions. In addition, article 46 stated clearly that nothing in the Declaration might be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter. It was on that basis that India had voted in favour of the adoption of the Declaration.

AYE THIDAR MYO ( Myanmar) said that her Government was pleased to see that the Declaration included reference to self-determination and understood that such rights referred to activities which did not impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States. Her delegation had voted in favour of the Declaration and would seek to implement it with flexibility.

KAIRE MBUENDE ( Namibia) said that his delegation had made clear from the outset of the negotiations that Namibia was not opposed to the idea of a Declaration on indigenous rights. “We, as historical victims of deprivation of rights could not do anything that would be construed to deny other people human rights,” he said, adding that having experienced first-hand the pain of being treated as second class citizens in their own land, Namibians had traditionally been friends of human rights instruments.

Namibia understood that nothing in the Declaration could be interpreted in any way to mean that measures adopted by States for securing equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples and individuals created, as a consequence, any new, separate rights. He said that Namibia also understood that the word “law” in article 46 (2) of the Declaration referred to the national laws of States. Accordingly, Namibia understood that the exercise of the rights set out in the Declaration was subject to the constitutional frameworks and other national laws of States.

MADHU RAMAN ACHARYA ( Nepal) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the long-negotiated text, as its Government had always protected and promoted the rights of indigenous people. Indeed, the country’s interim-Constitution reflected the new Government’s commitment to supporting Nepal’s indigenous peoples. Nepal understood that the Declaration represented the good intentions of the international community to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, and did not create any new rights.

MUHAMMAD ANSHOR ( Indonesia) noted that several aspects of the Declaration remained unresolved, in particular what constituted indigenous peoples. The absence of that definition prevented a clear understanding of the peoples to whom the Declaration applied. In that context, the Declaration used the definition contained in the International Labour Organization Convention, according to which indigenous people were distinct from tribal people. Given the fact that Indonesia’s entire population at the time of colonization remained unchanged, the rights in the Declaration accorded exclusively to indigenous people and did not apply in the context of Indonesia. Indonesia would continue to promote the collective rights of indigenous peoples.

BILAL HAYEE ( Pakistan) said his country had voted in favour of the Declaration both in the Human Rights Council and in the Assembly. Although the Declaration did not define indigenous peoples, he hoped that its adoption would fulfil the aims of the International Decade for the rights of indigenous peoples and enable them to maintain their cultural identity, with full respect for their values and traditions.

JUAN ALFREDO BUFFA ( Paraguay) said that his delegation had participated in the negotiations in a constructive spirit and had voted in favour of the text. Paraguay understood that the Declaration’s reference to self-determination referred to acts and rights that would not interfere with the sovereignty or political unity of States.

DUSAN MATULAY ( Slovakia) said that his delegation welcomed in principle the Declaration as a tool to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and international levels. At the same time, Slovakia did not support the Declaration’s distinction between collective and individual human rights.

SERHAT ASKEN ( Turkey) said that his delegation was pleased to see that the amendments in the text had been instrumental in achieving broader support. With that in mind, Turkey had voted in favour of the text. It was non-legally binding, but could serve as an important tool. Turkey did not have any people in its territory that could be interpreted as indigenous peoples in the Declaration and believed that the Declaration referred to the exercise of self-determination in line with the Charter obligations regarding non-interference in the sovereignty, integrity and political unity of States.

Mr. INSIGNE ( Philippines) said his delegation had consistently upheld the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. In 1997, the Philippine Congress had passed the indigenous peoples rights act, which promoted the rights of indigenous cultural communities in the country. His delegation’s expression of support was premised on the understanding that the right to self-determination shall not be construed as encouraging any action that would dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign or independent State. It was also based on the understanding that land ownership and natural resources was vested in the State.

Mr. AKINDELE ( Nigeria) welcomed the broad areas of the Declaration, which were in tandem to Nigeria’s Constitution and which were replete with provisions strengthening some of those areas. A number of concerns that were critical to his country’s interests, however, had not been satisfactorily addressed, including the issue of self determination and the control of lands, territories and resources. His country’s national institutions and laws all ensured national integration. Nigeria would continue to promote the issue of indigenous people’s rights, culture and dignity. Those rights affected the rights of all Nigerians with its more than 300 ethnic groups speaking more than 300 languages. His delegation had abstained in the voting.

CLAUDIA PEREZ-ALVAREZ ( Cuba) noted that ending the isolation and discrimination suffered by the peoples for more than five centuries had been the driving motive of many stakeholders around the world. Noting important milestones in the process, she said the working group had been the first instance to address the question, opening the door for the ancestral claims of indigenous peoples. During the first decade, significant results had been made in the quest for solutions to the problems faced by indigenous communities, including the contributions from the special rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples and the establishment of the Permanent Forum on indigenous questions.

The Declaration and its future impact on the work of the United Nations would serve as a guide for future claims of the indigenous community. The Human Rights Council and its subordinate bodies should follow up for the full implementation of all indigenous people’s human rights. The acts of the United Nations in the second decade should not be limited to defining indigenous people’s rights. Cuba would continue to support the just claims of indigenous peoples.

NEBOJSA KALUDJEROVIC ( Montenegro) said that, due to some technical problems, his delegation’s vote had not been recorded. His delegation had voted in favour of the adoption of the Declaration.

SOHA GENDI ( Egypt) said that her delegation had voted in favour of the text. Despite the fact that it was not perfect, Egypt understood that nothing in the Declaration as adopted changed the interpretation of the rights to self-determination, or the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, as set out in the Charter.

DAVID CHOQUEHUAUCA, Minster of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, said that the world’s indigenous peoples, with their characteristic patience, had waited 25 years for the adoption of the historic Declaration. While the text was being negotiated and re-negotiated at many levels, Mother Earth had gone through innumerable changes, politically, socially and environmentally. Now, at the day of the adoption of the Declaration, the Planet was clearly wounded. Indigenous peoples had been and would continue to raise their voices to ensure the protection and preservation of Mother Earth. The Declaration was a step forward. It did not solve the problems of the Planet, nor ease the tensions between people. But, it was a step forward in allowing indigenous people to participate in global processes for the betterment of all societies, including their own traditional communities. By the Declaration, they were not trying to live better than anyone else. They were merely trying to “live like” everyone else. Indigenous people were trying to exercise the same rights -– in the same manner –- as all the people of the world.

JOAO SALGUEIRO ( Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the Union had supported the Human Rights Council resolution adopting the text of the Declaration in June 2006. The amended text before the Assembly today aimed at ensuring the widest possible support to the Declaration. The Union supported the new compromise text and was encouraged to see that it had the support of a broad range of indigenous representatives who had played a role during the process leading to the Declaration’s adoption. Today’s adoption would advance their rights and ensure the continued development of indigenous peoples around the world.

JOSE ALBERTO BRIZ GUTIERREZ ( Guatemala) said the 20-year struggle had ended today with the adoption of a text -- acceptable to the majority of Member States –- that would strengthen the dignity of people around the world. The Declaration was a balanced, useful instrument that would serve as a genuine guide for improving the living conditions of indigenous peoples. Great care had been taken to ensure that the Declaration was consistent with the principles of international law. While he had been sure that the text would have been adopted by consensus, that hope had proven idealistic. The reality had been different, with the text undergoing various changes before its adoption today. While he would rather have not seen it amended, he was satisfied that Member States’ concerns had been considered.

The Declaration, he continued, did not create new rights, but reaffirmed the rights of indigenous peoples, recognizing the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security. Guatemala reaffirmed its conviction that the full realization of human rights was a prerequisite for attaining peaceful and harmonious existence. While it could not make up for the past, it could prevent discrimination and intolerance. The Declaration was the expression of the international community’s political will to respect the rights of indigenous people. As the first instrument for the promotion and protection of indigenous people’s human rights, the Declaration would open the door for a better future for indigenous peoples worldwide.

Ms. NUORGAM ( Finland) said the first International Decade had had two major goals, namely the finalization of a United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and the establishment of permanent forum for indigenous issues. While she regretted the delays in approving the Declaration, she was pleased that after years of intense negotiations, the Declaration had been finalized. Today’s action honoured the work of hundreds of representatives of Governments and indigenous peoples from around the world by bringing the process, which started over two decades ago, to a meaningful end.

The issue of indigenous peoples’ rights affected the lives not only of indigenous peoples, but also populations as a whole, she said. The Declaration was an important tool in underscoring the full participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes. Its adoption would strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide and serve as a comprehensive framework for cooperation in implementing new minimal international standards for indigenous people’s rights.

RODRIGO RIOFRIO ( Ecuador) said that his country was known for its ethnic and cultural diversity and the Government strongly supported the adoption of the Declaration as a tool that would protect and promote the rights of indigenous people worldwide. He thanked all delegations that had steered the negotiations and the various indigenous civil society groups that devoted so much time and energy to the issue as the day had drawn near. Flexibility in the negotiations had lead to a consensus among a majority of States that the Declaration would improve the situation of indigenous people worldwide. He congratulated the Assembly for adopting the text and hoped that it would fulfil the wish of the world’s indigenous people, who had hoped for years that their respective Governments would give due attention to their legitimate rights.

RANDALL GONZALEZ ( Costa Rica) said that today marked the end of a long process towards the recognition of the fundamental rights of indigenous people. Still, it was only the beginning of efforts to remedy so many years of injustice. The debt to indigenous brothers and sisters must be settled, not only through implementation of the Declaration, but with assistance in such areas as poverty alleviation, improved education and wider access to decision-making processes.

FABIEN FIESCHI ( France) believed that the Declaration was an essential step forward in the promotion and protection of human rights for all. France had supported all multinational initiatives for indigenous peoples. France believed that the Declaration referred to many of the rights that had been elaborated in the French Constitution.

Assembly Vice-President, AMINU BASHIR WALI (Nigeria), making a statement on behalf of General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, said the Assembly had come a long way on the issue, having first opened its doors to indigenous peoples at a ceremony to launch the International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in December 1992. In 1995, the United Nations marked the first International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and, last year, the beginning of the Second International Decade. That partnership and cooperation demonstrated the Assembly’s continuing commitment to the world’s indigenous peoples.

Even with that progress, however, indigenous peoples still faced marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations, she said. They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival. They also suffered from a lack of access to health care and education. Indigenous peoples should not be cast as victims, however, but as critical assets to the diversity of global humanity. By adopting the Declaration, the Assembly was marking further progress to improve the situation of indigenous peoples around the world.

The Assembly had also realized another important mandate that Heads of State and Government had agreed at the 2005 World Summit, she continued. “I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of over two decades of negotiations,” she said, noting that the document’s importance for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, could not be underestimated. By adopting the Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It was also actively demonstrating the General Assembly’s important role in setting international standards.

ANNEX

Vote on Indigenous Rights Declaration

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (document A/61/L.67) was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 4 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa, Ukraine.

Absent: Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

International Training a Success!

2007-08-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

Village Earth and the International Institute for Sustainable Development recently pulled off another successful Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development training course, August 6-17, 2007. Participants came from all over the world - Sudan, USA, England, Kenya, Guatemala, Peru, and Americans working in Southeast Asia and Africa - in all their diversity to contribute to a dialogue about participatory community-based development.

Above: Training coordinator, Sharon Gale, passes out course materials.

Participants learned the theory behind the Village Earth Approach and how it is constantly being refined through action and reflection as the approach is put into practice in the field. It was especially interesting to have Limber Gomez from Peru and Adrianna Lazaro from Guatemala, two Village Earth project partners, who could add their perspectives as "internal activators" within Village Earth sponsored projects and increase the validity of the approach. The two-week workshop also included lively discussions about the importance of Appropriate Technology to building sustainable communities, the role of Monitoring and Evaluation, and a new section of the course focusing on non-governmental organization (NGO)-Community dynamics.

We are very grateful to the level of knowledge and experience that each participant brought with them that helped to make this course a truly consciousness-raising experience.

Above: Participants Sarah, Alhadi, and Christine.

Below: Limber closed the course with a traditional Peruvian song.

Tribes Effectively Barred From Making High-Tech Maps

2007-05-04T09:12:00.000-07:00

Kelly Hearn
Reposted from National Geographic News
April 26, 2007

Part of the Digital Places Special News Series

Tribes in Southeast Asia are being kept from using the latest high-tech gadgets to help them win land rights.

That's the outcry from activist groups that have been helping indigenous communities mix computers and handheld navigation devices with paints, yarn, and cardboard to make simple but accurate three-dimensional terrain models.

Several tribes have already used such models, based on data from geographic information systems (GIS), to defend their territories from developers making claims via modern legal systems.

But in Malaysia and the Philippines, the practice—dubbed participatory GIS—has sparked a legal backlash, activists say.

For example, Philippine lawmakers have changed an existing law so that only officially recognized engineers "could do anything related to measuring space," said Dave De Vera, director of the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development.

"In short [participatory GIS] is illegal, including all of the attendant activities critical in its conduct," he said.

The Philippine law, he added, carries fines and the chance of up to three years in prison.

Moving Mountains

Rambaldi Giacomo, director of the nonprofit Integrated Approaches to Participatory Development, is among the experts using terrain models to help indigenous groups.

"The question is how to help [these] people communicate with engineers, government officials, and development agencies," Giacomo said.

"There are new technical wonders such as Google Earth, GIS, and GPS [global positioning systems], but you can't take them to people who are often illiterate."

The modeling technique often starts by showing village elders satellite images, which they use to record their mental maps of tribal territories, hunting grounds, and sacred sites.

Outside experts can then use GPS and GIS to put accurate geographic coordinates on the models and maps, making them usable in modern legal procedures.

(Related news: "Amazon Tribes Use Latest Gadgets to Battle Developers" [January 23, 2007].)

"It is a way for [indigenous] people to visualize and communicate their sense of space," Giacomo said.

The Higaunon people in the Philippines, for example, recently used cardboard and paints to build a 3-D model of a nearby mountain, Mount Kimangkil, that helped them win an ancestral land title in February.

"The 3-D model enabled the community to define the extents of their territory and gather political support from Philippine lawmakers," De Vera, of the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, said.

And groups in the northern Philippines recently made a 5.5-by-10-foot (1.6-by-3-meter) scale model of a nearby mountain and presented it to the Philippine congress.

"They successfully used it as their main illustration in their advocacy to have the mountain declared off limits to development," De Vera said.

In a pending case, the Teduray people of the southern Philippines are fighting a proposal that would declare their region an officially Muslim area.

The indigenous Teduray are concerned that such a designation would spark ethnic conflict between non-Muslim residents and Islamic officials who would preside over the region.

Teduray tribe members therefore asked their village elders to take turns analyzing an enlarged Google Earth image of their territory, marking boundaries and ultimately creating maps and a terrain model.

Now they are using the tools to enlist help from the United Nations and the Philippine government, De Vera said.

Seal of Approval

In nearby Malaysia, the indigenous community Rumah Nor used high-tech mapping techniques to win a landmark court case in 2001 against a major paper company that was encroaching on its territory.

Mark Bujang, of the Iban people from Malaysia's Sarawak state on the island of Borneo, said that the court ruling increased indigenous demand for community-based mapping (see a Malaysia map).

But just after the Rumah Nor decision, the government of Sarawak passed a measure stating that no land survey would be accepted without government approval.

And similar to the Philippines ruling, the Sarawak measure restricts the gathering of mapping data by nonprofessionals using tools like GIS.

"Now if you do not have a license from the government and you are not registered with the Land Surveyors Board, the [law] could be used to charge you for making illegal maps," Bujang said via email.

Neither the Sarawak government nor officials in the Philippines responded to interview requests.

While the laws in these countries do not outright forbid indigenous groups from making maps, activists say, the measures severely undermine local mapmaking by requiring the use of specialists certified by the government.

"Imagine that indigenous communities who are trying to show the location and size of their native customary land in court are not able to do so unless they get someone who is licensed and registered," Bujang said.

"This is not possible, because most of the licensed and registered surveyors are working with the government or private consultant firms, [and] the latter costs too much for the communities."

Free Email News Updates
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).

Community-Based Planning with the Bora Tribe of Peru's Amazon Basin

2007-04-05T15:19:00.000-07:00

Village Earth team member, Raul Paz Pastrana faciliating planning workshop with the Bora. (photo by Ralf Kracke-Berndorff)

In November 2006, a team from Village Earth journeyed to Peru's Amazon to work with indigenous communities along the Rio Tigre, a tributary of the Amazon. While in the port town of Iquitos we encountered a small tribe five miles northwest of Iquitos, Peru called the Bora. We happened upon this group by chance while waiting for a boat to go up the Amazon to the Rio Tigre. After explaining what we were doing in the area one of their leaders asked us to facilitate a participatory planning session in their community of San Andres. While this wasn't in our original plans, we accepted their invitation, in the hope that we might be able to help through the planning as well as to raise awareness and support for their community.

Above: The community of San Andres located in northeast Peru.

The next day, the Jefe of the community met us in Iquitos and led us back to their community in a small boat (below). We left the northern port of Iquitos up a small tributary of Amazon and then up a small winding quebrada (small stream) . [Click here to download Google Earth .KMZ file]

Above: the community of San Andres

(photo by Ralf Kracke-Berndorff)

San Andres is set back in the jungle about 500 yards from the quebrada but there's a nice concrete path the entire distance.

(photo by Ralf Kracke-Berndorff)

Like many of the communities we visited in the Amazon basin, San Andres has a number of stilted, palm thatched houses, school and community building organized around a large soccer field.

From our discussion the day prior, we learned from the Jefe that the Bora of San Andres originally lived in Columbia north of the Putumayo River but a few families were brought to the Iquitos area 60 years ago by a North American company to perform dances for tourists during rubber boom in Iquitos during the 1940s. The Bora continue to perform for tourists but have chosen to do this at a location a mile down river towards Iquitos, to keep the influence of the tourists away from their community.

(photo by Ralf Kracke-Berndorff)

Among other things, the Bora identified the following Vision for their community:

Greater employment opportunities
Enhanced organization with other tribes in their region
Culturally-based schools
Clean water
Increased development of their tourism business

Sustainable development is dead! Long live sustainable development!

2007-04-01T19:19:00.000-07:00

Reposted from: International Institute for Environment and Development

“Our biggest challenge in this new century is to take an idea that

seems abstract – sustainable development – and turn it into a

daily reality for all the world’s people.”
Kofi Annan

A 20-year international effort to put the planet on a path to sustainable development has been woefully inadequate and will need a radical rethink if it is to achieve its aims, says a report published today by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

The report was written by Steve Bass, a senior fellow at IIED and former chief environment advisor at the UK government's Department for International Development. It is being released to mark the 20th anniversary of the influential Brundtland Commission’s report Our Common Future, which first put sustainable development on the mainstream political agenda.

The IIED report calls for:

Traditional, local and non-Western approaches to play a major role in a new, globally constructed and globally shared drive towards genuine sustainable development.
A shift from the inviolability of economic growth to the inviolability of human well-being and environmental limits.
Governments to account for the economic and social benefits that natural resources provide and the costs of mismanaging these environmental assets.

The Brundtland Commission's 1987 report defined sustainable development as: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Since then, twenty years of international summitry has produced an incoherent set of commitments, plans, tools and agreements. Yet development remains far from sustainable. The IIED report looks forward 20 years to identify future challenges and ways that sustainable development can be turned from a planner's dream into a tangible reality in the everyday lives of people and businesses.

"Three UN-commissioned reports from 2005 show clearly that development has not yet become sustainable," says Bass

The Millennium Project confirmed that progress in reducing poverty was too slow. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that 16 out of 25 services that ecosystems provide humanity were being critically degraded. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly demonstrated one aspect of unsustainable development and its likely impacts.

"Sustainable development is never going to materialise as a result of edicts from New York or Geneva," says Bass. "It needs to be constructed, shared and implemented in a truly global way that takes account of traditional, local and non-Western approaches."

"Instead of top-down plans and wish-lists, we need to look from the bottom up," he says. "Linking the many approaches that actually work – wiring together new systems, not rehashing plans – is the key to shaping a new era in sustainable development."

"We need to challenge the notion that environmental resources are there for the taking, that Nature provides a free lunch," says Bass. "The mismanagement of these resources carries a cost that we are only just beginning to appreciate."

"We are borrowing from the future, and leaving the next generation with an environmental overdraft. We need policy to shift from viewing economic growth as inviolable to seeing that environmental limits and people’s rights are more important."IIED wants to spark a debate among different sectors and stakeholders about what sustainable development really means — and how to achieve it. "It is high time for new questions to be asked," says Bass. "Getting the answers will mean engaging a much wider range of people and perspectives than have been heard in international summit halls to date."

Link to the full report

For more information

Village Earth Joins the Appropedia Wiki Community

2007-03-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

Village Earth, who created the first wiki for appropriate technology, has joined forces with Appropedia.org, the largest wiki for sustainable development, appropriate technology and poverty reduction. Together, Village Earth and Appropedia are promoting the concept of a centralized, consolidated and open information clearinghouse where users can share what they know and find the information they seek. As Dr. Maury Albertson, founder of Village Earth and Peace Corps, put it, "There is an ENORMOUS POTENTIAL here." (His emphasis.) Appropedia Founder Lonny Grafman said "I'm particularly excited to see this public support for open source solutions coming from an organization as highly regarded as Village Earth!"

Village Earth works on sustainable development worldwide, while adhering to the concept that communities already posses the seeds of their own development, and that the optimum approach to development employs a "bottom-up" (listening rather than dictating) participatory process. Village Earth was born in 1993 at an International Conference on Sustainable Village-Based Development, and has a direct affiliation with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) at Colorado State University (CSU).

Appropedia is a 12 month old living library of sustainability and international development solutions that is managed by a committed team. Appropedia has been experiencing explosive growth in content and user base, and has recently begun recruiting a variety of partner organizations. Appropedia welcomes Village Earth as its newest partner helping to raise awareness of the benefits of open source sustainability solutions. Appropedia uses the same software as Wikipedia, and is committed to being the most user-friendly environment for collaboration in sustainability.

To join Appropedia, Village Earth and their partners in co-creating solutions for a sustainable world, visit Appropedia.

Also, check out the new Village Earth Appropriate Technology page.

World Social Forum 2007

2007-03-20T15:35:00.000-07:00

Kristina Pearson, a Village Earth Project Coordinator, recently represented Village Earth at the seventh World Social Forum (WSF) held in Nairobi, Kenya January 20-25, 2007. Kenya was an important meeting place for the WSF, as one of the WSF organizers pointed out, that it is the birthplace of humanity – a factor that brings everyone together from all their diversity. The World Social Forum was a gathering of 50,000 representatives of global civil society – a forum for discussion about alternatives to neoliberalism, globalization, and capitalistic-dominated models of global development. The World Social Forum began in 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil in response to World Economic Forum held every year at the same time in Davos, Switzerland where the world’s economic elite meet and decide global economic policy. On the contrary, the theme for the WSF is “Another World is Possible” and its purpose to create “economies where all of life is allowed to live.”

There was an incredibly diverse crowd of everyone from tribal African pastoralists to representatives of the United Nations. The leader of the African Social Forum made the poignant statement, “This is not a forum of charity. We are here because we want to be a part of this world.” One of the major themes from the WSF was the active participation and empowerment of indigenous and minority groups especially from the “Global South”. So many people around the world are waiting for governments, NGOs, or corporations to be the active agents of change, but the WSF proved that only the people themselves can change their own world.

The themes of the different WSF events really resonated with the Village Earth process of self-empowered sustainable development led by and for the world’s most marginalized peoples. Many times NGOs are actually holding people back from the creation of truly sustainable, empowered human communities. One common phrase throughout the WSF was “Moving from NGOism to Activism.” I believe this is really a unique feature of the Village Earth process.

Above: Famed Indian activist Vandana Shiva spoke about the importance of building alternatives by learning from indigenous knowledge, an important cornerstone of the Village Earth process.

Vandana Shiva also turned the traditional notion of development on its head saying, “What is development and underdevelopment? To be developed is to be free of fossil fuels. Underdevelopment is being locked into a fossil fuel economy…The South will have to lead with their hearts, hands, and minds.”

The WSF ended with a procession of the different global delegations from Korogocho, one of Africa’s largest slums, to Uhuru (Swahili for Freedom) Park in central Nairobi. One of the WSF organizers ended the program by saying, “All we can do is go home and do our best – that is what we can take from here.”

Below: The World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, Economic Partnership Agreements (Free Trade Agreements), and the World Bank were symbolically taken out of the WSF in a coffin.

The next WSF will be held in 2009 – the location has yet to be decided. If you would like more information about future WSF events, visit the: WSF website

Also, the first ever US Social Forum is to be held June 27-July 1, 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. For more information, please visit the: United States Social Forum website.

Village Earth/IISD Training Alumn Initiates Sustainable Development Program in Zambia

2007-03-18T21:58:00.000-07:00

In December 2005, James Sikalima, from Zambia, attended the Village Earth/IISD training in Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development. James came to us with a Master's degree in Communication for Development and a Bachelor of Arts in Education (B.A.Ed.). He served as Program Development Manager, Mwembeshi Child and Family Program and had been involved in implementing an HIV and AIDS project aimed at enhancing community support for children and youth living with HIV and AIDS in Mwembeshi; also in implementing a water and sanitation project. He also took part in implementing the Food Security Project Pack focused on conservation farming and adequate food supplies in hunger stricken families, as well as child health and educational programs (Universal child immunization, access and equity to basic education).

After his participation in the training he initiated the Countryside Development Transformation Initiative in Zambia. Whose mission is to promote sustainable rural development in Zambia.

Areas of focus include:

Sustainable Livelihoods
Citizen participation in development and governance
Appropriate Technology
Microfinance
Micro enterprise development
Sustainable agriculture and agro-marketing
Primary health care and hygiene
Transport and Communication Systems
Education for all

James can be contacted at:

P. O. B0x 50683, Lusaka
Direct0r – 097 883262, 095/6 251476
Program Executive – 097 749049
ZAMBIA

Click here to learn about the upcoming Village Earth/IISD training in Participatory Practices for Sustainable Development.

UNDP takes notice of Education Project in Phnom Penh

2007-03-05T15:35:00.000-08:00

The United Nations Development Programme website is currently featuring a teacher and student at the Aziza School - part of the Village Earth Education Project in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Village Earth Mission to Armenia

2007-02-24T13:36:00.000-08:00

Reposted from the site of: World Council of Churches Armenia Inter-Church Charitable Round Table

Above: Village Earth training Armenian NGO's in approaches to community-based development

Through October 20 to November 3, 2006, the Armenia Round Table invited the Consortium for Sustainable Village Based Development “Village Earth” to Armenia with the request to provide consultancy to ART staff in development of ART strategy axe “Integrated Community Development” and provide a training course for ART staff and ART local implementing partners in “Sustainable Village Based Development” to assist with the conceptual development and professional management of ART and its partners.

Throughout the Mission, the ART staff and Village Earth representatives, Ms. Mimi Shinn, Dr. Ed Shinn and Mr. David Bartecchi paid visits to ART supported projects, particularly to “Culture as a tool for Child Development and Socialization” implemented by Cross of Armenian Unity NGO, Establishment of Social Center in Jervezh” implemented by “Youth of Jervezh” NGO, “Establishment of Social Center in Gyumri” implemented by Diocese of Shirak and “Water and Sanitation for Six Communities” implemented by “Caravan-88” NGO and had discussions over project activities and community involvement in projects with clergymen, project managers, educators, youth groups and ordinary villagers.

The site visits and discussions assisted the Mission in its work with the ART staff on the development of the Integrated Community Development proposal.

Following the discussions in the ART and site visits, a training on “Sustainable Village-Based Development” was carried out by Village Earth for ART partners representing Armavir Diocese, Shirak Diocese, Catholic Our Lady of Armenian Center, “Syunik” NGO, “Bolor Sar” NGO, “Caravan-88”, “Cross of Armenian Unity” NGO, “Eco-99“ NGO, “Youth of Jervezh” Cultural-Educational NGO, “Legacy of Perished and Disabled Soldiers” NGO, “Sisian Center for Development” NGO through October 26 to November 1, 2006 in the Writers’ House of Tsakhadzor.

The course introduced the principles of community development approach as elaborated and experienced in Village Earth. The training mainly covered Introduction into Sustainable Village Based Development, Approaches to Village Based Development, Roles of Activator, Service Center, Strategy Planning; the Village Earth provided practical guide for work with communities and shared own experience of development work in communities.

In the result of general and groups’ discussions participants created models of Service Centers, shaped vision of the Center, identified strategic priorities and obstacles that can impede the work and achievements of Centers.

The training was inter-active and participants were engaged with group work and discussions, expressed their thoughts and opinions on points at issues, suggested different solutions to obstacles. An important fact worth mentioning is that good relations were established among participants, which was contributory to the development of ART partners’ network.

The Mission in general was successful in terms of comprehending the local context in relatively short time and providing consultancy and training relevant to local needs. Based on the experience of the training, evaluation of the training and feedback by its participants, the ART would like to continue cooperation with Village Earth.

Village Earth Founder Profiled by KUNC Radio

2007-02-20T15:07:00.000-08:00

Colorado Profiles

Each month during 2007 KUNC will profile a notable Coloradan who embodies the spirit of the state. Join us the last Thursday of each month for Colorado Profiles at 6:35 and 8:35 am during Morning Edition and at 3:44 pm during All Things Considered here on KUNC.

Colorado State University Professor Emeritus Maurice Albertson has influenced international education and world development programs for nearly 60 years. He's served as a consultant to the World Bank as well as the United Nations. But as KUNC's Brian Larson reports - one of his most recognized contributions led to the creation of the Peace Corps.

Reposted from, KUNC

Village Earth Founder Received E-Town's "E-chievement"

2006-03-04T15:21:00.000-08:00

From "e-town's" website:

Maury is a civil engineer, and has traveled internationally as part of his work for nearly 60 years. He also is a co-founder of the Peace Corp, and networked extensively with the volunteers. Based on his experience and observation, he came to believe that poverty-stricken people of the world have the innate ability to bring themselves out of poverty and launched the non-profit Village Earth in 1993, along with co-founder Ed Shinn, Ph.D., to help these poor communities access financial and other resources to sustainably and self-reliantly develop.

Click Here to listen to the archived broadcast.

VE's Appropriate Technology Library Helps Villages in Uganda

2006-02-25T11:27:00.000-08:00

Bob Wright is originally from New Jersey. He now lives in Karamojo, a district of northern Uganda where he purchased 150 acres of land. On this land he has created a service center similar to those developed by Village Earth's partners around the world. He has sparked interest from local people and they have helped each other develop a village.

Bob recently came to the Engineering Research Center at Colorado State University to visit Village Earth to share his success using the library.

Hostility, caused by ’s dependence on fossil fuels, is severe in Karamojo. Bob pays an armed guard to travel with him because, "bandits will shoot you for your gas." Using the AT library, the village is reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. They have installed solar panels to supply electrical power for their medical clinic and veterinary hospital and they used the AT library book, "Maintaining Motorcycles," to repair and operate fuel efficient dirt bikes. The AT library has been used for many other things too.

They have successfully drilled for water and now have an ample supply for themselves and the arid land. They built an irrigation system and use manure to fertilize crops. The crop production has improved significantly and has excited many villagers.