Category 5

Indigenous Pathways to Peace

A better understanding of Indigenous peacebuilding doesn’t just bolster peace processes — it can reshape them.
Many of the world’s Indigenous peoples live in unstable areas, struggling to survive as conflicts, transnational organized criminal networks and extractive projects upend their lives and livelihoods. Unfortunately, peace processes in these contexts are often negotiated at high political levels without the inclusion of Indigenous peoples. This can undermine the chances for success, as Indigenous peoples are a crucial population in some of the world's longest-running conflicts. But even further, excluding Indigenous people means overlooking how Indigenous traditions, rituals, and religious and political practices can help advance peace and resolve deadly conflict.

Understanding Indigenous Peacebuilding

Oftentimes, experts are inclined to view border spaces or conflict hotspots where Indigenous peoples live as “ungoverned,” emphasizing the need for state capacity building, transitional justice and stable governance. But in actuality, there are often already-existing institutions on the ground that are going unseen, since they look different than the cultural norms outsiders associate with governance.

So while efforts to include Indigenous peoples in peace processes, such as in Colombia, are a good step toward inclusion in formal processes, there is much we can learn from Indigenous peoples about peace processes themselves. By better understanding how Indigenous peoples’ own cultures and traditions approach peacebuilding, we can better include Indigenous peoples’ efforts in formal peace processes and better understand what resources are already out there mitigating, resolving and preventing conflict.

The Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy

A great example of an oft-overlooked method for Indigenous governance and peacebuilding are the belts of the Iroquois Confederacy.

The Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy are considered by some to be the world’s first people’s republic and the first to make a national constitution — which the Iroquois call the “Gayanashagowa,” or the Great Law of Peace.

Written through belts of beads and passed down in oral tradition, the Gayanashagowa allowed for the peaceful coexistence of multiple Indigenous peoples by codifying a number of inter- and intra-national matters.

The most famous of the belts, the Hiawatha belt, records how many warring nations chose to establish one common law, and live as many nations in one confederacy. This peace treaty still exists to this day. The belt is a material artifact that symbolizes the story of becoming a confederation. Other belts and oral tradition carried forward the practices of governance that regulated the confederacy. In this sense, the peace treaty and the constitution were one and the same, belted together — but distinct.

Women with Flaming Bamboo Torches in Manipur

When we think of human rights enforcement, we often think of formal processes and monitoring mechanisms. But for more than a century, Indigenous peacebuilders and women’s organizations in Manipur, a region in what is today Northeast India, have mobilized to advocate for human rights in different ways.  

During an armed conflict that erupted in Manipur in the 1970s, the Indigenous women of Manipur, strengthened by earlier efforts, began a unique movement of peacebuilding known as the Meira Paibi or “women who wield the torch.”

Armed with flaming bamboo torches, the Indigenous women of Manipur patrolled the streets at night to protect the people, as well as maintain and negotiate peace. The women, mostly mothers and grandmothers, leveraged their social positions as peaceful women to their advantage, as they were largely respected throughout their protests.

Participants would also take turns in the night, and when not patrolling, they would sleep in specially made bamboo huts to maintain a peace vigil in resistance of state and non-state armed groups. The vigil became a way for people to protest against human rights abuses, maintain safety on the streets and for the women torchbearers to directly deal with security forces at night.

The Meira Paibi is now a powerful method for maintaining peace in communities — one that does not have a readily comparable counterpart in established peace processes. And as Manipur again suffers from ethnic conflict, thousands of Indigenous women have taken the safety of civil society into their own hands once more by reigniting the vigils.

Gummaa and Siinqee in Ethopia

In the Oromia region of Ethiopia, there is a peacebuilding process known as the “Jarsummaa” that helps maintains a culture of peace at the local and administrative level. In this process, community elders — who are seen as a respected authority — oversee dispute resolution, lead mediation and resolve conflict.

And specifically for the Oromo people of the region, there is another method of peacebuilding and reconciliation known as “guma,”a ritualized process of exclusion and reconciliation. In this system, an individual who has caused a wrong in the community and refuses to reconcile or atone for it is temporarily removed from social life. Once someone is ready to return, they must offer some form of compensation — in the form of truth, property or money — to restore justice. This process is effective locally, absolving the wrongdoer and offering justice to the victims while preventing further unrest.

Another practice of the Oromo nation, known as the “siinqee,” is initiated by married women and implemented with community elders. Siinqee is an Afan Oromo word that is synonymous with a thin stick women hold after marriage. The Oromo people believe that women are messengers of peace, and women can use the siinqee stick to create a buffer zone between different warring parties. The stick, heralding back to the earliest days of diplomacy, protects women as peacemakers during dispute and violent conflict.

These practices are all relevant today. In the case of Jarsummaa and guma — similar to the Hiawatha belt — the justice process differs from what one might assume “typical” justice after conflict looks like. But the process functions nonetheless and is effective at the local level in resolving disputes.

And like the Meiri Paibi, the practice of siinqee leverages Oromo women’s social standing as peacebuilders to create a custom that is respected by the community. While it might not resemble a “formal” process for governance or maintaining peace, it too is effective at the local level because its legitimacy is not imposed, but rather builds on societal norms and traditions.

There is a deep need for legitimate and trusted processes for conflict resolution, both at the local and provincial level, and these tools offer legitimacy that can be used to de-escalate conflict or to inform a broader Oromo vision through elder-led dialogues.

Global Summit on Indigenous Peacebuilding

The absence or weakness of formal state mechanisms can be supplemented through engagement with Indigenous mechanisms that already have established legitimacy — from Indigenous methods of treaty creation and commemoration to Indigenous ways of restoring justice, protecting the community and resolving conflict.

To advance Indigenous inclusion in peace processes and enhance global understanding of how Indigenous peoples already work for peace — both in formal processes and at local, regional and national levels — USIP is bringing together 50 extraordinary Indigenous peacebuilders to participate in a global summit.

The aim of this global summit is to empower Indigenous leaders, to advance expert understanding of how Indigenous people are affected by deadly conflict, and to share knowledge of Indigenous approaches to peacebuilding that have worked for centuries.

Ultimately, the summit will help facilitate a global network of Indigenous peacebuilders, negotiators and mediators. The practices outlined here are just a few of the many practices to be covered at the summit that will not only advance Indigenous inclusion and leadership but also advance the global understanding of the resources that Indigenous peoples already have and use on the ground, every day, to prevent, mitigate and resolve deadly conflict.

Peaceful societies are not utopian fantasy. They exist.

The ancestral tribes of the Iroquois lived in constant fear of each other and of societies further afield. Archaeological evidence shows that they constructed high stockades around their villages for protection. Then, the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca transformed themselves into a union of cooperating neighbors. According to legend, they planted a great white pine and buried their weapons of war beneath it, symbolizing the adoption of new norms, values, and intertribal relations based on peace.

Could we tap the knowledge of how such successful transformations from war to peace operate and apply these guiding principles globally? Could emulating the features of existing non-warring systems provide insights and methods for turning back the Doomsday Clock?

The mere existence of tribes, nations, and other social systems comprised of non-warring neighbors demonstrates that living without war is possible. Historically and anthropologically documented peaceful social systems include, among others, tribal peoples from the Upper Xingu River basin in Brazil, Malaysian Orang Asli societies such as the Batek, Chewong, and Semai,  the Swiss cantons once united, the five Nordic nations, and the European Union. The Orang Asli societies are some of the most peaceful cases known to anthropology and have no history of feuding or warring. The Chewong language “lacks words for aggression, war, crime, quarreling, fighting, or punishment. When confronted with aggressiveness or threats, they immediately flee, since flight has normally been their response to violence,” explains Bruce Bonta, an expert on peaceful societies. Similarly, neither the Kalahari San of Africa nor the Mardu and their neighbors of Australia’s Great Western Desert make war amongst each other.

“Peace systems” are clusters of neighboring societies that do not make war with each other and sometimes not at all. That means some peace systems are completely non-warring, whereas others only engage in acts of war outside the boundaries of the system. A systematic study of peace systems may hold valuable lessons about how to promote transborder cooperation desperately needed to meet the threats of climate change, pandemics, ecological collapse, and ticking nuclear catastrophe.

When a sample of peace systems is statistically compared with a randomly derived comparison group, marked differences are readily apparent. Across various types of social organization, peace systems tend to have an overarching social identity (for example, European) in addition to local identities (for example, Greek, Dutch, or Estonian). The members of peace systems tend to have more interconnections and higher degrees of economic, ecological, or external security interdependence than do neighboring societies that are not part of peace systems. They also have greater adherence to non-warring norms and values, peace-leadership and non-warring symbols, rituals, and myths that reinforce unity, peace, and cooperation. In sum, recent research shows that peace systems are qualitatively different from non-peace systems in a number of ways.

Not all societies make war. The Iroquois Confederacy lasted for over 300 years and replaced prior conditions of endemic war, enslavement, and cannibalism among warring neighbors with The Great Peace (Kayanerenh-kowa). Once united as a peace system, the Iroquoian peoples developed an additional overarching sense of common identity, created an Intertribal Council of Chiefs as a mechanism of governance and conflict management, and reinforced peace norms and values through narratives, symbols, and rituals. Peace leadership was also critically important.

Although unfortunately a well-kept secret, the five Nordic nations have not warred with each other for over 200 years—since 1815. There were times when wars could have broken out, such as during a dispute over the Åland Islands, but gradually non-warring norms, values, and practices developed, as reliance on discussion and negotiation, mutual respect, collaboration in many spheres, and faith in the rule of law became embedded in the interactions among the Nordic countries. Nowadays, the Nordic Council of Ministers, a supranational organization, is promoting their Nordic peace brand. After this long history of peace and cooperation, the waging of war amongst the Nordic nations simply has become unthinkable.

The same is true of the members of the European Union, to which some but not all Nordic nations belong. Europeans have undergone a huge transformation in the 76 years since the end of World War II, when much of the continent lay in ruins. In 1946, Winston Churchill advocated the creation of a “United States of Europe.” Jean Monnet, sometimes called the “Father of Europe,” was a peace leader par excellence. He steadfastly promoted a united Europe, with peace and prosperity at the core, to banish to the annals of history the scourge of war. Monnet not only formulated a vision of Europe free from war, but he also worked collaboratively with leaders and citizens across the continent to implement a plan for a unified region. To be sure, most members of the EU still maintain defense forces, and France has nuclear weapons, but perceived security threats are external to the EU peace system.

Sovereign nations acting alone “can no longer solve the problems of the present,” said Monnet, and this point remains true today. The founders of the EU embarked upon a series of steps to establish supranational institutions, remove barriers to trade, and enhance economic and political interdependence. In sequence, they created the supranational European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community, and ultimately the EU. The official EU website sums it up: “What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organization spanning policy areas, from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration.” In 2012, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the EU for transforming “Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.”

Could humans transform our current international system into a global peace system where wars become unthinkable, nuclear weapons become relics of a foolish past, conflicts are dealt with through the force of law rather than the law of force, and humans worldwide cooperate to assure their continued existence?

Why would humanity not strive to create a global peace system that facilitates positive international interactions, overall human well-being, and collaborative approaches to shared existential threats?

Some might respond that a global peace system is pure utopian fancy. However, as former Secretary General of the International Peace Research Association Kenneth Boulding liked to quip, “What exists is possible.” Since peace systems exist, they are possible. And cases like the Southern Cone countries of South America, the Nordic countries, and the EU show that peace systems composed of nations can be created and endure.

Other skeptics might respond that there is no need to eliminate war from the planet. But such thinking is flawed in many respects. Overblown military expenditures not only fail to deliver true security but also divert funding from sustainable development, education, healthcare, and other human necessities. Wars destroy lives of combatants and civilians alike. The very presence of nuclear arsenals imperils the entire species, if not all forms of life on Earth. Wars distract attention, divert resources, and impede the concerted action required to successfully address plummeting biodiversity, soiling of the seas, displacement of peoples, ethnocide of indigenous peoples, pandemics, cataclysmic wildfires, and global warming itself. Waging of wars and oversized militarism hinder concerted “all hands on deck” responses to existential threats.

Some people might argue that a global peace system has never been tried before. That something has not been tried does not mean it should not be attempted: Think development of the internet, reaching the moon, elimination of smallpox, or the development of effective Covid-19 vaccinations in less than one year. And creating a pan-continental peace system had never been attempted until the EU was implemented, meaning that 446 million people across 27 countries are now living without war in their region. Ridding the continent of war, the central purpose of European integration, has been a resounding success, although such a grand endeavor had never before been attempted.

Still other skeptics might object that a global peace system would never work. As Jean Monnet understood, “People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them.” As the Doomsday Clock reflects, crises most severe are upon us. If we can draw upon the wisdom of the peoples from various quarters of the globe, in different times and places, who have successfully given up warring amongst themselves to pursue more humane endeavors, a new way of running the planet based on unity, cooperation, and international relations devoid of war might just work. In fact, it might be the only viable path to human survival and flourishing on Earth.

Guatemala: Indigenous Leaders Take Democracy Campaign Nationwide

Long-marginalized groups defend an election in a key Central American nation.

When anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo won Guatemala’s presidency in August, his urban supporters took to the streets in celebration. Two months later, they are still there, not in celebration but in protest against challenges to Arévalo’s election led by the country’s attorney general. This month, the protests went national when Indigenous authorities called a strike demanding the attorney general’s resignation. The participation of Guatemala’s marginalized Indigenous peoples in nationwide protests holds both peril and promise. Instability in the impoverished rural hinterland could send additional waves of migrants toward the U.S. border. But the Indigenous population’s defense of elections could also prove a watershed moment for Guatemalan democracy.

The Indigenous authorities of Totonicapán, a municipality in Guatemala’s western highlands, have long been known for preserving their Maya K’iche identity as fiercely as they protect the region’s native pine forests from the illegal logging that threatens water sources and wildlife. Known as the 48 Cantones(cantons) for the dozens of small communities that comprise it, the Indigenous government of “Toto” has managed to maintain local institutions, based on customary law and communal service, amid the turmoil of Guatemala’s post-colonial history of exploitation, dictatorship and civil war. Although zealous in defending Indigenous rights and interests, the 48 Cantones have rarely sought to influence Guatemalan national politics.

But on October 1 the president of the 48 Cantones, Luis Pacheco, announced an indefinite national strike demanding the resignation of Attorney General Consuelo Porras, whom the Indigenous leaders accuse of trying to reverse Arévalo’s victory, by a decisive 24-point margin, in the August 20 presidential election. The attorney general, who is under U.S. sanctions for obstructing earlier anti-corruption investigations, has launched investigations into Arévalo’s party and the electoral process, seizing ballot boxes in an unprecedented challenge to the country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which had certified the vote. Arévalo has called Porras’ moves a “coup in slow motion.”

The Totonicapenses were soon joined by Indigenous leaders from across the country, including authorities from the municipalities of Sololá, Nebaj, Chichicastenango, and by the Xinka Parliament, which represents non-Maya Indigenous peoples in southeastern Guatemala. While indigenous protesters blocked rural highways, urban protesters took over many city streets. In Guatemala City, students, activists and neighborhood groups sometimes turned street closures into block parties, with music, dancing, and even impromptu yoga sessions, amid calls for the attorney general’s ouster.

The protests have hit Guatemala’s economy hard, especially the formal sector. According to Agexport, a trade group, road closures have caused exporters some $366 million in losses. The government has asked the Organization of American States (OAS) to mediate a dialogue between the government and protest leaders, though outgoing President Alejandro Giammattei has said he has no power to fire the attorney general.

Nor do the Indigenous leaders show any sign of backing down, making clear they are beholden to no political parties or leaders, including the president-elect. “Even if Arévalo asks us to stop the protests, we are not going to do it,” Pacheco said. “Any negotiation is between the indigenous peoples and the government.”

Defending an Election

Arévalo’s unexpected surge to second place in the June general election, followed by his landslide victory in the August runoff, seemed to herald a “democratic spring” in a country beset by corruption, criminal violence and widespread poverty. The government had systematically excluded opposition candidates during the 2023 campaign, ignoring Arévalo only because he seemed unlikely to win.

As the son of a reformist president who ruled during a brief democratic interlude in the 1940s, Arévalo, a former diplomat with international peacebuilding experience, enjoyed high prestige. But his party, the Semilla (“Seed”) Movement, seemed unlikely to expand beyond a narrow base of largely urban, center-left, voters in a largely conservative country. Their quixotic campaign centered on dismantling the so-called “pact of the corrupt,” a network of clientelist power brokers and corrupt businesspeople, which has long dominated Guatemalan politics.

Arévalo’s anti-corruption platform, however, struck a chord with voters tired of the systemic graft that has siphoned money away from public education, security, health and infrastructure, fueling the exodus of Guatemalans seeking a better future in the United States. Young urban voters helped generate enthusiasm for his campaign, and they were joined in the final round by surging support in the country’s impoverished interior.

Although nearly half of Guatemala’s people self-identify as Indigenous, they have remained marginalized politically, economically and culturally. Divided into more than 20 distinct language communities, Indigenous groups have tended to focus on local, immediate concerns, such as the environmental and social impact of extractive projects or community access to affordable electricity.

Guatemala, which has Central America’s largest population and biggest economy, is classified as an upper-middle income country as measured by GDP per capita ($4,603 in 2020), according to the World Bank. But more than half of the population qualifies as poor, surviving on about $2.15 a day. And Guatemala suffers some of the world’s highest rates of childhood malnutrition. In the hardest hit municipalities — which tend to be rural and Indigenous — stunting affects 90 percent of children under five years old.

Nonetheless, Indigenous leaders chose to launch a national campaign in favor of democracy, avoiding more divisive issues related to income and inequality. “The ancestral groups, who were the first to initiate this social protest, have been quite astute,” Álvaro Pop, former chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, told USIP. They are focusing “only on specific demands pertaining to the political crisis, not including socioeconomic needs that could taint the strike’s objectives.”

The Indigenous leaders who are now flexing their political muscles are unlikely to return to the status quo ante, writes Irma Alicia Velásquez Nimatuj, a Maya K’iche anthropologist and journalist: “These organizations, these collectives, are now going to make Giammattei pay [for his neglect]. They are showing how important they are and how wrong he has been during his presidency for not taking them into account.”

The Risks of Violence

Remarkably, in a country known for high rates of violent crime, the demonstrations have been largely peaceful and well-organized, with protest leaders allowing the passage of emergency vehicles and some foodstuffs. Although riot police have used tear gas on several occasions to clear roads and stop incidents of vandalism in downtown Guatemala City — which both authorities and protest leaders blamed on infiltrators — security forces have largely shown restraint.

That patience may be ending, however. Minister of Governance Napoleón Barrientos resigned Oct. 17 after Attorney General Porras called for his removal. Barrientos had resisted calls to remove protesters by force, stating he preferred dialogue over confrontation.

And in an ominous reminder of Guatemala’s violent, organized crime, unidentified gunmen fired on both protesters and police, killing one person in the municipality of Malacatán, near the border with Mexico, an area known for drug and migrant smuggling.

Such bloodshed could serve as a pretext for a crackdown that might endanger the transfer of power to Arévalo in January. But using force against widespread, and, so far, largely peaceful protests — especially those led by the country’s Indigenous peoples — risks igniting violence in a country that emerged from a bloody 36-year civil war only in the mid-1990s.

It could also force even more Guatemalans to embark on the dangerous journey across Mexico toward the United States. Lack of hope for a better future sends streams of migrants northward each year. In August alone, U.S. border patrol agents encountered Guatemalans nearly 38,000 times at the border, most of whom were traveling in family units.

The stakes are high not only for Guatemala, but also for Latin America. Both the U.S. government and the OAS have called for the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Arévalo in January. And both have condemned attempts by judicial authorities — including the seizure of ballot boxes held by the independent electoral tribunal — to undermine the legitimacy of elections deemed free and fair by local and international observers.

The continued, proactive support of the United States and other international actors — both publicly and privately — is essential to protect Guatemalan democracy. The United States has already sanctioned key actors, including the attorney general and the anti-corruption prosecutor who is leading investigations into Semilla and the electoral process. Some Guatemala experts, such as former U.S. Ambassador Stephen McFarland, argue that in addition to canceling visas, the United States should consider using the Magnitsky Act to freeze the U.S. assets of those responsible for human rights violations or acts of significant corruption.

Guatemalans themselves are playing the lead role in defending the electoral results and Arévalo’s inauguration on January 14. Their political future depends largely on their own persistence, patience and commitment to peaceful protest, especially among the country’s poorest, historically marginalized citizens, including the Indigenous authorities of Totonicapán’s storied 48 Cantones.

Indigenous Peoples Must Be Equal Participants in Peace Plans, Conflict Resolution, Chairs Says as Permanent Forum Opens

Amid rapid globalization and the scramble for natural resources, indigenous peoples had become victims of violence and even genocide on their lands, often due to their distinct identities, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues heard today, as it opened its fifteenth session amid calls for their full participation in plans for peace and reconciliation that directly impacted their lives.

The session, held under the theme “Indigenous peoples:  Conflict, Peace and Resolution”, will run through 20 May.  Álvaro Pop, following his election as Chair of the fifteenth session, said even in peaceful societies, indigenous peoples were increasingly in situations that escalated to conflict around lands, territories and resources, or civil, political, cultural, social and economic rights.

Indigenous peoples were also experiencing militarization on their lands and, in nearly every region, being displaced by violence.  “There can be no peace to these conflicts unless indigenous peoples are equal participants in any plans for peace and resolution,” he said.  The focus must be on the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  “We will no longer sit by and allow lip service to be paid to the human rights of indigenous peoples,” he said.

In a video message, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon agreed that indigenous peoples were increasingly being drawn into conflicts over their lands, resources and rights.  Lasting peace required that they have access to cultural, social and economic justice.  In response, the United Nations had developed a system-wide action plan.  “It is essential we work as one to realize the full rights of indigenous peoples,” he stressed.

Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, said he was honoured to formally launch the United Nations plan for achieving the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples today.  It aimed to raise awareness about and support implementation of the Declaration.  All Resident Coordinators had been asked to share it with host Governments.  “Now is the time for the United Nations system to work hand-in-hand with indigenous peoples and Member States,” he said.

Sven Jürgenson, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, added that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offered the Forum an opportunity to ensure that indigenous peoples’ concerns and suggestions were fed into discussions on the Council’s main theme, “implementation of the 2030 Agenda:  moving from commitments to results”, and that of the high-level political forum on leaving no one behind.  “You are the experts — and we count on you to bring that expertise into the discussion,” he said.

Offering a Government perspective, Aura Leticia Teleguario, Minister for Labour and Social Prevention of Guatemala, said among the priorities for her country was the establishment of meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples.  More than 87 consultative processes had been carried out since 2005, which focused on providing institutional and legal mechanisms aimed at preventing conflict.  Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister for Justice of Canada, stressed that reconciliation required laws to be changed and policies rewritten.  “We intend to do so in full partnership,” she said.

In the afternoon, the Forum held three interactive dialogues in which experts outlined recommendations for respecting indigenous rights and presented related research.  In the first, Oliver Loode, Permanent Forum member from Estonia, provided an update on implementation of the subsidiary organ’s recommendations, pointing to positive results when its recommendations contained specific, time-bound criteria, and difficulty in acting upon those that were generic with unclear recipients.

In the second, Alisa Mukabenova, Permanent Forum member from the Russian Federation, said many language-related recommendations were aimed at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which she hoped would take a more active, comprehensive approach to indigenous languages.

In the third, Valmaine Toki, Permanent Forum member from New Zealand, presented a study on the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Pacific Ocean, while Dalee Sambo Dorough, Permanent Forum member from Alaska, presented a study on how States exploited weak procedural rules in international organizations to devaluate the United Nations Declaration and other international human rights law.

Also today, the Forum elected Alvaro Pop as Chair of the session, as well as Mariam Wallet Mohamed Aboubakrine, Aysa B. Mukabenova, Dalee Sambo Dorough and Raja Devasish Roy as Vice-Chairs and Oliver Loode as Rapporteur.  It also adopted its agenda for the session, as orally revised.

Chief Tadodaho Sid Hill, Chief of the Onondaga Nation, delivered the annual ceremonial welcome to participants.

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 10 May, to continue its fifteenth session.

Opening Remarks

MOGENS LYKKETOFT (Denmark), President of the General Assembly, noted that two years ago, the General Assembly had held the first World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.  At that event, Member States had reaffirmed their commitment to support, respect, promote, advance and in no way diminish the rights of indigenous peoples and uphold the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  It included a commitment to conduct consultations on possible measures to enable the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in meetings of relevant bodies of the United Nations.  In February, he appointed four advisers to assist him in conducting those consultations and in April had circulated the first draft compilation of views expressed during initial consultations, with the aim of reaching a final text to be adopted by the General Assembly during its seventy-first session.

Since taking office, he had sought to advance openness, transparency and inclusion in how the General Assembly conducted its work, which included the ability of indigenous peoples to engage at the United Nations on matters that affected them.  Indigenous peoples had a right to contribute and could provide enriching input, despite being historically targeted and excluded, resulting in great harm to their communities, heritage and livelihoods, including their identity.  The current consultation provided a historic opportunity for Member States to improve and strengthen the participation of indigenous peoples at the Organization.

SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia), Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said indigenous peoples had taken an active role in consultations and negotiations towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  The results of that engagement were clear in the framework which — apart from the six direct references to indigenous peoples — included priorities of equality, non-discrimination, human rights and protection of mother Earth.  In that way, the Sustainable Development Goals were a step forward for indigenous peoples.  This year was one of implementation, of the 2030 Agenda, as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

He encouraged indigenous peoples to engage in that important process, and States to work with them.  The 2030 Agenda offered the Permanent Forum a new responsibility in ensuring that indigenous peoples’ issues, concerns and suggestions were fed into discussions on the Council’s main theme, “implementation of the 2030 Agenda:  moving from commitments to results”, and that of the high-level political forum on “leaving no one behind”.

“You are the experts — and we count on you to bring that expertise into the discussion,” he said.  The Forum embodied the endeavour to peacefully address difficult and contentious issues by bringing indigenous peoples, Member States and United Nations agencies together in a spirit of dialogue, cooperation and openness.  It offered a safe space to meet, and through that helped to improve the relationship between indigenous peoples and Governments.  The recommendations from discussions in the coming weeks would be particularly relevant for Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda on peaceful and inclusive societies.  “Indigenous peoples have the same right to enjoy peace, security and human rights as anyone else,” he concluded.

ÁLVARO POP, Chairperson of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said that even in peaceful societies, indigenous peoples often found themselves involved in situations that escalated to conflict, primarily related to issues involving lands, territories and resources, or civil, political, cultural, social and economic rights.  The rapid pace of globalization and processes to identify new venues for resource exploitation had accelerated such conflict on indigenous peoples’ land.  Indigenous peoples were also increasingly experiencing armed conflicts and militarization on their lands.  In nearly every region of the world, indigenous peoples were being displaced and severely impacted by violence and militarism.

In some countries, indigenous peoples had become victims of violence, massacres or even genocide due to their distinct identities, he said.  Women and children were often most vulnerable and suffered the most.  “There can be no peace to these conflicts unless indigenous peoples are equal participants in any plans for peace and resolution,” he emphasized.  Efforts must be made to emphasize the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its legally-binding status.  The international community must ensure that endorsing the Declaration publicly and internationally continued at the domestic level.  “We will no longer sit by and allow lip service to be paid to the human rights of indigenous peoples,” he said.

WU HONGBO, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, said the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, for which he was the senior United Nations official to coordinate follow-up, included important mandates for the Organization.  “We take these mandates very seriously,” he said.  One of them was to develop a system-wide action plan for ensuring a coherent approach for achieving the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Over the past 10 months, the United Nations had worked through the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues to prepare that plan.

He was honoured to formally launch the plan today, he said, stressing:  “Clearly more needs to be done to raise awareness about the Declaration and about the situation of indigenous peoples throughout the world.”  The plan aimed to support the implementation of the Declaration, and as such, his Department had sent the plan to all United Nations Resident Coordinators asking them to share it with host Governments.  The plan also called for promoting indigenous peoples’ rights in the implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda.

“Now is the time for the United Nations system to work hand-in-hand with indigenous peoples and Member States for the common good,” he said.  There was much work to be done.  Indigenous peoples continued to suffer disproportionately from poverty, discrimination, poor health care and inadequate education.  Those challenges were serious, but with concerted efforts, “we can make a difference.”

AURA LETICIA TELEGUARIO, Minister for Labour and Social Prevention of Guatemala, said the Forum served as an open door towards sharing the realities of indigenous peoples in the world.  The Forum allowed for the merging of ideas around the promotion of the collective rights of peoples.  Guatemala recognized that the rights of indigenous peoples in the world were fundamental to the search for comprehensive development.  It was the responsibility of the State to ensure the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In Guatemala, deep-seated changes were under way, including with regard to Government transparency and the provision of services, she said.  The challenge was to continue to make progress in political participation and decision-making, to allow the shift from resistance to power.  In Guatemala, public policy would focus on the most vulnerable populations, many of which were indigenous.  Her country had re-established the Cabinet of Indigenous Peoples, which was a high-level institutional mechanism that would ensure that the plans and programmes of the Government had cultural relevance.  Legal, administrative and budgetary changes needed to be made that would adapt institutions appropriately; taking into account cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity in the country.

She said that among the key priority areas for Guatemala was the establishment of meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples.  More than 87 consultative processes had been carried out since 2005, which focused on providing institutional and legal mechanisms aimed at preventing conflict and ensuring the safeguarding of all peoples.  Efforts would continue to bring about significant changes in the years to come, including with regard to full development, in line with the objectives laid out in the 2030 Agenda.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD, Minister for Justice of Canada, noting that her people were from the country’s west coast, said she was here today also as the Attorney General of Canada, an appointment that spoke volumes about how far the State had come and how far it intended to go.  She was among a record number of indigenous members of Parliament elected in October — a real change from times when indigenous peoples were discouraged from fully participating in society.  She was proud to be part of a Government whose leader had made a solemn commitment to change with a vision for true reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Indeed, she said, he had tasked all ministers to rebuild the nation-to-nation relationship, stating in public letters that no relationship was more important to him — and to Canada — than that with indigenous peoples.  It was time to renew relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.  That was perhaps the most challenging area of public policy and the work was long-overdue.  “We must complete the unfinished business of confederation, rebuilding the nation-to-nation relationship,” she said, and finding solutions to decades-long problems.

That said, the Administration of Indian Affairs was not organized around indigenous nations, she stressed, but rather, an imposed system of governance.  It was essential to move beyond that system through the available legal tools.  The Government would breathe life into section 35 of the Constitution, which reaffirmed existing aboriginal and treaty rights.  The challenge was to translate hard-won rights into meaningful benefits within indigenous communities.  It was not easy to throw off the shackles of 140 years of the Indian Act system.

Noting that indigenous communities were in a transition of nation-building and rebuilding, she said the Government’s job was to support them.  One legal question was around how to implement free, prior and informed consent, as the Declaration recognized that indigenous peoples had individual and collective rights, with their participation in decision-making at its heart.  A new nation-to-nation relationship was needed.  Reconciliation required laws to change and policies to be rewritten.

“We intend to do so in full partnership,” she said, underlining the need for a national action plan and more effective ways of both recognizing indigenous nations and providing support for those able to move beyond the status quo.  Communities must receive necessary services, including by developing new fiscal relationships with indigenous governments.  Indigenous peoples must be empowered to retake control of their lives, with the full support of all Canadians.

Discussion I

In the afternoon, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples gathered for a series of interactive discussions.

OLIVER LOODE, Permanent Forum member from Estonia, opening the first discussion, provided a presentation on the implementation of the recommendations made during the last session of the Forum and noted that 20 out 40 recommendations had been selected for follow-up action.  He noted that the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs had updated the Forum on progress towards guaranteeing indigenous peoples the ability to participate in the preparation and coordination of the system-wide action plan.  On the recommendation for States and indigenous peoples to establish a working group to prepare a manual of good practices for the repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains, substantial progress had been made.  He highlighted that the final Declaration for the 2030 Agenda included six references to indigenous peoples and several indicators and priorities brought forward by indigenous peoples.  Nevertheless, although those were positive developments, States had fallen short in addressing indigenous issues in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals.

He went on to highlight that the recommendation addressing youth self-harm and suicide had not yet been implemented, although there had been notable developments, particularly within the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).  Forum members remained hopeful that the World Health Organization (WHO) would prioritize the issue going forward.  In that regard, he requested that WHO designate a focal point to work with the Forum.  He then turned to the recommendation requesting Member States to ensure indigenous peoples’ rights to participate in decision-making, particularly within the three major multilateral negotiations in 2015, including those on the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and the Addis Action Agenda.  The Forum was disappointed that its priorities were not more strongly reflected in the final outcome of those processes.  The recommendation on the rights of indigenous women had enjoyed significant progress, he reported, including its consideration at the sixtieth session of the Commission on the Status of Women.  He noted the direct reference to indigenous women, including their distinct and important contributions to sustainable development, contained within the Agreed Conclusions emanating from the latest Commission session.

The representative of Ukraine, in the ensuing discussion, noted that starting in the 1980’s activists had fought to help Crimean Tartars return to their rightful lands, culture and languages following many years of repression.  However, the recent annexation of Crimea had resulted in many media services being shut down, including those that had been broadcasting in the indigenous languages of Crimea.

Also speaking in the discussion was a representative of the International Indian Treaty Council.

Discussion II

ALISA MUKABENOVA, Permanent Forum member from the Russian Federation, noted that currently there were about 100 recommendations on the preservation of indigenous languages up for consideration.  A meeting of experts was held on linguistic diversity and the important role of families and women for the transmission of languages over time.  Indigenous peoples in many countries continued to suffer under discriminatory policies stemming from colonial times.  In Canada, specific studies had been conducted to examine the role of boarding schools in the systemic violation of the rights of indigenous peoples.  To overcome decades of destructive policies, indigenous peoples had put forward their own initiatives to launch projects to revitalize their mother tongues.

The expert panel group, she said, had paid special attention to the potential of modern communications technologies for preserving indigenous languages.  She pointed to Google, which had developed software that made it possible to write in the traditional Cherokee language, making it possible to have original Cherokee content online.  There were also many examples of the important role of non-governmental organizations in galvanizing outreach activities aimed at overcoming the widely held misunderstandings about indigenous languages.  The experts had recommended the establishment of a global fund to support the preservation of indigenous languages and believed a network of organizations should be set-up to work with the Forum to monitor the status of languages at risk of extinction.  It was necessary to provide moral and material support to help those who were working to teach and promote language in their countries and regions.  Many language-related recommendations were aimed at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which the experts hoped would take a more active, comprehensive and proactive approach to indigenous languages.

During the ensuing discussion, a number of Government representatives described national efforts to preserve indigenous languages and culture and to uphold the right of indigenous groups to education.  A number of speakers said language preservation should be viewed as a critical element of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The representative of the government of Greenland said practicing the Greenlandic language, Kalaallisut, was a way of manifesting and developing cultural heritage.  While past educational policies had favoured Danish over Kalaallisut, Greenlanders were now working to revitalize the language.  Among other things, the teaching of Greenlandic as a first language was being modernized and made more results-oriented.

The representative of UNESCO said linguistic diversity was an important part of cultural diversity.  “Languages provide us a vantage point from which we can understand our past,” he said in that regard.  Nevertheless, there remained many communities around the world that were unable to access information in their own languages.  Citing a 2003 UNESCO recommendation concerning the promotion and use of multilingualism in cyberspace, he said information and communications technologies (ICTs) and the Internet had a key role to play in promoting a pluralistic linguistic society.

KARA-KYS ARAKCHAA, a Permanent Forum member from the Russian Federation, said in the Republic of Crimea many schools were taught in the Crimean Tatar languages, which were studied by more than 10,000 pupils.

Also speaking was the representative of the Russian Federation.

Discussion III

VALMAINE TOKI, Permanent Forum member from New Zealand, presented a summary of her study on the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Pacific Ocean, taking into account issues of governance, the effects of climate change, deep sea mining, resources and sustainable development (document E/C.19/2016/3).  Underscoring that the intrinsic relationship of indigenous peoples with lands and oceans was enshrined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, she said the 9.5 million indigenous inhabitants of the South Pacific relied on the ocean for sustenance.  However, pollution and climate change imposed on their rights and threatened to destroy their culture.  If no effective action was taken, relocation would be the only alternative.

Describing the situation of two Pacific small islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu, she said the latter was facing a 20-40 cm annual sea level rise and would become uninhabitable in the near future.  Those States had been active participants in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations and were members of the Alliance of Small Island States.  Turning briefly to the mining sector, she gave the example of Papua New Guinea, where mining was being lauded as an economic success story.  However, indigenous people had seen little of those benefits and their land was suffering.  In that regard, she stressed the importance of free, prior and informed consent as well as the meaningful indigenous participation in all decisions that affected them.

DALEE SAMBO DOROUGH, Permanent Forum member from Alaska, presented a study on how States exploit weak procedural rules in international organizations to devaluate the United Nations Declaration and other international human rights law (document E/C.19/2016/4).  The Declaration must be the framework to guide all State party action, she said, stressing that countries had the responsibility to uphold indigenous rights and refrain from actions that infringed on them.  Procedural rules of intergovernmental organizations must be strengthened and there must be consistency between the international legal obligations of States and national contexts.  While some States and international organizations had strong policies in place with regards to indigenous peoples, she said that when States negotiated new international instruments, the rights and status of indigenous peoples were frequently overlooked and their participation marginalized.

States parties could not evade their international human rights obligations, she stressed in that respect, citing a number of examples of poor practice.  The policy of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on indigenous and tribal peoples, while strong, nevertheless allowed Member States to take positions that fell short of existing human rights standards.  Meanwhile, the World Bank had sought consensus on a proposal to allow States to opt out of an indigenous safeguard policy.  It was critical that international organizations and Member States inform themselves about indigenous peoples’ rights, she said, emphasizing that the procedures of intergovernmental organizations must be strengthened to prevent States from opting out of their obligations to protect indigenous human rights.

In the ensuring discussion, participants stressed that language was essential to indigenous peoples’ identity and the strength of their communities.  All students benefitted from learning indigenous languages, notably through greater understanding of country and culture, which could lead to reconciliation.  Speakers underscored the need for States to provide long-term funding for indigenous languages, with some stressing that they should also allow and facilitate private funding to do so.

Several representatives of indigenous peoples took the floor, with a representative of an indigenous community in Los Angeles noting that local education authorities had compared the lives of indigenous youth in his area to having post-traumatic stress syndrome, as they lacked resources to overcome the challenges they faced.  He asked how the Forum could advance indigenous children’s rights when the guidelines it proposed sought to restrict indigenous peoples’ right to self-recognition and self-determination.

A speaker from an Amazonian community, noting that her language was spoken by fewer than 500 people, said she was working to maintain her language with the support of volunteers.  The Forum should recommend that indigenous peoples lead language revitalization efforts with State support, and that countries allow them to do so.  Resident Coordinators should report on efforts to protect indigenous languages that were disappearing.

An indigenous representative of the Mohawk Language Custodian Association said that while assimilation and doctrines of superiority had been condemned, the United Nations still had to press States to uphold their commitments in that regard.  “Stop the dispossession of our lands,” she declared, urging a moratorium on any development that impacted traditional lands, resources and forms of governance.  Free, prior and informed consent must be practiced.  “Language has a spirit,” she said.  “When we lose our language, we lose who we are as indigenous peoples.”

An indigenous speaker from the Fiji Islands spoke about efforts to devalue the Fijian culture, which had started with the imposition of the 2013 Constitution, for which there had been no free, prior and informed consent.  The Constitution had removed “everything indigenous”, including the great council of chiefs, and outlined 17 decrees that had taken away indigenous land and sea resources.  “I welcome the report on the preservation of languages, but it is not happening in Fiji,” she said.

Government representatives also took part in the discussion, with the representative of Canada, expressing her country’s full support for the Declaration and its implementation.

The representative of Australia said the nature and extent of native rights of Torres Strait Islanders referred to that community’s traditional laws and customs.  Her Government was proud to provide financial support to countries to address climate change impacts.  It was also working to strengthen ocean management, including though sustainable fishing operations

The representative of the Russian Federation said assertions in the report on the use of rules in international organizations to denigrate the Declaration lacked any legal foundation.  He could not agree that existing rules of procedures did not comply with international standards on indigenous rights.  The authors had forgotten that meetings, seminars and conferences had been held to consider indigenous peoples’ rights.  The Forum should be more professional in preparing its conclusions and recommendations.

A number of Forum members offered their views.  Joseph Goko Mutangah, Forum member from Kenya, underscored the need to strengthen informal and formal institutions for teaching indigenous languages and disseminating indigenous traditions and knowledge.  He suggested considering — and documenting — minority communities whose languages were disappearing every hour.

Oliver Loode, Forum member from Estonia, requested a recommendation about funding for indigenous languages by States.

Maria Eugenia Choque Quispe, Forum member from Ecuador, said traditional knowledge was being forgotten along with the loss of indigenous languages, especially knowledge of plants.

Dalee Sambo Dorough, Forum member from Alaska, responded to comments by the representative of the Russian Federation, noting that the study on how States exploit weak procedural rules had in fact been legally substantiated.  She cited the Charter of the United Nations, and the “range” of General Assembly resolutions in that regard, including on equal application of the rule of law in the context of States and international organizations.  In addition, indigenous peoples were not considered “parties” when an international organization’s activities were for the “Conference of Parties”, as in that for climate change negotiations.

Edward John, Forum member from Canada and co-author of the study on the procedural rules study, drew attention to commitments in International Labour Organization Convention 169, pressing the United Nations and Member States to work with indigenous peoples to uphold those rights and standards, and reflect their commitments in national action plans and system-wide action plans, as called for by the Declaration.

Alexey Taykarev, Expert, Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said losing a mother language could lead to mental problems, reduced quality of life, and in some cases depression and suicide.  Language was a fundamental part of indigenous peoples’ cultural and material legacy.  Many Member States — including those with significant indigenous populations — had not ratified the UNESCO convention on maintaining legacy and he urged consultations in that regard.  He also hoped UNESCO would improve its indigenous peoples’ policy.

Conversations on Indigenous and Decolonial Approaches to Environmental Peacebuilding: Interview with Dr. Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao

We conducted a series of interviews with experts to gain deeper insight into Indigenous and decolonial approaches to environmental peacebuilding.

Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao was a law student that stumbled into environmental peacebuilding after a summer internship supporting a transboundary peace park project on the Honduras-Nicaragua border. Today, she is an Assistant Professor in the School of Peace and Conflict Studies at Kent State University. She studies the intersection between environmental conservation and conflict—be it active armed conflict or social conflict between groups—asking how the environment is involved, how we resolve conflicts, and how we recover from conflicts.

PSD: Can you introduce yourself and describe how you got into the environmental peacebuilding field?

EH: Environmental peacebuilding came into my awareness and consciousness when I scoped the feasibility of a peace park for my summer internship during law school. I spent many years studying this idea of protecting transboundary areas for peace or conflict resolution in Central America and, later, in Central East Africa. The more I did, the more I got interested in the communities that live around these spaces and their contributions to, engagement in, and perspectives on these conservation areas that have this peacebuilding element. That led me more into the decolonial environmental peacebuilding space because I was interacting with Indigenous communities that had long traditions of what we could call environmental peacebuilding but often don’t. Now, I focus on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict and looking at protected areas as (potentially) having protected status as humanitarian zones. I feel like it’s a different take on environmental peacebuilding—it’s not just how does state A cooperate with state B in an armed conflict, but how do we have conservation and protection on the ground when state A and state B are at war.

I’m starting this new area of work looking where Indigenous communities are not a party to an armed conflict, but their territories are intersecting with conflict zones. Additionally, how do we think about this in a historic context and make reparations for territories that have been seized through armed conflicts? I’m thinking about what that might look like in the U.S., which is a territory that has been taken through very active armed conflict with Indigenous peoples. There’s a lot of talk around Land Back, reparations, and reconciliation. I’m curious about what lessons may emerge out of those movements in the U.S. and what we can learn to apply to active armed conflict zones that impact Indigenous territories.

PSD: When you first started looking at the peace parks, was there an engagement with Indigenous communities in that process?

EH: On the Costa Rica-Panama border, there’s the international peace park. It’s a government-to-government created peace park, but they have a really interesting management approach on the ground. The entire eastern front of the peace park—and this is large area of something like 100,000s of hectares—has very little ranger force protection (official government enforcement on the ground). The Indigenous communities who live there protect the forest so there is no need for any kind of government presence. Most of the official ranger posts were mostly for tourist interaction on the west side. And on the west, park authorities were working with communities on conservation efforts. The more that the communities were engaged in conservation in their own spaces and were buffering the protected area, the better.

PSD: You mentioned thinking about your work in the context of the U.S. I’d like to hear more about what you’re thinking about in this regard.

EH: California has a very interesting policy and resources behind this idea of healing and reconciliation. There is state policy with certain state lands to try and return them to California Native Tribes whenever possible and offer the first right of purchase to whatever Tribe would have historically been there or has some historical claim to [the land]. There has been funding set aside by the state government specifically for Tribes to buy that land back. So, there’s a policy and money in place to facilitate land back as a land return policy that’s aligned with the governor’s policy around truth and healing. We’re looking at this project to try and understand where there are publicly managed lands that have been environmentally degraded over time and are suspectable to wildfire, floods, droughts, etc., understanding that has an unequal impact on Tribes because of where they’ve been forced to live. A project to return land to those Tribes to manage in a way that makes both the ecosystem and the community more resilient is an incredible opportunity to repair historical harm. Having tangible examples that help to explain what land back could look like and what it might mean is important. Land back is not this scary thing where everybody who’s non-Native must leave. It could be good for everybody.

PSD: In our special issue, we use the following definition for environmental peacebuilding from an International Affairs special issue: “environmental peacebuilding comprises the multiple approaches and pathways by which the management of environmental issues is integrated in and can support conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution, and recovery.”[1] What is your reaction to this definition? Anything you might add or change?

EH: I’ve seen this definition before. I think it fits where it comes from. It is a very technical approach to peacebuilding, very management oriented and a formulaic approach to conflict. I think of it as a very Westernized way to define environmental peacebuilding. I think that a decolonial or Indigenous approach to environmental peacebuilding would bring about a very different definition. I wish it had more concepts from peace and conflict studies on relations and repair, reconciliation, and healing. These kinds of words are missing in that definition of environmental peacebuilding. It will ultimately limit what is environmental peacebuilding or what environmental peacebuilding can achieve. Because if we don’t get the relational aspect, and the healing of what has happened in the past, then we might get stuck at an environmental technical fix. I find it also very anthropocentric: speaking about a human-to-human peacebuilding and forgetting that there’s humans and nature, and humans and the rest of life on earth that needs to be repaired in the process. Environmental peacebuilding is really about the repair of relationships between people [and] people, between peoples, and between people and the rest of life.

Another thing from peace and conflict studies: this definition is so focused on a formulaic approach to conflict that conflict is almost seen as a bad thing. There’s this idea in peace and conflict studies that conflict is a way to resolve issues, especially in cases of extreme injustice. Nonviolent action and the practice of nonviolence is seen as a form of conflict creation to make extreme injustice right. In a definition like this, nonviolent action, which is sometimes called conflict creation, would be sidelined, or made invisible. It’s such a powerful strategy really to making right with nature. Thinking of environmental peacebuilding as needing to step up and create a conflict where an extreme injustice is happening or about to happen is another decolonial angle that could be brought in.

PSD: Can you describe how Indigenous or decolonial approaches are distinct in environmental peacebuilding? 

EH: Many Indigenous approaches are often decolonial, but not all the decolonial approaches are Indigenous. Decolonial for me is about disrupting those colonial legacies and those systems of power that have been entrenched by former colonial systems. It has a lot to do with a few things like the coloniality of knowledge and knowledge production, the coloniality of identity and the hierarchy of race and ethnicities, and economic systems. It’s the extractive capitalist approach and globalized extractive capitalism combined with today’s government’s approach to neoliberalism that’s very colonial. The ways that political power is consolidated and controlled—that’s what decolonial is trying to be a solution or alternative or antithesis to. Sometimes the more bottom-up, community-driven/led—whether that’s Indigenous or not—is often a more decolonial approach. It’s also not taking the environment as this technically separate thing from us, but to think of all of it as an integrative whole through the lens of actual relationships between us and other species and life on earth. If we’re bringing in the Indigenous approaches, we can also start thinking about environmental peacebuilding as our spiritual relationship with nature and other species. There are ceremonies that I think we could consider as a form of environmental peacebuilding from an Indigenous perspective, but that’s not at all what you see in the UN’s work in post-conflict countries. It also pulls us into this realm of how we define peace. I was in the Rwanda-Congo-Uganda borderland area in a village. I asked the villagers, “What would environmental peace look like to you?” And they said, “It’s fresh air.” Then, they explained that fresh air means that the air is clear because there [are] winds coming through and there [are] rains that clear the air so it’s not dusty, and if there’s rain then there’s agriculture and food for everybody. It was their way of describing a wholly functioning ecosystem that provides for people and people provide for the environment as environmental peacebuilding.

When you come into a lot of Indigenous communities, one of the things they might tell you is that they don’t have a word for the environment because it’s not a separate thing. They are so embedded in it that they don’t identify it separately. At least that’s what I’ve been told. One thing that I’ve noticed about Indigenous peacebuilding broadly is that it inherently encompasses the natural environment in many different ways. And when there’s conflict in Indigenous communities, it also invokes the natural environment. Taking a decolonial or Indigenous approach really opens up your mind to the basic idea of what these words really mean, what needs to be made right, and if environmental peacebuilding is even its own thing or is that just peacebuilding.

PSD: What does an Indigenous and/or decolonial approach look like in practice?

EH: Decolonial practices offer space for a lot more exploration, and that’s a hard one for all of us grappling with how we change these mega systems that are incredibly colonial. There is a lot of incredible work coming out of critical development studies, like the pluriverse dictionary that shares different approaches to decolonial development—which I think inherently embraces a lot of these concepts of what could be a decolonial environmental peacebuilding. I think one of the challenges is the external intervention-based answer to environmental peacebuilding where people come in and offer solutions and it’s funded by donors and then projects happen, and they go away. That, I think, is a very colonial approach. A decolonial approach would have to look quite different. It doesn’t mean that external people can’t come in to support communities locally that are trying to do environmental peacebuilding, but I think you would have to disengage that capitalist economic system somehow. A decolonial approach to environmental peacebuilding should also be very appreciative of where its resources and money and ideas come from.    

PSD: To what extent has the environmental peacebuilding field embraced an Indigenous and/or decolonial approach?

EH: I think it’s in its early stages. You’ll see it in some of the summative articles on environmental peacebuilding where there is a small section on local and Indigenous approaches. It’s not yet at the space where it’s radically re-thinking peace—is it an environmental management thing or is it a relational spiritual practice? As a field, environmental peacebuilding is very open and welcoming and tries to be very inclusive, so I think there’s space for that. But when you put forward a definition for a concept, it inevitably excludes people who don’t think that’s what they do. In sessions we’ve done on Indigenous approaches, we’ve had to pull in people who would have never called themselves environmental peacebuilders.

PSD: How does militarism and militarization show up in environmental peacebuilding? 

EH: One of the dangers is that the field of environmental peacebuilding allies itself with mainstream conservation movement thinking that it’s an avenue for expanding environmental peacebuilding initiatives, especially with ideas like peace parks or cooperative natural resource management. The mainstream conservation movement is, in many places, quite militarized. There’s been a lot of the pushback against conservation and its affiliation with armed rangers that are perpetrating human rights violations. Environmental peacebuilding initiatives aren’t free of that just because we call it peacebuilding. That’s why I got really interested in working with communities. The states are telling me that they’re working together but then when I go to the communities, they’re telling me that the armed rangers are burning down their homes and arresting their people. The peacebuilding between the states might be decent but the peacebuilding with the people is not looking great. There’s also the growing interest of the military in the natural environment due to climate change that is front and center for environmental peacebuilding. I started reading a report by the International Military Council on Climate Change and Security. The sum of the report is that they think militaries will be overwhelmed by the challenges of dealing with climate change and the security implications of it.

When we think about Indigenous territories and the environmental conflicts that they face against large corporations, against private security forces that are well armed, and the kind of human rights violations that come out of that—I think shedding light on the nonviolence that Indigenous communities practice is so important. If we don’t support the nonviolent struggles, then…it’s not going to look good.

PSD: It’s not going to look so nonviolent anymore.

EH: Yes, exactly. I think the environmental peacebuilding world is going to have to struggle with these realities. I do sometimes wonder if having that limited definition of environmental peacebuilding that’s focused on environmental management will be able to encompass those struggles in a way that is helpful.

PSD: How important are designated conservation and protected areas to environmental peacebuilding?

EH: This question is interesting given where international policy is right now. We have a Global Biodiversity Framework and targets calling to expand conservation areas and protected areas to 30% of the Earth’s surface (terrestrial and marine). There’s been a lot of concern on whether that enables an increase in militarized conservation to acquire those lands and if it will displace people. There is research showing that this could impact up to 1.8 billion people. That conservation and protected areas policy is potentially creating this whole new space for environmental conflict. How will we manage to meet those targeted goals in such a way that isn’t violent and isn’t displacing people or their rights? This is an important question for the environmental peacebuilding community.

There’s also an idea that there’s an overemphasis on conservation areas as a vehicle for environmental peacebuilding. That raises some of the problems and challenges around protected areas as a concept, especially in countries where protected areas were created by a colonial government and then have been militarized. I’ve started telling people to be mindful of “sacrifice zones,” like this area is for conservation and everything else can be sacrificed where we can do whatever we want to the environment.

Environmental peacebuilding, for me, has been very exciting because it has so much possibility. There’s so much opportunity, so much to think about, and so many directions and ways that you can take it and view it and practice it. In a world that looks increasingly violent, divided, and broken in so many ways, I think that the fact that environmental peacebuilding can take so many different forms, means that it can help us address extreme circumstances whether that’s war or genocide or civil conflicts or interpersonal differences on an everyday level.