1.1 Indigenous cosmovision includes philosophy, sciences and practices with respect to Mother Earth and all that she contains. In this way we remember the teachings of our leaders and traditional authorities, who warned us many years ago about the long term dangers, problems and consequences of aggressive abuses against nature. We also remember that daily the lives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are affected by the politics and practices of discrimination, denial of rights, and various other violations.

1.3 The Kyoto Protocol is not sufficient to mitigate or stop the catastrophe that threatens our planet.

1.4 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, are on the frontline of climate change impacts. We populate the most fragile ecosystems of the world including forests, mountains, wetlands, coasts, islands and biological diversity hot spots. As close observers of the web of life and guardians of the integrity of Mother Earth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have been the first to witness her signs of distress and illness. For decades we have noticed dramatic changes in our environments and have flagged these ominous indicators only to have our testimony fall on deaf ears.

1.5 Reverence towards Mother Earth is the foundation of our interactions with our environments. We believe that those who harm the Earth should bear responsibility for healing it, regardless of the cost. Over-production and over-consumption in the North have critically damaged Earth’s life-support systems resulting in the current planetary crisis. We demand that concrete remedial action be undertaken by those responsible in the North.

1.6 We grieve for Mother Earth, damaged by unfettered industrial expansion in developed countries and by the abuse of natural resources in developing countries. We condemn attempts by the North to shirk its responsibility to reduce GHGs and its shameful attempts to dump this burden on developing countries, in particular those hosting the earth’s last forests and other critically important ecosystems.

1.7 We are further distressed by the reduction of climate change mitigation strategies to a mere question of carbon sequestration and by cynical attempts to convert the carbon management agenda into a system of global emission permits and a carbon sinks market.

1.9 Our duty to Mother Earth impels us to demand that we be allowed to participate fully and actively in negotiations.

1.10 We urge national delegates to support our struggle for social and ecological justice at all levels. We must act together to stop those interests that would aggravate the impacts of climate change on the already precarious livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

1.11 Our participation in the UNFCCC process will contribute substantially to finding constructive solutions and creative alternatives. Most importantly, we are here because we deeply care for the future of the Earth. We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, conceive sustainable development and "clean development" as beneficial processes of social and ecological change to be shared by all inhabitants of the Earth. We view the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation (CDM and JI) with the gravest concern. These mechanisms should conform with international instruments that establish human rights.

1.12 For Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the land is a sacred space that the Creator entrusts to our Peoples, hence, our responsibility to care for it. The land is where we and our ancestors live, where our spirits dwell, where our legends are born and our history created. This is the space that ensures our physical and cultural existence and from where we obtain our food and medicines, where we nurture our languages, where we celebrate our ceremonies, where we give birth. It is also the space that we must leave as a legacy for the future. In our philosophies, the land includes all material and spiritual resources, including - among other beings - the air, the waters, flora and fauna. We live from, on, in, by and for our lands. The land is sacred.

2.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, are profoundly concerned about Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol and the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry negotiations. We reject any proposal which has the effect of opening the door to further destruction of our forests and lands and violations of our rights.

2.2 As inhabitants of forests, we are specially vested with authority to define forests. We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, have lived in forests since time immemorial. We are the first stewards of the forest. During all of history, we have nourished her biodiversity through our skills and practices, a wide variety of knowledge, and a holistic understanding of our environment. We do not see human beings and other flora and fauna as distinct elements for classification and use. We are part of a wide system that unifies us with the forest through social, cultural, political, economic and ecological links, all expressed through our indigenous spirituality. This holistic point of view ties Indigenous Peoples and local communities in every way to any debate on forests.

2.3 Clarifying what constitutes a forest is essential to avoid gross distortions in forestry discussions and for ensuring that no credits are granted for environmentally-unsound substitutions. Of the many definitions of "forest", almost all fail to mention the cultural and social wealth contained within them as well as the longevity of forests due to forest-dwellers. Indigenous Peoples and local communities are ignored as part of the forest. We and all other organisms of the land are on the verge of being reduced to our carbon content and its exchange value. A reductionist definition of a forest to its mere carbon content leads to large scale deforestation and plantation expansion for timber and pulp.

2.4 A broad definition of "additional activities" would allow Annex I countries to cover most of their emissions reduction targets under LULUCF activities which in no way mitigate climate change. Indigenous Peoples and local communities therefore reject credits for "additional activities."

2.5 Proposals potentially underestimate the equal importance of non-forest ecosystems and food-producing regions of our territories. Afforestation means further encroachment on our lands. A blind emphasis on afforestation can result in massive destruction of native non-forest eco-systems rich in biodiversity and essential for the survival of our Peoples.

2.6 There is a danger that our fallow lands, an integral part of our shifting cultivation lifestyles, will be used for reforestation purposes and serve as "carbon offset project sites." Similarly, there is a danger in allowing credit for natural regeneration.

2.7 The proposals ignore altogether that forest dwellers are entitled to decide on and carry out reforestation. The attention, concern, and recognition of the ancestral land rights and of common property regimes are totally missing from their core arguments. Indigenous Peoples and local communities in some parts of the world suffer from government reforestation programs on our deforested lands. Reforestation under the CDM could add another disaster for us.

2.8 The proposals, again, demonstrate a grotesque disregard to past atrocities against Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ forests and lives by ignoring the social and ecological damage that commercial forestry, mining, and agricultural expansion have committed. While measures of carbon, lands, and forests are precisely made, the struggle of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in protecting the remaining forests and other ecosystems are no-where mentioned.

2.9 We propose that concrete text be inserted recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as is included in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forest. For example, text recalling the International Labor Organization Convention 169 should be inserted in the decision on Article 3.3.

2.10 Text should be included to guarantee that any activity under afforestation, reforestation and deforestation does not violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as enshrined in international treaties.

3. The Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation

3.1 The CDM is being touted as a means by which developing countries can achieve sustainable development, but is silent on the grossly unsustainable production and consumption patterns of Annex 1 countries. Clearly, the primary responsibility for cutting emissions of GHG lies with these countries. The principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" must be emphasized.

3.2 The CDM allows Annex 1 countries to escape from taking domestic action to cut GHG emissions at source. This responsibility is passed on to developing countries by projects that offset Annex 1 country emission targets through carbon credits. This provides Annex 1 countries with the cheapest option of meeting targets while not obliging them to take any decisive action in their own countries. Nor does the CDM motivate Annex I countries to change their pattern of unsustainable production and wasteful consumption.

3.3 We view with profound concern steps towards the development of a carbon market. Already, proposals are being discussed for the establishing of mechanisms and structures, such as carbon exchanges, for carbon trading. Even multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank have jumped on the bandwagon by setting up a Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF). Furthermore, projects under the CDM, such as carbon sinks, are envisioned as major sources of carbon credits for such a market. This global carbon market may eventually come within the purview of the World Trade Organization.

3.4 We oppose moves to broaden further the scope of globalization to include this carbon market. We believe that this would further intensify the exploitation and loss of our lands and resources under the guise of climate change mitigation.

3.5 In conclusion, we energetically reiterate that full compliance by Annex 1 countries of their emission target commitments must take precedence over any other mechanisms that tend to obfuscate this responsibility.

3.6 Recommendations

1. CDM projects must, as far as applicable, be community-driven and designed to achieve the development priorities of the participating non-Annex I countries.
2. CDM and JI projects must be climate change effective in terms of real, measurable, and long-term benefits, as measured in terms of demonstrable GHG reductions against the project baseline.
3. CDM and JI projects must be additional to ODA and GEF commitments of developed country Parties.
4. CDM and JI processes must observe transparency and accountability in all stages: project identification, design, approval, implementation, certification, and monitoring.
5. CERs (Certified Emission Reductions) acquired under the CDM and JI process, to ensure climate effectiveness, should be retired and should not be banked, traded or transferred to another Party. In this sense, there is no fungibility among the ERUs ( Emission Reduction Units), CERs and AAUs (Assigned Amount Units).
6. Technology transfer that would occur under the CDM process should be additional to the commitment of Annex I countries under the UNFCCC. Access to the technology needed by participating developing countries to implement CDM activities must be ensured.
7. Environment-friendly local technologies and capacities must be supported and encouraged wherever possible.
8. A CDM and JI adaptation fund should be established, the contribution to which should already be drawn from or incorporated in the CDM and JI project costs, not from the sale of CERs. The needs of developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be addressed by this fund.
9. No nuclear power plants, coal, mega-dams or mega-hydroelectric projects in the CDM or JI.
10. CDM and JI must have caps under the principle of supplementarity. No CDM or JI project must be accepted from any one Annex I country, unless that country has shown demonstrable progress in initiating domestic action to reduce GHG emissions.
11. Both the CDM and JI shall have an Executive Board and an Advisory Committee. The voting members of the Executive Boards and Advisory Committees shall include representatives from non-governmental entities from both Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries, including representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities organizations, human rights organizations, and environmental organizations.

4.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, have co-existed with nature for millennia and have become stewards of biodiversity and experts of sustainable development. For us a forest not only ensures our survival by providing food, shelter, clothing, medicine and other necessities of life, but is also the Cathedral where we worship and practice our religious beliefs and spirituality.

4.2 Articles 3.3 and 3.4 identify forest sinks as valuable only because of their carbon sequestration function, which reduces forests to a market commodity. Industrial nations, whose market philosophy and consumer lifestyles have led to the present crisis, pretend now to teach us about sustainable development and are attempting to destroy our lifestyles through the mechanism of sinks.

4.3 We consider that it is our duty, in our name and in the name of future generations, to oppose sinks resoundly, because the long term implications are not clear. They do not guarantee or strengthen Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ rights to our lands and natural resources. They have an immoral and perverse dimension that, according to the indigenous cosmovision, do not stop the causes of the climate change nor do they oblige the polluters to assume all of the responsibilities.

4.4 In view of our intrinsic relation with Mother Earth, some sink projects will have a direct or indirect effect on our lives, damaging and threatening our lands and the intimate essence of our identity and the compromising survival of our communities.

4.5 We believe that through sink projects our lands and territories will be expropriated by Northern power corporations and land grabbers. We will lose our rights to manage traditionally our land and become slaves of the carbon trade. Carbon trade-induced social conflicts, such as violence for access to basic resources and community divisions, will endanger our survival as peaceful peoples of the land.

4.6 Therefore, we strongly oppose the inclusion of sinks in the CDM 
and JI.

4.7 We oppose the inclusion of sinks because:

1. Annex 1 countries, the main sources of green house gases, will avoid their responsibility to reduce emissions by seeking carbon offsets in developing countries.
2. Sink projects reduce investor interest in and divert research away from energy conservation and renewable energy sources.
3. Sink projects can subvert development priorities of developing countries and consume funds that could have been more usefully employed elsewhere.
4. Alteration of the environment of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, terrestrial or marine, inevitably affects Indigenous Peoples and local communities' traditional ways and ability to survive.
5. The philosophy of sinks is contrary to the world view of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and violates fundamental rights, particularly land rights, recognized in international instruments such as the ILO Convention 169.
6. There may be an increase in Protected Area projects, which have a sorry history with regard to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

4.8 We also strongly oppose the inclusion of plantation sinks because:

1. Plantations can lead to the destruction of native ecosystems for exotic monoculture tree crops which absorb carbon at a much faster rate than mature forests.
2. Destruction of mature forests leads to the irreversible release of CO2 from the soil on which the forest grew.
3. Clear cutting, burning and monocultures mean the loss of biodiversity.
4. Plantations can replace agricultural lands and create or magnify food security problems.
5. Most Indigenous Peoples and local communities are agriculturists. Tree plantations utilizing species such as pine, eucalyptus or oil palm tree impoverish the soil and so affect the ability of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to live off the land.
6. Plantations can lead to land ownership disputes. This creates an atmosphere of hostility, if not conflict, and may result in the loss or confiscation of indigenous lands and the consequent eviction or displacement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples and local communities may seek refuge across borders, leading to a situation of armed conflict at the border.
7. Plantations are not guaranteed to produce a positive net effect as they are vulnerable to fire, cyclones, diseases and pest infestations, all of which will release the carbon back into the atmosphere.
8. Lastly, we strongly oppose experimental or mono-culture projects in coastal areas because of their effect on the livelihoods of coastal dwellers and their ability to carry on traditional fishing practices and the effect on the sea as a source of food to the community.

5.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, recommend that the Parties adopt the following principles in relation to CDM and JI projects.

5.2 The CDM and JI framework should incorporate principles which address transparency, prior informed consent, informed public participation and consultation, capacity-building, and benefit-sharing and risk distribution with Indigenous Peoples and local communities in order to accomplish the objectives of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainable development in developed and developing countries.

5.3 Objectives of the CDM and JI projects should be clear and should promote information sharing and understanding between Parties and Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Indigenous Peoples and local communities should have a right to receive detailed, unbiased, linguistically and culturally appropriate information about proposed and actual CDM and JI projects, and their potential impacts and benefits.

5.4 Notice of any pending decision must come early enough in the process for the potentially affected communities to review relevant materials, inform themselves on the issues and prepare their inputs. The consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities that will be directly impacted by CDM or JI projects must be obtained before a binding commitment to host a specific CDM or JI project can be made. Indigenous Peoples and local communities should have the right to say "no" to a CDM or JI project. CDM and JI projects should not involve any involuntary resettlement of indigenous or other local occupants.

5.5 Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be invited to participate in the formulation of the CDM and JI framework, and be involved in CDM and JI project design and implementation as early as possible and prior to approval. Linguistically and culturally appropriate consultation processes should be developed to promote understanding of the CDM and JI, to resolve questions regarding the implementation of CDM and JI projects, to create opportunities for local inputs, and to mitigate potential disputes.

5.6 To achieve the objectives of reducing GHG emissions and promoting sustainable development, it is critical that Annex I countries transfer locally appropriate technologies and expertise to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

5.7 The technology must be suited to the specific local needs and conditions where it will be deployed. The CDM should promote changes in consumption patterns in the North, the development and transfer of technologies that provide significant climate change benefits while complementing the social, economic and technical settings of host countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

5.8 Indigenous Peoples and local communities must develop technical expertise, and therefore need to receive information and financial resources to participate fully in and benefit from the CDM process.

5.9 Indigenous Peoples and local communities should also be allowed to apply, reproduce and develop their knowledge and carbon management systems and to defend their lands and livelihoods. Programs that focus on developing technological capacities through training, skills sharing and education should be encouraged. Skills sharing and capacity building at national and sub-national levels ought to be enhanced to ensure the long-term success of CDM projects.

5.10 Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol states that certified emission reduction (CERs) units will be generated from voluntary project activities in non-Annex I countries, and that the host country and investors will share CERs resulting from CDM projects. Although a portion of the proceeds from CDM projects will be assigned to finance adaptation activities in developing countries that are particularly threatened by climate change, there is no mechanism to share proceeds and benefits with Indigenous Peoples and local communities that would be directly affected by CDM projects.

5.11 Parties should collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and local communities to determine how CDM proceeds can best be equitably allocated and costs justly distributed.

5.12 Risks identified as involving Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be immediately brought to the attention of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

6.1 We note with concern that responses to the problem of climate change reflect the underlying philosophy of the UNFCCC, namely, the global market system. This system runs counter to the world view of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. We therefore urge that the focus be on the development of local capacities and technologies that are environment-friendly and which address climate change. We support the "Positives List."

7.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, vigorously support the creation and financing of the Adaptation Fund. Sadly we foresee that our Peoples will continue to suffer from the adverse impacts of climate change and we therefore should be included as beneficiaries of such a Fund. Money for this Fund should come from the punitive fines for the failure of Annex I countries to meet their emissions reduction targets or for inaccurate carbon accounting and national inventory taking.

8.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, request that the UNFCCC allow and recognize Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ evaluations of AIJ projects and their effects on our rights and lands. Furthermore, we request that all AIJ and consequent of JI/CDM project analysis include a social component written by a social scientist recommended by the affected community.

9.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, propose that our Peoples and experts be included in the assessment and analysis of climate change in Annex I countries as provided for in Articles 5, 7 & 8.

10.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, express our desire to be included in UNFCCC capacity-building initiatives and propose that special capacity-building be undertaken for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Such capacity building would strengthen our ability to exercise our right to fully participate in climate change negotiations.

11.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, call for the cancellation of carbon credits and the imposition of punitive fines for the failure of Annex I countries to meet their emission reduction targets as well as inaccurate carbon accounting and inventory taking.

12.1 We, the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, assert our right to autonomously account for carbon credits on our territories. Furthermore, information of all carbon accounting activities by national governments concerning our territories should be made available to us.

1. That the Conference of Parties VI recognize the fundamental role of Indigenous Peoples and their organizations in climate change prevention and environmental conservation and accredit Indigenous Peoples with special status in all the organs, activities and COPs of the UNFCCC.
2. That COP 6 approve the creation of a Working Group of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change, as well as recognize the Forum of Indigenous People and Local Communities on Climate Change. Furthermore, that COP 6 provide the necessary support including full effective participation in all levels of discussion, decision-making and implementation, as well as ensure that the necessary funding be provided to guarantee said participation and to strengthen its capacity.
3. That the UNFCCC and its processes establish relations with other spaces and processes that affect Indigenous Peoples, including the Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC, the pending Permanent Forum of Indigenous Peoples, the International Labor Organization, the Convention on Biodiversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, among others.
4. That the UNFCCC and its Secretariat create, provide and distribute information on the negotiations and process for Indigenous Peoples to further foster our participation, positions adoption and contributions.
5. That the decisions on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol include provisions that recognize and establish all the fundamental rights of Indigenous Peoples.
6. That the Subsidiary Bodies recommend that COP 6 refrain from adopting guidelines for the CDM until substantial debate and discussions including Indigenous Peoples occurs.

We, the representatives of the Indigenous Peoples and local communities present at SB13, consider that the concerns and recommendations expressed in this declaration will help the peoples of the world to reduce climate change and contribute to sustainable development.

Clark Peteru, Samoa
Indigenous Peoples’ Biodiversity Network (Pacific)

Hector Huertas, Panama
MesoAmerican Indigenous Organizations on Climate Change

Kalimba Zephyrin, Rwanda
Association for the Promotion of Batwans

Edwin Vasquez, Peru
Inter-ethnic Development Association of
The Peruvian Jungle (AIDESEP)

Johnson Cerda, Ecuador
Amazon Alliance

Antonio Jacanamijoy, Columbia
Coordinating Body of the IndigenousOrganizations
of the Amazon Basin (COICA)

Jose Luis Gonzalez, Venezuela
The Indigenous Federation of Bolivar

Hendro Sangkoyo, Indonesia
Consortium for Community Forest Systems

Raymond de Chavez, Philippines
TEBTEBBA Foundation, Indigenous Peoples
International Center for Policy, Research &
Education

Sam Ferrer, Philippines
Climate Action Network