TEBTEBBA FOUNDATION STATEMENT PRESENTED AT WORKING GROUP 2:
WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8(j) AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Conference of Parties (COP)Sixth Meeting
The Hague, 7-19 April 2002
Item 12 of the Provisional Agenda

Thank you very much Madame Chairperson for giving me this opportunity to comment on Document UNEP/CBD/COP/6/7 (14 Feb. 2002) and also on the earlier interventions by the Parties to the CBD, the Indigenous Peoples and NGOs. My name is Victoria Tauli Corpuz and I am speaking on behalf of the Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education) which is based in the Philippines.

1. We would like to strongly support the statement presented by the International Indigenous Peoples' Forum on Biodiversity and also the statement of the Philippine delegation. This reflects significantly the positions of indigenous peoples in the Philippines.

2. With regards to the comments made earlier by the Canadian delegation and the Malaysian delegation in reference to the bracketed paragraph 16 [The assessment processes should consider the inclusion of provisions regarding free,prior and informed consent of indigenous and local communities]I have several points on these.

a. For us indigenous peoples, the principle of free and prior informed consent, is really at the heart of what we are fighting for in the CBD and other intergovernmental bodies. We regret that Canada, who so far has been very positive in terms of supporting and promoting indigenous peoples views and recommendations, says that they cannot support the paragraph as it stands. Then Malaysia says free and prior informed consent should be discussed at the national level. These are unacceptable to us and I can assume to all the indigenous peoples who are here. Article 8j is all about recognizing that it is not only the states who are responsible for the protection biodiversity and the knowledge around it, but also indigenous peoples and local communities. For indigenous peoples to effectively play this role it is crucial that their free and prior informed consent should be obtained before access and use of these knowledge and resources are sought. Free and prior informed consent is at the heart of what we have been fighting for since we were colonized up to the present. If we have to bring this issue to the national level then what is the purpose of an international convention like the CBD, then?

b. Free and prior informed consent which is an expression of self-determination is already recognized in various international instruments and standards. Even Paragraph 19 of this same document which we are discussing says "All human rights including social and cultural rights, and any rights related to the environment must be respected". Free and prior informed consent is clearly a human, social and cultural right of indigenous peoples and local communities which is directly related to the environment. The role of the CBD is not to diminish established international standards but to reinforce and further elaborate on these in so far as these relate to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

c. If free and prior informed consent is not recognized by this 6th session of the Conference of Parties then I am afraid that we indigenous peoples cannot go back home and say that we achieved anything of significance in this meeting.

d. We strongly recommend that the parties strongly consider removing the brackets from this paragraph as this is one of the most important contirbution of the CBD in strengthening the capacity of indigenous peoples to contribute in meeting the objectives of the Convention.

2. Our second comment is on the WIPO report which was presented earlier. We appreciate the efforts of the WIPO to have dialogues with indigenous peoples and local communities on how to protect their traditional knowledge. Also the recommendation that they allot budget to allow for indigenous peoples participation. In the last two sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee on IPRs and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, it was very difficult for indigenous peoples to participate. Their notice for accreditation only came a few days before the events and there were no funds to support our participation.

3. The more substantial comment though is that whatever is said and done by WIPO it remains that it is an institution which is mandated to promote IPRS as defined by the various Conventions and thge WTO. Thus, its ability and authority to really promote non-IPR mechanisms to protect traditional knowledge is limited. I was present in a WIPO meeting held several weeks ago in Geneva which discussed IPRS and TRIPS and it was very clear that even their technical assistance to developing countries is just limited to making them implement the IPR system more efficiently. The OAU Model law which recommends various mechanisms outside of the IPR regime does not even get any support from WIPO. This puts into question the capacity of WIPO to really address indigenous peoples recommendations for the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.

4. In this light we would like to support the proposal made earlier by Canada for the creation of a small working group which will explore and recommend non-IPR mechanisms and proposals for the protection of traditional knowledge and biogenetic resources of indigenous peoples and local communities.

5. It is clear to us that there are many limitations and traps in the proposals for protection which are within the western IPR regimes being promoted at the WIPO and the WTO. We need the CBD to support the formulation of non-IPR mechanisms so that indigenous peoples and local communities will be able to effectively protect and appropriately share their knowledge and their resources.

Thank you very much.