Five documents are chained together below:

1. Declaration on Article 10 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

2. Declaration on Linguistic, Cultural and Educational Rights

3. Declaration on Collective Rights

4. General Declaration on the Rights to Land, Territory, and Natural Resources

5. Declaration on Heritage Rights

For an overview/summary, see the October 2002 issue of The C.A.C. Review.

1. Declaration on Article 10

Commission for Human Rights
Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
7th Session
February 2002

Reference : Third Part, Article 12 to 14 ; Fourth Part, Articles 15 to 18

Mister President, ladies and gentlemen representatives of governments,
Ladies and gentlemen representing indigenous peoples,

The project of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is simply to provide a juridical reference point.

I do not understand why so many States are reticent or demand a right to make reservations, refusing thus to support the Declaration project such that it has been redirected to the sub-commission.

Mr. President,

After analysing this Draft, and particularly all the articles which make reference to land or territory, such as articles 10 and 45, I must reaffirm that the right to land and territory is a fundamental right for the survival of our peoples.

Mr. President,

As you already know, indigenous peoples can hardly turn to their national authorities for protection since these are the first to deny them their rights. In French Guyana, the territories of indigenous peoples have been put at the disposal of multinational corporations and even lesser enterprises. The rights of the indigenous peoples are thus frequently scorned and submerged in the name of "the economy".

It matters little to States that indigenous peoples have, since time immeorial, obtained the majority of their resources from these territories. Whether it be in the case of the peoples of the Amazon, Asia, or any other place, each time the process is identical and history repeats itself : States ignore the presence of indigenous peoples.

In Brazil, for example, the construction of the Tucurui and Itaipu dams has foced 50,000 indigenous peoples to be dislocated, expatriated, forced to become refugees living on the outskirts of the large urban centres, marginalized, and suffering all of the consequences that one can expect in such situations. It is in this way that so many indigenous peoples find themselves cut off from their very territories.

Mr. President,

The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1948 only addresses itself to individuals as such. One can very well defend individuals in speaking of peoples. Amongst indigenous peoples, the individual does not exist, only the group is of importance. If an indigenous community loses its cultural and linguistic identity, then it is more appropriate to speak in terms of genocide.

And it is in this sense that the United Nations, via the sub-commission, have redirected the text of this Declaration project.

This Declaration represents a useful juridical minimum in terms of aiding communities to develop their identities, their cultures and permitting them to control their territories.

This is why I encourage governments to cooperate more fully and to take a constructive attitude in the future, so that we may finally conclude this Draft Declaration.

By way of conclusion, Mr. President,

I would add that the Federation of Autochthonous Organizations of French Guyana supports Article 10 and awaits its approval by the sub-commission.

Alexis TIOUKA

2. Declaration on Linguistic, Cultural and Educational Rights

Commission on Human Rights
Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
7th session
February 2002

RE : Third Part, Articles 12 to 14 ; Fourth Part, Articles 15 to 18.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen representatives of governments,
Ladies and Gentlemen representing Indigenous peoples,

I have the honour of presenting to you this general declaration on behalf of the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of French Guyana which represents the six indigenous peoples of French Guyana, an overseas Department of France in the Americas : the Wayana, Teko, Wayampi, Lokono, Palikur, and the Kali’na.

Articles 12 to 18 in  the third and fourth part of the declaration affirm the rights of indigenous peoples to the learning of their cultures, languages, as well as the integratuon of these two essential components of their identity withing the educational system, whether public education or not.

The indigenous peoples under France are fully inserted, without having been consulted on this point, in a debate which is engaging the members of the European Union: that is, that which is entailed by the European Charter on regional and minority languages and on which France has no clearly defined position. 

In addition, especially insofar as the future institutional arrangements of French Guyana are concerned, the question of linguistic rights, cultural rights, and education are all the more important. Article 33 of Law No. 2000-1207 concerning Overseas Departments testify to a will to protect their linguistic, cultural and educational practices, one observes that at the same time there is a will to register the cultures and languages of the indigenous peoples of French Guyana into the concerns of local authorities. However, one may interrogate the modalities and and the implementation of such a policy that has not yet been subjected to a veritable negotiation with indigenous peoples of the Department.

It is essential that the French state and local authorities position themselves on this question of linguistic, cultural and educational rights, that they take into account Articles 12 to 14 and 15 to 18 of this draft declaration and that they include the indigenous peoples of French Guyana before engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this question.

I thank you all.

3. Declaration on Collective Rights

Commission for Human Rights
Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations’ Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
7th session
February 2002 

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen representatives of governments,
Ladies and Gentelemen representing Indigenous peoples,

I have the honour of presenting to you this general declaration on behalf of the Federation of Indigenous Organizations of French Guyana which represents the six indigenous peoples of French Guyana, an overseas Department of France in the Americas : the Wayana, Teko, Wayampi, Lokono, Palikur, and the Kali’na.

By virtue of our status as indigenous peoples, given the fact of our prior presense on the territory of French Guyana with respect to European colonization, we affirm that the recognition of the rights deriving from this status, the right to self determination, the right to land, the right to intellectual property, the right to our own judicial system, and linguistic and cultural rights, are all rights essential to the survival of our peoples.

Let it be understood that the affirmation of this status as indigenous peoples in no way puts into question our status as citizens of the French Republic, a status which we have acquired since 1969, the date of the law of « Francization ». However we affirm that if it comes within the domain where the individual right must make law, in other domains the collective right must precede.

Currently, however, the institutional evolution of the Department is a new point of debate, insofar as in addition to our negotiation with the French state we must take advantage of our rights vis-a-vis the new political and institutional forces of the Department, because of the existence of three documents: Law No. 2000-1207 of December 13, 2000 regarding Overseas Departments, the draft accord relating to the future of French Guyana voted on June 29, 2001 by the elected French Guyanese officials assembled in congress and, finally, the proposals of the government on the guidelines which can be used as a basis for an agreement on the future institutional makeup of French Guyana presented on November 22 2001 to the elected French Guyanese officials and advisers by the Secretariat of State for Overseas Departments.

Let us recall that the first of these three documents, Law No. 2000-1207, contains a provision relating to the indigenous communities which calls on,

"The State and local bodies to encourage the respect, protection and maintenance of the knowledge, development and practices of the local indigenous communities based on their traditional ways of living which contribute to the conservation of the natural environment and the sustainable usage of bio-diversity".

This provision highlights a concern, at the national level, to preserve the ways of life and, therefore, the legal provisions affecting the indigenous communities, and in supporting the widening and the improvement of the protection granted to these populations.  This additional Article (Article 17 of the above-mentioned law) introduced by the Senate at the instigation of the Socialist group, testifies to the existence of a will to recognize the existence of the local indigenous communities autochtones and to protect the cultural practices related to their traditional ways of life.

However, this will, posted in this text of law, has not apparently influenced local authorities, except very slightly, at the time of the drafting of the accord on the future of French Guyana.

The aboriginals of French Guyana currently live caught in the hinges of a double conflict : on the one hand, a conflict in the political order owing to the achievement of certain rights within a French legal framework, and possibly soon an (independent) Guyanese framework as well ; on the other hand, a cultural conflict tied up with the opposition between diverse world views (whether those of the French or of the Creoles who hold political power in the Department, or those of the aboriginals) from which stems the absolute inability of common law to protect the rights of the aboriginal communities.

The resolution of these diverse conflicts has to be subject to a meaningful conciliation between aboriginal rights and the rights of non-aboriginals. The need for conciliation in addition is clearly stated in various texts of which, for example, the twelfth subparagraph of the preamble to the Draft Declaration of the United Nations on the rights of indigenous peoples which affirms that "indigenous people have the right to freely determine their relationship with States, in a spirit of coexistence, of mutual interest and of full respect".

However, at present, none the institutional parties concerned seems to be leaning in this direction, particularly the local authorities. Indeed, after having had multiple interventions on various levels (national, European and international), which have been successful in outlining the stakes of a true negotiation with the French state, we, as aboriginal peoples of French Guyana, find ourselves confronted with a local power which denies us all our rights, or almost so, and we are not included at any time in the decision-making structures.  In the meantime decisions are currently being made on the future of French Guyana which relate to essential fields for the survival of our people, specifically: land, heritage, customary law, and language and culture.

The local and national councillors cannot indefinitely ignore the indigenous question in Guyana. We feel that it is the duty of the state, before approving any text issued by the elected officials of the Department, to resolve the indigenous problematique. We who one day decided to become French citizens and accepted the duties incumbent upon us that stem from this fact, today France has a duty toward us, to not put us in a situation of domination by an ethnic group that isnumerically stronger.

I thank you all.

4. General Declaration on the Rights to Land, Territory, and Natural Resources

Commission for Human Rights
Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
7th session
26 January 2002 to 08 February 2002

Reference : Articles 25 to 27 of Part 6 of the Draft Declaration

Articles 25 through 27 of the Draft Declaration affirm the right of indigenous peoples to land and territory. This right implies the right to conserve their traditional way of life which is intrinsically tied to land, as well as the right to the independent development of their lands and territories, and, above all, the right to the restitution of their lands and territories.

Knowing that in the definition of indigeneity, and that anterior occupation of a given territory appears to be an essential characteristic, the question of the right to land and territory is a fundamental question concerning the future of our people.

The Draft Declaration certainly envisages the right of indigenous people to the restitution of their lands, nevertheless it suggests that this restitution remains symbolic, in the form of financial compensation so as to guarantee the maintenance of the rights acquired by non-indigenous peoples on the alnds in question. One also observes in article 18/7 of American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a similar proposal.

Even if these texts do not guarantee a total restitution of the indigenous lands and territories to their rightful owners, they grant some recognition to this all the same.

We, aboriginal peoples of Guyana, regret that this recognition does not make a presence in the relevant texts on the institutional future of French Guyana. We propose thus, having regard for the particular importance of land for indigenous peoples, and to their specific rights as recognized by the French state as demonstrated in  articles R170-56 to R170-61 of the Code of the Domain of the State, that the decisions concerning the future of French Guyana associate the indigenous communities with the regulations governing the financial domain of the State as contained in that Code.

Let us recall that this question is not only essential to the survival of our people but also to peace on French Guyanese territory. The land question does indeed cause increasingly violent conflicts, in particular in the west of the Department. These conflicts find their source in the refusal of the state and the regional authorities to take a formal position on this question. If one were not to see in the near future the creation of national laws which protect the indigenous peoples, their resources and their survival risk being seriously threatened.  Obviously, any decision taken in this field will have to make it an object of discussion with the aboriginal peoples of French Guyana and will have to be based on their free and informed consent.

Consequently, we affirm, once more this year, that the right to land such as is stated in articles 25 through 27 of the sixth part must make it a special objective of the work conducted by all the authorities and organizations working on the Draft Declaration.

I thank you all.

5. Declaration on Heritage Rights

Commission for Human Rights
Intersession of the Working Group on the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
7th session
February 2002

Reference : Articles 12 and 13 of the Part 3 of the Draft Declaration

Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen representatives of governments,
Ladies and gentlemen represeting Indigenous Peoples,

Articles 12 and 13 of the third part of the Draft Declaration appear in the declarations of France to the United Nations as one of the more controversial points. Since 1997, in effect, the representative for France voiced fears about the protection of aboriginal traditions and customs autochtones as not being in accord with the standards relating to human rights or with national legislation.

One may see in these stated worries of the French state a danger for the aboriginal peoples of this country. We fear indeed that France continues to impose standards on us which do not correspond with our social model.

However, France cannot refute the fact she is signatory to a text of June 13, 1992, that of the convention on biological diversity adopted in Rio on May 22, 1992.  However, article 8j of the said convention stipulates that each contracting part,

"respects, preserves and maintains knowledge, creations and practices of local aboriginal communities and local which embody traditional ways of life, with an interest for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and supports its application on a greater scale, with the agreement and the participation of the holders of this knowledge, creations and practices and encourages the equitable division of the benefits accruing from the use of this knowledge, creations and practices."

The Rio convention is, under the terms of Article 55 of the French constitution, an authority higher than that of the law and we engage the state and the local authorities to take it into account in any future decision concerning the right to heritage of the aboriginal peoples.

We appreciate for this reason the right values of the provision relating to the aboriginal communities that appear in Article 33 of the Law No. 2000-1207 with respect to the Overseas Departments, but we also fear that this article is not properly understood, just as Article 8j of the convention on biological diversity, by the local authorities at this time of developing a new statute for French Guyana.

I thank you all.