San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas-Mexico15-16 of April 2010

(English version)

REFLECTIONSon the Regional Seminar

LOCALGOVERNMENTS and INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

LOCALGOVERNmENTS and INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas-Mexico15-16 of April 2010

(English version)

REFLECTIONSon the Regional Seminar

�� REFLECTIONS ON THE REGIONAL SEmINAR ON LOCAL GOVERNmENTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Copyright © 2011By the United Nations Development ProgrammeMontes Urales 440Lomas de Chapultepec, Z.C. 11000, Mexico, D.F.

Published by the United Nations Development Programme inside the activities of the Project 00059515 “Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective”.

The opinions, analyses and recommendations hereunder do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the United Nations Development Programme, its executive board, or its Member States.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the United Nations Development Programme.

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-92-1-126334-3Sales #: B.11.III.B.34Printed in Mexico

Desktop publishing and printing: arte i diseño. www.arteidiseno.com

This publication is financed by the UNDP s Bureau for Development Policy (BDP/DGG).

�� DIRECTORy

�� United Nations Development Programme, RBLAC

Alvaro PintoCoordinatorDemocratic Governance Cluster

�� United Nations Development Programme Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean

Gerardo BerthinGovernance and Decentralization Policy Adviser

�� United Nations Development Programme, mexico

Magdy Martínez-SolimánResident Representative

Diego AntoniDemocratic GovernanceProgramme Director

Cristina MagañaProject Coordinator“Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective”

Dafne GómezResearch and Operations Assistant“Indigenous Regulatory Systems and State Intervention in Indigenous Communities: the Role of Political and Social Participation from a Gender Perspective”

�� Responsible for the Proceedings

Elsa Barreda UNDP Chiapas

Paulina TrujilloUNDP Chiapas

Rebeca KoloffonUNDP Chiapas

�� Editorial Coordination

Dafne GómezUNDP México

�� Analysis and Document Elaboration

Paloma BonfilReseacher GIMTRAP

Gerardo BerthinUNDP Regional Center for Latin America and the Caribbean

�� Edition and Translation to English

Philomena Linehan

5 (Spanish 5)

�� INDEX

�� Foreword

�� I. Introduction/Background and Objectives of the Seminar

�� II. Principal Findings and Themes

�� III. Latin American Scenarios

�� IV. Local Government and Indigenous Political Participation: Discussion Themes

�� V. Indigenous Peoples’ Local Government models: Cases Discussed

�� VI. Gender Outlook in Local Governments

�� VII. Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous Peoples’ Governance

�� VIII. Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples

�� ANNEX: Seminar Agenda

�� Acronyms

��

7

9

17

27

33

49

59

65

75

83

87

7 (Spanish 7)

The Regional Seminar on Local Govern-ments and Indigenous Peoples was orga-nized because of the common interest

and joint effort by the United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP) Mexico, the UNDP Democratic Governance Practice Area of the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Ca-ribbean, the UNDP Regional Service Centre in Panama and UNDP’s Bureau for Development Policies (BDP/DGG). The objective was to make better known the various initiatives in the region on issues concerning local governments and indigenous peoples. The seminar offered an op-portunity to know, share and systematize lessons learned, progress made, obstacles encountered, and initiatives proposed in the region.

We thank those invited (colleagues from the region’s country offices) for agreeing to take part in this reflection exercise and for sharing valuable and relevant information.

Similarly, we want to recognize the support and commitment from UNDP BDP colleagues, as well as from those from RBLAC and the Regional Service Centre. Special thanks are due to Lenni Montiel, UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator in Turkmenistan, who at the time of designing this initiative served as Senior Local Governance Advisor of BDP’s Democratic Governance Group.

In Latin America reflection about democracy and local governance has a central place. This is a key reason to strengthen channels for reflec-tion and provide spaces where different local realities can be discussed. Doing so will give more elements to tackle the region’s historic challenges in national settings that are marked by a distancing between citizens and politics and its actors. It will also enable us to confront the emergence or intensification of social phe-nomena that impede human development due to marginalization, inequality, discrimination, insecurity and increasing violence.

In this regard, to be able to have an opportu-nity to reflect on local-national experiences from a regional perspective provides a comparative framework.

While in the past three decades important advances have been made in the region in un-derstanding these democratization processes in various countries of the region, perhaps the most diverse and most complex to analyze is that concerning both the local area and decen-tralization policies.

Foreword

8 (Spanish 8)

Hence the importance of focusing on local public spaces and government policies and ac-tions developed in them as a means of enriching the debate about what is happening at national or regional level.

Equally important is to identify conditions and circumstances that facilitate – or conversely prevent – the emergence of political leadership and democratic capacity-building among vul-nerable groups or in those that have been historically excluded.

In addition to the undeniable democratiza-tion advances in the region, we must also pay attention to the fact that the local and community levels have a long path to follow. Today, local governments are better known for their opaci-ty rather than for their transparency. Moreover, there is no functional link between federal or central policies, local or municipal programmes, whether due to institutional design or to a lack of coordination between levels of government; or lack of state, resources and institutionality. Of concern is also the lack of channels for social participation and political representation to encourage constructing a citizenry increasingly involved in local public affairs.

The commitment societies have made to local democracy should be strengthened to allow citizens to improve their situation and become political subjects who are responsible for their community’s human development.

It is in the local space where women and indigenous communities should be better able to enforce their political and collective rights by, for example, having access to local govern-ment bodies, or because political leaderships emerge who introduce their group’s or com-munity’s priority themes in the local agenda, an even in the national or international agendas.

It is also in the local space where women and indigenous communities should have much more to say about the effectiveness and rele-vance of the social policies, public works and municipal services being the direct beneficiaries and go-betweens with authorities. It is ultimately at local level where some practices occur that are contrary to universal human rights and the desire for political participation.

Reflecting on local governments, indigenous governments, development and gender, is an obligation for those of us who want to help build and strengthen democracy.

Magdy Martínez-SolimánResident Representative

UNDP Mexico

Alvaro PintoCoordinator

Democratic Governance Cluster

1Introduction/ Background and Objetives of theSeminar

11 (Spanish 11)

Introduction/Background

and Objetives of the Seminar Gerardo Berthin, Governance and Decentralization Policy Adviser, UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Over the past decade the indigenous peo-ples of Latin America have become in-creasingly vocal in national and local

political scenarios and have forced countries and societies to give a specific response to their demands for inclusion, participation and citi-zenship, as well as to recognize their cultural and collective rights. A first result is that there are now areas where indigenous peoples can be represented, express their desire for self-deter-mination and make their impact felt, but where they face new challenges that come with diversity when building and consolidating the region’s democratic governance.

The Universal Declaration on the Rights of In-digenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations Organization in 2007, requires constant revision. United Nations agencies should also rethink their strategies and work together to respond to questions concerning inclusion processes that recognize the demands made by of indigenous peoples worldwide that their diversity be accept-ed and promoted.

During the past two decades many demo-cratic reforms have taken place throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. All the countries in the region, at different speeds and using differ-ent strategies, are undergoing a political trans-formation –to some degree in response to the perception of ineffective government– by im-proving public administration and introducing more in-depth democratic changes; to a great extent these changes are encouraged not only by decentralization and citizens’ demands for a more effective State, but also by democratic ideals about giving them new opportunities to help close the rural-urban gap and achieve a fairer and more transparent distribution of public resources.

12 (Spanish 12)

In Latin America sub-national and local governments that are closer to the population are increasingly receiving more demands and proposals from indigenous peoples and their representatives. Some countries, Bolivia and Ecuador for example, can be thought of as labo-ratories of political expressions and practices in a local environment that is in full development.

Various experiences show the vibrant and growing range of indigenous peoples’ political participation in local government, such as: pro-cesses concerning autonomy and self-deter-mination and/or resistance; situations where violence and/or serious conflicts occur within institutionalized democratic structures; or under a traditional and original order of authority and government. These experiences, although recent and novel, make an important contribution to the region’s democratic governance and have led to the emergence of new political stakeholders and ways of exercising power at national and local level.

Several Latin American countries are rethink-ing how to develop and manage public policies with decentralization designed to strengthen local governments. They are also fostering ver-tical and horizontal conversational networks; promoting and strengthening cooperation pro-tocols between stakeholders; recreating a new language of involvement at the different levels of the State and between the State and citizens; and demanding greater transparency and ac-countability. Growing demands made by indig-enous peoples on local governments are part of the process. And although not yet complete, it is an experience to be recorded and sup-ported, and about which information should be disseminated to give a better understanding of indigenous peoples’ political participation opportunities and their potential impact on na-tional and local decision-making.

Considering the above, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) organized the first Regional Seminar on Local Governments and Indigenous Peoples to learn about and ex-change experiences with UNDP country offices in order to prepare a shared reference format and establish a foundation for new regional strategies. One objective of the seminar was to systematize experiences to summarize the les-sons learned.

The seminar was suggested and financially supported by UNDP’S Bureau of Development Policy (BDP) in New York. In October 2009 Lenni Montiel, at the time Senior Policy Adviser for the Democratic Governance Group of BDP, held discussions with the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean in New York, the Policy Adviser on Governance and Decentral-ization Policies of UNDP for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the UNDP Resident Repre-sentative in Mexico about holding the seminar in Chiapas, Mexico.

Between October and December 2009, Gerardo Berthin, Diego Antoni (Director of the UNDP-Mexico Democratic Governance Pro-gramme), and Pablo Gago (who at that time assisted Lenni Montiel in New York), held several virtual meetings to begin organizing the seminar. Late in November 2009 in Seville, Spain, Oscar Torrens, Director of the UNDP office in Chiapas, Mexico, joined the organizing committee. In January 2010, when Diego Antoni was on mis-sion in Haiti during the disaster, the organization of the seminar was entrusted to a two-member team in the UNDP Office in Mexico: Cristina Magaña and Daphne Gomez. They were asked to design the seminar and arrange the logistics of participation by UNDP programme officers, national counterparts and regional experts.

13 (Spanish 13)

The team and the seminar were supported by: Alvaro Pinto, Democratic Governance Co-ordinator at RBLAC; Gerardo Noto and Ferran Cabrero, RBLAC; Ana Maria Lopez and Cristina Martin, UNDP-Mexico; and Mauricio Espinosa and Dayana Guillen, UNDP’s Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean. Key inputs for the agenda and topics for discussion were provided by: Christian Jette, UNDP-Bolivia; José Eusebio Guoz, UNDP-Guatemala; Marco Estella, UNDP-Colombia; Mario Solari, UNDP-Peru; Veronique Gerard and Jorge Servin, UNDP-Para-guay; and Jesus Virgilio Rivera, UNDP-Nicaragua.

The seminar was held in the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas on 15 and 16 April 2010 and was attended by more than 40 partici-pants including officials from UNDP offices in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, New York, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Thailand. Academics and invited experts also took part in the discussions.

It was designed under three basic assump-tions. First of all, “local governments/indigenous peoples” was a new theme with very little back-ground information available either in UNDP or elsewhere. It was therefore proposed that it be an “internal” regional seminar with invited guests to enrich the discussion and provide UNDP with a map on which to outline and project policies, initiatives and partnerships on the theme.

Second, the seminar could serve as an in-strument to allow for analyses, exchanges and systematization not only to better understand the current characteristics of the theme of “lo-cal governments/indigenous peoples” but also to learn more about advances and challenges. It was important to review the different forms and models used by local governments and in-digenous peoples in the region and analyse how they can be improved.

Third, a number of dilemmas are still unsolved concerning the seminar’s theme. A preliminary look at specific studies,1 such as Chiapas, indi-cates that indigenous people may find the sub-ject of local governments to be paradoxical. On the one hand, during the last two decades local spaces have been strengthened by being given greater political power and responsibilities, by receiving and mobilizing additional resources, and by taking more responsibility for public services. This makes them a fertile ground for designing and implementing public policies as well as for democratization and development strategies. On the other hand, a constitutionally established local space can be limited as to tra-ditional forms of indigenous government: it tends to disrupt the original system of organization and decision-making by weakening institutions (such as the assembly and the cargo system) still in force in many places and, in some cases, sup-plant original forms and practices of governance.

The seminar’s methodology, therefore, was intended to be an exercise in building a shared framework from the bottom up or “local” in this case represented both by national contexts and practical local government experiences in each country, and “global” shared frameworks con-sidered as those with which UNDP could pre-pare new strategies on indigenous participa-tion in local-level governments and structures.

The seminar’s programme was divided into four thematic segments allowing an analysis to be made of: context; cases and experiences according to sub-regions; transversal elements; opportunities and challenges (see Agenda in the Annex). By so doing, intermediate scenarios were built of coincidences and specific issues in models of indigenous political participation and local-level impact. Sub-regions represented were:

1. For example, see the two reports (2006 and 2010) on Human Development of the Indigenous Peoples in Mexico.

REFERENCES

14 (Spanish 14)

Mexico and Central America (with cases from Mexico, Guatemala and Nicaragua); the Andean re-gion (Bolivia, Peru and Colombia); and the Southern region (Paraguay). Time was made avail-able to address additional strategic and complementary issues including: indigenous land management in community territories and how it is related to local governments (municipalities); governance of territorial claims and the well-being of indigenous peoples; gender issues and fe-male indigenous movements and local authorities; and the territory as an area for indigenous peo-ples’ programming, planning and autonomy.

To meet the seminar’s objectives of generating new knowledge and creating possible new strat-egies, the agenda left plenty of room for discussions and exchanges and four thematic roundtables were organized to prepare specific proposals on issues identified as important, priority and il-lustrative. The following topics were discussed:

Roundtable 1: Regulatory/Legal Analysed: harmonizing local legislation with the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; recognizing indigenous peoples’ institutionality; and the electoral framework.

Roundtable 2: Decentralization, public administration and government programmesAnalysed: local governments; indigenous peoples’ governments; indigenous land management; inputs for analysis and challenges.

Roundtable 3: Participation of indigenous peoples in election and decision-making processesAnalysed: the main electoral trends and challenges, also looked at specifically from the indigenous peoples’ point of view.

Roundtable 4: Dialogue and building agreementsAnalysed: indigenous movements; displaced persons and refugees; and capacity building to reach agreements, among others.

15 (Spanish 15)

The roundtable discussions were an inte-gration exercise between UNDP’s practical ex-perience and proposals put forward by invited stakeholders to hear different views about indigenous peoples’ situations.

To enable new scenarios and priority areas of attention to be established, discussions ranged from specific experiences of indigenous peoples and local governance to national scenarios and transversal problems. The wide-ranging compo-sition of the roundtables improved the discus-sions and resulting proposals; it also provided key inputs for this report.

The main objective of the report is to record experiences of local governance and indigenous peoples in seven countries in Latin America (Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicara-gua, Paraguay and Peru). It neither qualifies nor compares experiences. It is rather an attempt to analyse and understand seven different dynamics

in their respective political contexts, with their respective protagonists, achievements and challenges. It is intended to complement broader efforts already made and to offer a reflection as a programming and policy input.

By examining these experiences, a basic framework emerges to understand the design, implementation, critical situations and other elements needed to support local governance and indigenous peoples. The document focuses on processes that allow useful lessons to be identified by those who are already promoting this type of activity or are contemplating doing so. Since they are works in progress, no judgement is made about their quality, but it is hoped the dialogue will be helped by examining them. Readers are offered these deliberations as a contribution to the debate and a way to share different outlooks and convergent points of view about a common theme whose solution requires much imagination and exchange of experiences.

2Principal Findings and Themes

19 (Spanish 19)

Principal Findings and Themes

The principal analytical focal points, pre-sented in greater detail in the body of the document, are: (i) the diversity and special

features of national cases; (ii) general and shared concerns; (iii) relevant factors in national scenari-os, in UNDP’s institutional work in each case, and local environmental implications.

It was important to review the regional condi-tions in which indigenous participation in local government takes place given that the diversity of experiences, from how national government functions to obstacles hindering autonomy and community-level management, pose serious challenges but also provide opportunities when establishing an institutional policy framework. Despite differences, a shared agenda was pre-pared that reflected local conditions, within national borders and in international forums and venues with a bearing on the performance of UNDP, its counterparts and associates.

It was evident that instruments are needed to allow UNDP country offices and other stake-holders to develop national strategies that effec-tively respond to local conditions characterized, among other things, by the extent to which in-digenous movements are taken into account and by their impact on local governments.

Common characteristics were identified in relation to local indigenous governments with national structures of authority and political rep-resentation. For example, political parties and the different ways they relate to indigenous organi-zations and movements, ranging from collabo-ration to inclusion, and even to how indigenous parties are constituted.

Within the general scenarios an analysis was made of the importance and relevance of the impact international mechanisms have in the region in promoting the opening of spaces for political participation of indigenous people at all government levels. However, not all Latin Amer-ican governments have signed or comply with international agreements on the rights of indig-enous peoples living within their borders.

20 (Spanish 20)

�� ANALySIS FOCAL POINTS

In this context, the following themes were the focal points of the analysis:

�� a. Governance

First of all the need was established to recognize that today local governance in Latin America, be-sides being the expression of national contexts and social structures, includes different political systems. These are, perhaps, the factors with the greatest effect on the conditions under which indigenous local government functions. Then a comparative analysis showed a disfunction be-tween the knowledge, traditions and customs of indigenous peoples and the societies they live in; this means intercultural processes are not al-ways either equal or horizontal and, therefore, it is difficult to advance a broad democratic and inclusive model of the type of government the region needs.

It is necessary to record and address the diversity of local government patterns in in-digenous communities and, because national power structures often limit and ignore their authority and legitimacy, the different ways such governments respond to the demands of their communities.

Also analysed was the importance of taking into account the diversity of indigenous com-munities according to their different levels of social cohesion. It was remarked that this social cohesion affects their local governance and how they interact with national-level socio-political structures, as well as whether their projects and agendas are sound and feasible. Constant ad-aptations must also be taken into account; if they are not included in any UNDP support proposal or strategy action taken would have

little effect on promoting inclusive relationships between national and sub-national socio-polit-ical structures and indigenous peoples and orga-nizations. This is particularly relevant because some indigenous peoples have sound organi-zational structures but share the same scenario with others whose social fabric is being torn and who are under pressure from the disruptive forc-es of migration, social breakdown, and uneven integration.

Mention was made of the need to regionalize diversity as a basis for UNDP action strategies. This is especially important because so far most policies meant to recognize indigenous peoples’ collective and political rights in different coun-tries are essentially uniform in their conception and approaches and, therefore, end up by failing to recognize the internal diversity of the indig-enous groups living within different national borders.

Other challenges to democratic governance were mentioned (in the political system, in repre-sentative democracies and in institutions repre-senting national and local governments) that continue to make more demands as the search continues for new opportunities and solutions. In view of the dimension and complexity of na-tional and regional problems, it is at local level that it is becoming more likely to find feasible, structured, well thought out, and agreed upon solutions that indigenous people can put into effect with their own type of governance.

21 (Spanish 21)

The feasibility and importance of the com-mitment to what is local are also confirmed by learning that as national governance crises fes-tered and erupted, more localized parallel gover-nance efforts were made while, at the same time, indigenous peoples had accepted the proposal to build national and local governance with their own outlook and vision of the future; this outlook allows for what has been called a more inclusive “new democratic governance” to make more explicit and operational the legal recog-nition of diversity.

It is essential that diversity be recognized if a new model of democratic governance, whether national or local, is to be adopted that takes into account and opens the way for different political and social stakeholders and including indigenous peoples. This type of new democratic governance must confront the struggle between dominant forces vying for entry to and/or coordination with power structures and indigenous govern-ments. Dilemmas are appearing, for example in Andean countries where indigenous peoples are not homogeneous groups and there are political and cultural differences between the highland Andean people and those living in the lowlands. Also, while some indigenous groups in Latin America have found positions of political power, others are still struggling for recognition as legitimate political stakeholders; this happens with the people in the Amazon region and in particular in Paraguay where indigenous people make up 1.7 per cent of the country’s population. In this respect, local democratic governance associated with local indigenous authority may be linked to the idea of territorialized communi-ties, indigenous communities, parishes, or other forms of territorial administration where indig-enous territorial autonomies could flourish.

At regional level it is seen that, apart from the experience of Ecuador and the current process in Bolivia where indigenous people are or have been the country’s governing force, because indigenous local governments are often formed in ways that are national and formal rather than with their own mechanisms, indigenous political participation is often conditioned and limited by the constraints of a traditional democratic model and by centralizing trends. A true intercultural exercise based on their own democratic gover-nance would imply managing indigenous ter-ritorial entities according to their ancestral methods and, therefore, they would have both the right and the conditions to administer their own territory’s resources under their own reg-ulations. It is in this context that challenges ap-pear concerning coordination between what is local and national, and even between what is regional and global, as well as about establishing the importance of dialogue and making it pos-sible to consolidate indigenous institutions. In any case, to exercise government implies con-textualizing the Western institutional pattern, particularly with regard to resource management and fiscal arrangements; it is at these levels that indigenous governments continue to be restrict-ed to following the Western standard although in other areas it is easier to seek other arrange-ments that more resemble their own outlook.

Democratic governance as it concerns gov-ernment by local indigenous representations inevitably leads to a new relationship between the State and the indigenous peoples and to a new legal political status that must be considered if the State’s institutions are to be redefined. Legal variations must be identified that go be-yond simple declarations and affect the whole constitutional structure. However, the issue of democratic governance when indigenous rep-resentatives exercise local authority and power has not yet reached ministries of finance for example, even though it is already included in national constitutions.

22 (Spanish 22)

�� b. Worldview

One topic raised was indigenous peoples’ cultural identity, including aspects of indigenous worldviews and how they relate to local gover-nance. Because performing public duties and functions of government as well as exercising authority – and democratic governance itself – are closely linked to a new ethical and socio-political perception, describing the worldview of indigenous concepts of development, participa-tion and/or public policies causes innumerable dilemmas. Indigenous social organization is re-lated to each community’s cosmogony with its view of life as the guiding principle of all human activities and of the natural scenarios of which they are a part. Since human relationships are a part of life itself, everything is inter-related.

There are also ethical codes that are part of a government support system in which, in general, a person’s word is his or her bond and the honour of serving the community is of prime importance. And these ethical codes of belong-ing and reciprocity that validate the “legality” of indigenous exchanges since the word alone is what counts whether when making a contract or solving a conflict, even though the prevailing national legal system requires an indigenous authority to keep a written record of its decisions.

The analysis showed the importance and ne-cessity of documenting the political viewpoint, the ethical discourse and the future of indige-nous government and its policy objective of a “good life” or “living well” based on worldviews that link thought with feeling and build decision-making areas to achieve the community’s well-being when confronted with the unfair and alien-ating terms imposed by development models and that have denied indigenous social identities and mechanisms. In many cases, political and government offices are occupied by indigenous representatives under a prevailing “colonized settlers” logic and not as an alternate government and development proposal based on the distinct identities of Latin America’s indigenous peoples.

Among the clear differences identified be-tween how non-indigenous and indigenous government performs, emphasis was placed on dedication to service and how the values of government functions are respected; in indig-enous communities this means that while there are advantages for those who govern they are conditioned by the formality of the office and by being subordinate to the community. Thus, the indigenous conception of local government is based on seeking equality, the discrete handling of conflicts, balance and consensus, the value of accumulating prestige, a disinterest in acquiring power, and on solidarity.

Among the bridging and dialogue mecha-nisms between indigenous and formal local government systems community consultation has been rescued as a characteristic method in-digenous peoples use to make decisions affect-ing the community and to decide what actions to take to build and develop democracy.

23 (Spanish 23)

�� c. Shared and Individual Scenarios in Latin America

Institutional work by UNDP with indigenous peoples and national and local governments in the region is marked by its diversity. On the one hand, conditions have been identified in the sub-region of Mexico and Central America that allow support to be given to indigenous local government processes. In Guatemala, for exam-ple, civic committees with indigenous participa-tion and community principles have legitimacy among the indigenous population and are main-tained as an alternative form of dealing with the State and national society. In some cases an indigenous mayor was elected and, by being a socially validated representative, opened up op-portunities for community participation. How-ever, this is infrequent and did not happen in every municipality and/or region; the Ixil area is an example where the civic committee was co-opted by dominant political interests.

Linguistic multiplicity is another challenge of diversity. In Guatemala 24 indigenous languages are spoken and in Mexico there are more than 96. This has many implications for democratic governance, particularly when it comes to pro-moting indigenous State representation. There may be alliances and agreements, for example, about protecting indigenous institutions or au-tonomy; however, these are not always micro-level alliances or on inter-ethnic borders so that confrontations or conflicts may occur. When this happens, the best support must be sought to recognize indigenous institutions’ legitimacy and representation as emblems of the people’s strug-gles and conquests.

Another example is that of people in lowland Bolivia who use strategies to defend their au-tonomy and, 28 years ago, formed a regional indigenous movement that has had an impact and some of the results of which were to: con-solidate indigenous territories; prepare different levels of territorial planning; and promote their own management systems. In 2006 indigenous women were encouraged to participate in deci-sion-making; sustainable use began to be made of renewable natural resources; the regulatory system began to be fully implemented, espe-cially by promulgating laws on managing land resources; local technicians and community leaders were trained and their capacities built as best practices for governing their territories; a relationship was established and an impact made on public and private institutions in the region; demonstration projects were implemented according to each region’s potential; the School of Projects for Indigenous Peoples (ESIPIRO) was established; and the Agrarian Reform Law approved.

In the case of the Andean peoples in Bolivia in particular, the Ayllu is a traditional form of community territorial management that includes the community’s legislative organization to attend to its educational and health needs. The Ayllu system allows an analysis to be made of indigenous peoples’ conditions and needs on which public policy forecasts founded on local-ized indicators are used to prepare a baseline for local-level indigenous government. It is a cultural construction expressed in “natural, cos-mic, technical and political” indicators.

24 (Spanish 24)

Several of the cases discussed showed how the exercise of local indigenous government has developed in parallel with building political dis-course, also indigenous, and affirming existing territoriality resulting from the history of indig-enous peoples and their inherited ancestral cultures. This suggests that indigenous autono-mies are also historical and have always existed, while Ayllu territories are connected and inter-dependent. The complexity of this political structure includes different levels and mecha-nisms of community land planning, departmen-tal forums and councils, but also other forms of political organization and management built on the territory’s realities.

In Bolivia the indigenous government’s po-litical discourse states that the role of the indig-enous authority and its institutions is to ensure food production and systematize political practice to activate the Ayllu model and ensure indigenous political participation. This does not prevent difficulties due, above all, to indigenous sectors being “colonized” by the political leadership as well as by political parties.

The cases presented show that all the indig-enous peoples of the continent have their own social, political, and economic structures in vary-ing degrees of consolidation. It can be argued, therefore, that indigenous peoples do not have only one way of making policies at local level and there is no reason why a different approach should not be found. In the Andean countries, for example, the Quechua and Aymara cultures have developed their own community policy proposals; however, when they were presented to national governments they were disallowed and even banned as illegal. The ultimate goal of the protests has always been the constitutional recognition of communal forms of government. And even in view of the various intellectual, conscience, and identity limitations, these issues must be analysed and resolved to make possible a type of government with a distinct, diverse and different identity.

In 2008 in Paraguay, before the government changed in 2009, the Coordinator of Self-De-termination of the Indigenous Peoples (CAPI), in partnership and collaboration with UNDP, presented a public policies proposal. With a historical background of omission and failure to take adequate and pertinent action for the indigenous peoples, it sought to reverse their condition of exclusion and inequality by respect-ing indigenous self-determination; this would be done by creating new government institutions, especially at local level, establishing specialized indigenous jurisprudence and introducing leg-islative reforms to recognize indigenous rights. In this initiative, each indigenous community has its own internal regulations to establish a penal framework based on local realities and social structures in what is called “autonomy with-in autonomy” as a regional exercise in structuring its own levels of development.

It can be seen, therefore, in different Latin American contexts indigenous communities and governments establish and practise new forms of local government, and these experiences should be recorded and information on them disseminated to encourage and nurture all levels of democratic governance processes. This is governance based not only on national but also on local and culturally inclusive criteria, as well as on knowledge of the territory. Solidarity was raised at the seminar as another key element to allow indigenous peoples to foster democratic governance; also discussed was the prevailing notion of justice and the differences that have occurred within indigenous governments. Indig-enous societies have an all-embracing view of governance, in contrast to a decentralized secto-rial vision. By linking these elements the diversity of indigenous and local forms of government would be recognized.

25 (Spanish 25-26)

For its part, the experience of indigenous local government is mixed with other features of social and cultural transformation. For example, there is a new generation of indigenous women with higher levels of education and with scenarios and prospects of participating in their communities very different from those of the previous gen-eration, or of uneducated women in general.

This emergence of women as social stakehold-ers has taken place in the midst of tensions in the relationship between indigenous structures and women’s rights organizations; the rela-tionship has not been easy because the debate about the meaning of indigenous women’s po-litical participation still remains unresolved.

�� d. The work of UNDP

Reflecting the indigenous peoples’ distinct and various manifestations in the region’s countries, UNDP’s work experience can indicate challenges that are shared, and above all, can identify local strategies to respond to needs, situations and/or specific demands. In Peru for example, before the conflict in Bagua that broke out on 5 June 2009 due to the privileges given to the mining industry, the government asked for international assistance and it still receives support from the International Labour Organization and UNDP. The latter has strengthened a direct communi-cation channel with the indigenous population and has been able to position and identify UNDP as a strategic ally. Government authorities have also identified this initiative as a necessary plat-form for dialogue with indigenous representa-tives. This is a successful lesson learned.

In Paraguay, where some Mbyá Guaraní peo-ple were isolated, UNDP promoted talks with representatives of indigenous organizations and supported the recognition of their territories. An important achievement was the agreement signed between the Ministry of Environment and the country’s indigenous organizations. In another example, in Chiapas, Mexico, the first component and main objective of the pro-gramme on displaced persons is to establish jurisdiction over the issue, at least at state level in view of its absence from Mexican law, and to compensate the population for the territorial damage and injustice suffered. A second com-ponent is to build bridges of understanding and dialogue for a peace process between good government bodies that are civil entities of the rebel Zapatista movement and the national gov-ernment. The need was stressed to learn more about and to recognize regional experiences of indigenous social movements in Latin America in cases such as the EZLN in Mexico.

(Spanish 26) 26

�� PRINCIPAL PROPOSALS

Taking the above analysis as a starting point the seminar allowed time for plenary discussion sessions at roundtables where proposals and strategies were outlined to support initiatives on local governance and indigenous peoples. The results cover a wide range of issues relating to the dynamics and inner workings of UNDP, as well as how to include indigenous represen-tatives in local governance and their complex and varied relationship with national political administrations. The most significant lines of action suggested at the seminar are described in section VIII on Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples.

More details are given below about the dis-cussions and reflections on which the proposals were based and give an insight into the wealth of experience gained from the institutional link between UNDP and the indigenous represen-tations of the countries in the region.

3Latin AmericanScenarios

29 (Spanish 29)

�� GUATEmALA

There are 24 indigenous peoples in Guate-mala (22 Maya, Garifuna and Xinka) who, according to official census figures, make up

42 per cent of the population; however, in a state system that keeps them out of sight, as shown by flaws in the census figures, indigenous organi-zations believe the figure is higher, even above 60 per cent. The remaining population is made up of Ladinos and Mestizos.

Guatemala is living through a post-war period, the social fabric is damaged and it continues to have a state structure that is historically mono-cultural, concentrated, exclusionary, discrimina-tory and racist towards indigenous peoples who have resisted policies of segregation, assimilation and integration to allow them to continue their ancestral ways of life and their organization.

2. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Jesus Virgilio Rivera, Mario Solari and Marco Stella.

REFERENCES

Latin American Scenarios2

• Guatemala• Nicaragua• Colombia• Peru

30 (Spanish 30)

To ensure the local and national democratic coexistence of indigenous peoples it is imperative to recognize their ancestral organization struc-tures and characteristics. The indigenous orga-nization has its own authority figures: doctors, midwives, spiritual leaders, village heads, etc., characterized by a lifestyle of community service with a strict selection process used to award each position. The State assigns municipal mayors a key role as stakeholders. While mayors play a pivotal and central organizational role and may be indigenous, they do not necessarily practice indigenous norms and principles, irrespective of their identity.

As mentioned earlier, all matters concerning indigenous peoples’ organization are related to their theory of cosmogony where life is the pillar supporting all activities: everything is life and everything is alive; everything is inter-related.

A person’s word is taken very seriously and given great value and honour, and it is the bond that confirms all transactions such as contracts even though written records are required to be kept. In addition, decisions that affect an indigenous community are taken by consulting the entire community.

Because development models are imposed on indigenous people without their involvement and totally misinterpret their way of life, they them-selves must participate in and make decisions at the different levels of the State’s hierarchy. There are lapses when it comes to implementing ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, including the absence of regulations on the exploitation of resources that take account of the collective rights indigenous peoples have over their territories.

�� NICARAGUA

A description of Nicaragua’s Autonomous Ter-ritories (the RAAN and the RAAS) is given in Section V.

The Eighth National Census and the Fourth Housing Census show that the two territories have a population of 620,640 or 12.07 per cent of the country’s total; they cover a land area of 60.366 km2 or 47 per cent of the national terri-tory. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) it is a multiethnic and multicultural region inhabited by indigenous people and ethnic communities such as the Miskito, Sumu-Mayangna, Rama, Creol, Garifuna and Mestizo.

These territories have major potential natural resources of which the most important are Fisheries, Water, Forestry and Mining. Accord-ing to figures taken from the Human Develop-ment Report 2005 “The Autonomous Regions of the Caribbean Coast: Nicaragua Accepts its Diversity?” prepared by UNDP, the Autonomous Regions contribute six per cent to the GDP mostly due to raw material production (primary sector).3 In the primary sector Fisheries has 42.3 per cent; Forestry 30.9 per cent; Livestock 21.3 per cent; and Agriculture 13.2 per cent.

3. This primary sector contributes with more than 18 per cent of Nicaragua’s GDP.

REFERENCES

31 (Spanish 31)

In contrast, despite having one of the country’s largest natural resources potential they have the greatest poverty. Twelve of the 25 poorest municipalities in Nicaragua with low Human Development Indexes are in these regions.4 Ranging from 0 to 1, the RAAN has an index of 0.466 and the RAAS 0.454.5 A characteristic is the poor communications, energy, highways and social services infrastructure.

The Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua recognizes the country as multiethnic and mul-ticultural. Also recognized is the right of the indigenous peoples in the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast to use their natural resourc-es and preserve their cultures and languages. The Constitution also guarantees the autonomy of the Atlantic Coast regions governed by Law 28, “Statute of Autonomy of the Atlantic Coast

Regions of Nicaragua” (1987) and its regulations.6 The rules establish the Autonomous Regional Councils as the highest bodies of authority of the Autonomous Regional Government, and the Government Coordinators as the President’s executives and representatives in the autono-mous regions.

In 1990 the first Autonomous Regional Coun-cils were elected and since then six further elections have been held to renew them (1990, 1994, 1998, 2002 2006 and 2010). However, the autonomous institutional framework is still weak. Despite the different legal instruments regulating the public sector, there are no smooth coordi-nation mechanisms between the different levels of government: Central; Regional, Municipal; and Territorial-Community.

The following is a description of the four levels of government with political and administra-tive autonomy.

Ð Community. Legally recognized by the Political Constitution, Law 28 (Statute of Autonomy for the Atlantic Coast Regions of Nicaragua) and Law 445 (Law of Communal Property Regime of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Rivers Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maiz).

Ð Municipal. Legally recognized and regulated by Law 40 and its reform Law 286 (Municipal Autonomy) stating the municipalities in the Autonomous Regions are governed both by the above-mentioned Laws and by the Regional Autonomy Law.

Ð Regional. Established by Law 28 on Regional Autonomy and its Regulation. Ð National. Law 290 on the Organization, Jurisdiction and Procedures of the

Executive Branch, gives ministries and autonomous entities the power to organize and be present “throughout the national territory” regardless of its limitations or the conflicts this power may cause in the Autonomous Regions because of the legislations detailed above, all of which have the same or higher legal status (Law 28).

REFERENCES

4. The Human Development Index mainly measures access to health, education and economic income.

5. Human Development Report 2005. Autonomous Regions of the Caribbean Coast; Nicaragua Accepts its Diversity?

6. Decree No. 3584 of the National Assembly approved in 2003.

REFERENCES

32 (Spanish 32)

According to the National Statistics Department indigenous peoples in Colombia represent 3.5 per cent of the population. They occupy a terri-tory covering between 25 and 27 per cent of the country and comprise more than 90 ethnic groups speaking 64 languages; they live mostly in settlements with fewer than 500 inhabitants.

Colombia’s indigenous peoples are settled mainly, although not exclusively, in Amazonia, along the Pacific Coast, and in the Chocó, Cauca, Nariño, Guajira and Sierra Nevada de Santa Martha regions. These are areas rich in natural resources and have gone through complex pro-cesses of dispersion, conflict, and forced migra-tion. For the most part they are also border territories with a very special political context.

Mining is practised intensively all along the Pacific Coast where hydrocarbon deposits are also found. Considerable coca crops are grown in the Amazonian region in the south. These crops are managed by guerrilla and paramilitary groups that force indigenous populations to cultivate coca leaves and lead to the loss of many tradi-tional indigenous crops. The links to drug traf-ficking, guerrilla warfare and to government forc-es occupying indigenous lands are obvious.

Eighty-five per cent of indigenous communi-ties in Colombia now live in areas protected by law although many of them (records indicate 300,000) live in conditions of internal forced dis-placement due to the presence of armed groups, both legal and illegal. They usually migrate to cities, and therefore, become “urbanized” and “de-etnicized” as part of this uprooting process.

Armed conflict and the displacement of indig-enous peoples occur even though the country has a very advanced constitutional framework dating from 1991 which, at least in theory, de-fends ethnic minorities and in particular indige-nous regions and territories. This is remarkable as being probably the most advanced legal frame-work in this field in Latin America, and possibly in the world, with several constitutional articles providing and recognizing important rights granted to indigenous minorities; it also makes a legal reference to land ownership and the judi-cial system. Under the Constitution indigenous peoples have collective rights and their territories are safeguarded and managed under a regime of collective and transferable ownership that also permits ancestral legislation and jurisprudence in the territory. According to the law indigenous peoples have the right to elect judges, as well as to teach their own language.

�� PERU

Peru has 72 million hectares of tropical for-ests covering 60 per cent of the territory. Ten million indigenous people live in this area in 1,509 indigenous communities. The country has many conflicts: having recently emerged from a period of violence, it now lists 252 latent political

�� COLOmBIA

flashpoints. Forty-six per cent of the problems between the indigenous populations, the State and national society have a socio-environmen-tal origin and of these 68 per cent are conflicts over mineral resources. The number of conflicts increased between 2004 and 2009.

4Local Government and Indigenous Political Participation: Discussion Themes

35 (Spanish 35)

While indigenous peoples now face great challenges they also have opportuni-ties to participate in decision-making

and politics. Being granted indigenous autonomy gives them the right to representation at all levels of government, including community, and allow-ing them to determine whether or not public policies have strengthened their capacities and improved their living standards. Democratic po-litical change in recent years in the region has had the practical effect of renewing the power of the political elites and encouraging more inclusion of the old guards of society.

Local Governmentand Indigenous Political Participation: Discussion Themes7

• Governance as an act of governing• Territoriality as a Means of Acquiring Indigenous Autonomy • Worldview as an Alternative Approach to the Relationship between Society and Nature • Legal and Structural Framework for Democratic Governance

Discussions about indigenous participation in local government should revolve around four local issues including some of the difficulties hin-dering indigenous political participation. The first is the concept of governance based on national criteria that continue to ignore the proposal by indigenous people and movements for a local government community and autonomy model under different types of government. The sec-ond is the importance of territoriality as a path towards indigenous autonomy and types of gov-ernment proposed by indigenous peoples in the framework of Convention 169 and interna-tional agreements on their rights. It is in this context that discussions are held on the terri-tory and territorial practices from a holistic outlook where sectors are not considered and with a view to strengthening democratic relations between different peoples and diverse political and orga-nizational experiences.

7. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Guillermo Tapia, Blanca Ruth Esponda, Araceli Burguete, Marco Stella, Diego Iturralde, María Rosario Saravia Paredes, Paloma Bonfil, Oscar Torrens, Mario Solari, Leonel Cerruto, Jorge Servín, and Jesus Virgilio Rivera.

REFERENCES

36 (Spanish 36)

The third issue is indigenous worldview as an alternative approach to helping to democratize the structures of State, national and local government agencies, political, social and trade union organi-zations, and community and family centres as a prerequisite for building an inclusive and equitable social pact. Finally, the fourth issue is the legal framework concerning all aspects of the rights of indigenous peoples: from effectively implementing international standards to including them in regional and local plans as legal policies and practices.

Governance as a prerequisite for the democratic exercise of diversity is possible only with hori-zontal dialogue and coordination between the State and the indigenous peoples. The persis-tence of unilateralism and the State’s one-sided decision-making power cause political, legal and cultural tensions in response to which the State, as a form of pressure, imposes a forced order including repressive measures such as arresting indigenous leaders and allowing women to be raped. This has induced indigenous peoples to defend their rights and adopt different strategies of resistance, mobilization and opposition. In-digenous mobilization is expressed in different ways in the region and assumes distinctive char-acteristics depending on the diverse socio-his-torical and political contexts still included in each country’s local, regional and global plans.

Because indigenous knowledge, traditions, customs, and intercultural processes have been dismantled advancing a democratic model of government in different national contexts is ob-structed. A distinction must be made between the diversity of existing government schemes in dif-ferent indigenous communities and the multiple ways in which they face national power struc-tures. It is also important to record the different levels of social cohesion in the region’s indige-nous societies. For example, some indigenous peoples are highly organized while others have a social fabric that is disintegrating; these diverse conditions present different challenges and

problems in the relationship with the State and in terms of democratic governance, citizenship and local government. Different methods are employed to harmonize rules that recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples; it is necessary, therefore, to promote political, conceptual and methodological methods of regionalizing diversity; the policies promoted so far have become standardized and do not fully acknowledge their internal diversity.

Concerning processes designed to lead to political participation by indigenous people, two basic levels can be distinguished: the organiza-tional structure of indigenous communities and peoples and pre-existing traditional schemes; and how indigenous participation has been adapted in the face of national power and gov-ernment structures. The crisis of governance in the region means local solutions must be found at the same time as global governance is con-structed. Indigenous peoples must also be con-sulted when another governance proposal is prepared, one that includes and takes them into account and is based on the legal recognition of diversity; otherwise, it will be impossible to promote a new governance model that includes all social stakeholders.

�� GOVERNANCE AS AN ACT OF GOVERNING

37 (Spanish 37-38)

The new governance model should also tackle the struggle between competing hegemonies trying to intervene in communities and even affecting competing interests within indigenous societies (as happens in Andean countries where the Andean culture predominates while other groups struggle for recognition). When it comes to local-level resource management, adminis-trative experiences driven by municipal govern-ments and mayoralties have caused problems because they require indigenous councils’ mech-anisms and structures to adopt an institutional (Western) government resource management structure (including procedures to submit proj-ect proposals, deal with bureaucracies, a lack of transparency about how resources are used and the very frequent problems of corruption, etc.) The new relationship and a new political and legal character of a democratic governance model would require a redefinition of the State’s institutional framework to identify legal and tax variations and how they relate to the constitution.

It is worth asking whether inclusion means (i) indigenous inclusion or incorporation into the Western pattern, or (ii) the State’s inclusion/ad-aptation of the indigenous government in a hor-izontal multicultural relationship. This is impor-tant because while national States fragment large indigenous territories crossing national borders, they also impose their own governance and mechanisms to administer resources and power.

From the cases reviewed it can be seen that the relationship between national States and indigenous peoples is based on still-prevailing racist practices directed against indigenous communities and their traditional government models. National policies and democratic struc-tures continue to oppose indigenous govern-ment structures. Democratic governance that respects diversity is possible if it creates spaces or areas to address racism by engaging in vertical

and horizontal dialogues. Experience shows that indigenous people defend their way of life be-cause they have a clear social project and know what kind of development they want; however, countries do not always take this into account in their development models.

Allowing political participation by indigenous people under a democratic governance model implies recognizing their diversity. State institu-tions in countries like Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Paraguay face the challenge posed by the rights of indigenous people and their still incipi-ent citizenship. On the one hand, indigenous institutions have legal representation because their representatives know their peoples’ history and struggles and are trusted by the communi-ties. However, they must continue to work on: the philosophical foundations of community life; promoting social control processes; and moni-toring elected governments and officials – their own and others – to ensure they respond to the communities and meet their commitments. Doing so would result in active and purposeful indigenous political participation.

On the other hand, frequent conflicts occur between the various governance models because precepts of usage and customs systems and the secular rights of indigenous peoples are still being established. To begin with, despite constitutional recognition and legal support for their rights in many countries, indigenous territorial models are not yet a reality. That explains why the real exercise of democratic governance that includes indigenous peoples and their representatives remains an arduous and protracted task and a challenge that has not yet been met.

38 (Spanish 38)

In Mexico, for example, although there are 2,000 indigenous government institutions nothing allows for the effective recognition of indigenous government. In Paraguay, although political decisions are made at different levels and in different contexts the result has been to make indigenous government “disappear”. In Bolivia indigenous peoples were recognized in the 1990’s when they staged demonstrations in favour of constitutional and legal reforms. How-ever, bad experiences of indigenous local govern-ment become obvious when it is impossible to stop the corruption that permeates relationships, structures and political resources in different countries; furthermore, the problem of account-ability by governments in office, independently of their order or level, is still unsolved. Successful experiences in some countries appear to be the result of eliminating corrupt practices, improving training and the involvement of stakeholders from outside the community.

There is no basis to affirm that there is no indigenous government model, or several models, because there is self-government in all indige-nous social groups; however, they are often not considered to be genuine governments as the general wisdom is that all local governments should conform to western standards. This in turn creates a problem of invisibility, because the rules, institutions, or norms that govern the collective life of indigenous peoples and commu-nities represent diverse forms of government. This must change and legal and political mecha-nisms sought so that these structures of au-thority, principles and rules of conduct may be understood as an exercise in citizenship and gov-ernment. Doing so would encourage concepts about politics, participation and democracy being decolonized and permit intercultural democratic governance. It is a matter of conceiving democ-racy in a context of cultural diversity and avoid-ing the risk of standardization that comes with recognition; the imposition of new rules of as-similation by single entities must be avoided. So far indigenous political participation has been subject to conditions, but the challenge now is for local territorial entities and indigenous forms of government to be managed by their ancestral methods so that indigenous communities can exercise their right to manage resources under their own rules.

39 (Spanish 39)

�� PRINCIPAL CHALLENGES TO GOVERNANCE

When reviewing different countries’ cases and experiences it was noted that a constitutional reform was enacted in Mexico to recognize indig-enous rights; unfortunately the consultations did not include any significant indigenous rep-resentation. Lessons learned point to the need to break away from the tradition of assimilating indigenous peoples into dominant structures as a means of strengthening their autonomy, and to legitimize, both legally and pragmatically, indig-enous peoples as subjects in their own right and valid stakeholders in representing their interests at all levels. It was also noted that Mexico has no institutional policy to include indigenous peo-ples and representations when demands are presented or in policy areas; in other words, diversity is not considered in the country’s formal structures of democracy, not even to include indigenous candidates.

In the Mexican state of Chiapas an attempt was made to summon various political stake-holders including legitimate indigenous repre-sentatives who were allowed to form electoral districts in their own languages and with priority given to an identification system; however, the attempt failed. It follows that effective indige-nous political participation depends on the will of the people as well as on their relationship with the State which, in the case of Mexico, is steeped in inequality. This, in turn, has to do with the existence or otherwise of transparent com-munity consultation mechanisms. Other legal and legitimate methods are needed to reinforcing indigenous political participation, for example by allowing indigenous lawyers to be part of the judiciary.

In Chiapas in 1994 it was agreed to hold talks between indigenous representatives, the EZLN in particular, and the federal government. The first talks were held in San Miguel, and continued in San Andrés until these were broken at the end of 1996. In that decade, following acts of violence in the region by paramilitary groups trained by

the Mexican army and by the Zapatistas, indig-enous people began to be forcibly displaced. The exodus worsened after 1994 and mainly affected those in the northern, central and highland areas of Chiapas.

Before the 1994 conflict local government responded to traditional forms of local-level decision-making and to the mechanisms of po-litical power wielded by caciques (local political bosses) in the region. A mayor was appointed under local usages and customs, the president met with the territory’s councillors occupying positions of service to the community by rotation and a very important community government was formed. Since 1994 the State has been pres-ent not to recognize indigenous rights but rather to impose its own institutions; starting in that year municipalities were strengthened and the result was the breakdown of the previously ex-isting holistic order. At present communal gov-ernment in Mexico has no guaranteed rights and there is no compliance with Article 2 of the national Constitution on the right of self-determi-nation of peoples. Therefore, a series of reforms are still pending because: there has been no compliance with the San Andrés Accords; the government has not kept its promise concerning the peace process which is still inconclusive. The great difference between today and the earlier situation is that now resentments that used to be directed at the upper echelons are between the indigenous peoples themselves; it is unfor-tunate that nothing is being done to make the right of participation a plural process. The cause of one resentment is the failure to respond to the question about how to balance the exercise of individual and collective rights.

The above is important because government rhetoric presents a view focused on attending to the vulnerabilities of different sectors of Chiapas society while taking as a guide whether the Mil-lennium Development Goals are being met under the so-called Chiapas-UNO Agenda and the Plan

40 (Spanish 40)

to Combat Poverty, a programme that seeks to: go beyond welfarism; promote equal opportu-nities through management and participation by different social groups; and transversalize gen-der equality at all levels of government work, including listening to the demands of the indig-enous peoples.

In Chiapas, so as to harmonize public policies in all sectors affecting citizens, action was taken to include the Millennium Development Goals in local planning and consultations were held at state level, although much remains to be done. First of all, legally established authorities (councils) were convoked to allow all their members to issue a resolution (plural representation). Organiza-tions used linking mechanisms to contact local/traditional authorities to tell them about action taken by the government and, even though not many people took part in the consultation, the response was positive. Action was taken with officials to raise awareness so that they could bring the laws to the attention of the most disadvantaged; subsequently an initiative was presented to the state Congress, and unani-mously accepted, about including the MDGs in the state Constitution. Now a move has to be made from the general rule to the regulations, since there are no requirements in regulatory policies that the budget has to reflect how gov-ernment the dependencies perform concerning the MDGs.

Government public policy, its prioritization of municipalities with the state’s lowest Human Development Index, and how the gender focus is transversalized or mainstreamed, has led to participation by more indigenous women who have come together to engage in productive ac-tivities. However, as these are not grassroots proposals as indicated in Convention 169 but come from the government this is still a top-to-bottom process.

In Chiapas part of the state budget has been allocated for work in the 28 municipalities with the lowest Human Development Index (HDI) of which 14 also have the lowest national HDI level. Eighty-five per cent of the indigenous population lives in these municipalities and it is planned to address a historical backwardness and improve how basic services are delivered. A change is being seen because abundant resources are now being channelled from the centre and budgets are available at the different levels of government. However, results show these institutional efforts are still insufficient and there is still much to be done to protect collective rights and the indig-enous peoples’ autonomy and representation.

In Guatemala the main problem of governance is that the State and the political parties lack legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of society in general and of indigenous peoples in par-ticular. Society is in a state of flux and the high concentration of state policies and resources produces economic and political impunity that accentuates a lack of confidence.

There is no effective recognition of collective indigenous rights and public administration is inadequate because local institutions fail to pro-vide opportunities to negotiate or agree to en-courage democratic processes that are harmed by short-term conflicts.

It might be said that democratic governance is impeded because the people have lost confi-dence in their government representatives. Based on the Peace Accords signed in Guatemala in December 1996 it was agreed to promote partici-pation at all levels starting with the community to ensure legal protection of the collective par-ticipation pact. Decentralization was introduced and organizations created which, at least in theory, allow grassroots political participation. The present government has politicized these decentralized institutions that make local deci-sions about projects, while political parties retain the lion’s share and bypass citizen participation.

41 (Spanish 41-42)

Despite the difficulties, three basic levels of participation have existed since 1985 and the National Council for Urban and Rural Develop-ment, a product of the Peace Accords, included the community structure. This initiative creates Local Development Committees which, when meeting as an assembly, comprise the Munici-pal Development Committees governed by the elected mayors. Together this group forms the Departmental Council that includes the depart-mental governor and national State represen-tatives. Even though there is still no structure for the country’s regions there is one for the Regional Council.

On the other hand, a community consultation process is a characteristic mechanism used by indigenous peoples to make decisions that affect the community and, to abide by the mandates of Convention 169, still need to be adapted, con-solidated and linked to local councils. Those in power, and especially the municipal councils, have a firm commitment to their people and engage in collective consultations. So far the councils have led the consultations although with departmen-tal and regional interests in mind; because the local councils have not been sufficiently strength-ened Congress has to take action in this respect.

For their part, civic committees founded on indigenous participation and community prin-ciples have been maintained over time and are supported by a resistance mechanism that poses a challenge to the State. An indigenous mayor was even elected twice in Guatemala and this allowed the community to participate while ar-rangements were made for genuine community participation. However, this has not occurred everywhere; for example, in the Ixil area the civic committee was co-opted by outside interests.

More details about Colombia are provided in Section III. As mentioned, in the southern part of Amazonia coca leaf cultivation is growing in importance and is obviously linked to drug traf-ficking, guerrilla warfare and State occupation of territories. The State provides the growing urban

indigenous population with welfare programmes and no other stakeholders are allowed to work with them. For the time being not even UNDP is taking action in this respect.

The government budget for resource man-agement is administered by the municipalities and resources that reach the mayoralty are ad-ministered and protected by the mayor. None-theless, community authorities (indigenous council) provide accountability using Western standards and not necessarily to the commu-nity, as indigenous governance prescribe. The Indigenous Council, under other forms of ad-ministration and stewardship, then has to adapt resource management to the Western structure: that is a draft budget and investment project must be delivered; procedures have to be fol-lowed that are not typical indigenous customs; and this occurs in an area of government where there is usually little transparency and corrup-tion is common. Another contradiction is that land ownership is not fully granted to indigenous peoples since the subsoil and its resources remain the property of the State.

This model has been in effect in Colombia for 20 years and despite two decades of the indigenous government being prevented from managing resources and power it has been possible, within the constitutional framework, to guarantee indigenous communities rights over 28 per cent of the territory and to protect them when social conflict occurs, even though there are still many shortcomings. Guaranteeing in-digenous territories promotes and strengthens the indigenous peoples’ defence of their rights.

For their part, indigenous authorities in south-western Colombia have faced a cruel war waged by drug traffickers and guerrillas, and the indig-enous authorities take command by employing a system of local uses and customs and earning them local respect as guardians and defenders of the territory, while also taking advantage of the rights conferred by the Constitution. Among indigenous people power brings respect.

42 (Spanish 42-43)

In practice, indigenous communities have been allowed to establish and preserve their domestic institutions: “inward” governance permits them to integrate and reproduce their own cosmogony and become part of the system of institutional government, the structure of authority and the government of each community and population group. While “external” governance recognizes the rights of local-level electoral participation and resource management, the relationship between the State and communities is established through national coordination mechanisms.

Regarding the problem of electoral participa-tion, because laws allow political parties (there are now two) the indigenous peoples of Colom-bia have their own parliament and representa-tives. However, electoral turnout is low due to the ongoing armed conflict in indigenous re-gions and to high levels of illiteracy among the population. Approximately 40 municipalities in Colombia have indigenous mayors.

In Bolivia indigenous peoples can now par-ticipate directly through their organizations. Minorities are also entitled to appoint a small number of representatives (seven of 166) to the Plurinational Assembly and the Departmental Assemblies. The indigenous struggle today re-volves around fully implementing the new Con-stitution that promotes pluralism and recognizes the right of all peoples to directly participate in State structures. Nevertheless, indigenous peo-ples face obstacles imposed by the Left as well as the Right.

The Bolivian land reform of 1953 triggered a land struggle against the haciendas (large ranches) in the highlands and changed the sys-tem of land ownership while at the same time causing fragmentation of the original indigenous territory and establishing a difference between land and territory. In the lowlands, by contrast, land reform facilitated the expansion of livestock and agro-industrial latifundia (large agricultural estates) in detriment to many small territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. In some cases

of land reform, the emergence of labour unions has upset the territorial order and indigenous peoples have been dispossessed of their lands. It must be recognized, however, that social movements have emerged from these dispos-sessions and since 1990 indigenous people have mobilized from the lowlands to meet with those indigenous peoples of the highland (the Aymara and Quechua). The Law of Popular Participation, associated with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was passed as a result of these mobilizations. They have been instrumental in promoting local (municipal) level participatory processes and to contribute to al-leviate poverty. However, the progress towards reducing poverty has been limited, in spite of the popular participation. One of the major problems of decentralization has been the lack of coop-eration between different levels of government.

This has caused to question the role of neolib-eral approaches in politics and economic policy and to seek alternative governance and policy models. In this context, indigenous authorities initiate movements, marches and demonstra-tions in cities and in the countryside in a time of turmoil when conflicts arise over water and natural gas, and the incumbent president is forced to resign.

Putting the nomenclature, the New Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, uses the term original indigenous and peasant peoples to expand the margins of inclusion and ensure recognition of all forms of self-identifi-cation of the country’s indigenous peoples in their different territories.

Bolivia has regulatory laws and all govern-ment bodies deal with indigenous issues; the most serious problem is how these laws are applied and, as there is still much to be done in this respect, the struggle continues for rights to be recognized. So that, even when there is legal, political, economic and social pluralism, ques-tions remain about how rights can be exercised in a national multiethnic society. There have been

43 (Spanish 43-44)

many problems in terms of the work done on models of autonomy because opposing forces encourage departmental autonomy to discour-age nationwide changes and this, unfortunately, has tainted the debate about a government of their own.

An important role has been played by UNDP in negotiations to end the conflict and in pro-cesses concerning agreements to connect the different levels of government and support both the legislature assembly’s commissions and the indigenous organizations involved in the debate. Work is also done on disseminating information together with attempts to produce culturally relevant development indicators with as broad and transparent an outlook as possible.

Use has been made of Territorial Networks to try to promote economic development. It can be assumed that autonomies will be more eco-nomic and consistent if intertwined with other processes; this, however, will undoubtedly require much coordination and cooperation between different stakeholders. It is suggested that work be done, both horizontally and vertically, to coor-dinate networks at different levels of government to support economic development; this task requires instruments designed to help stake-holders to promote initiatives that will have an impact on the indicators, while using the net-works implies strengthening planning to take account of the indigenous question.

In Peru the recent law transferring authority to local governments still has many downsides: on the one hand, it transfers resources but not capacities so that the resources are only trans-ferred to be administered. There are already indig-enous mayors, aldermen and local government authorities but still with very limited participation; however, the rules concerning participatory structures are very rigid and do not promote indigenous social participation.

Problems in that Andean country concerning indigenous people and local government are described in Section III.

Furthermore, it may be said that the Peruvian State has now turned its back on the people inhabiting Amazonia, a region where local gov-ernments are very weak, and although a transfer of power is taking place it is very complex, faces many obstacles and has had little success. At the same time, regionalization is under way in the 25 departments of Amazonia but, because it has not yielded the expected results, indigenous people take very little part in local government.

Throughout Peru’s history the regions with the highest density of indigenous populations (Andes and Amazonas) have gone through very different processes: in the Andean region there was a campesinization of the population during the government of Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975) when the indigenous people lost their true iden-tity by becoming campesinos or farmers; how-ever, this did not occur in Amazonia where the government strengthened people’s sense of iden-tity by recognizing their indigenous character.

Moreover, in Amazonia there is a heavy concentration of mining activity and almost the entire region is licensed under conditions that are very irregular and lack transparency. The gov-ernment, without engaging in a dialogue with communities or allowing local and regional gov-ernments to participate in negotiations with mining companies, has been awarding conces-sions to extractive industries; in June 2009 this led to the conflict in Bagua when most of the territory involved was declared to be in a state of emergency and social protest was criminal-ized by modifying procedural and penal codes. The conflict left 33 dead and 200 wounded and there are still unresolved legal proceedings. During the conflict the indigenous population was fragmented and this is reflected in the ev-er-changing discourses during the negotiations, as well as in a lack of representation among in-digenous leaders.

44 (Spanish 44-45)

As a result, the Public Ombudsman’s Office, UNDP and the Catholic Church’s humanitarian aid called on the government to reflect, to set up roundtables and allow dialogue to take place. For its part the government called for interna-tional involvement and mediation so that even today support is still provided by ILO and UNDP and both have established direct communica-tion with the indigenous population; they are listened to because they are identified as allies of the indigenous representatives, and the gov-ernment also identifies UNDP as a necessary platform for dialogue. This is a good example of the Programme’s strength in the region.

In Paraguay no legal framework recognizes indigenous governments in any district or de-partment, but this does not mean there are none. The State government remains centralized and has limited capacity to respond to the demands of indigenous peoples within its territory. Very little is done by public policies or the State to permit timely responses to be given to indige-nous peoples’ demands; also, action taken by those holding positions of power is more per-sonal than institutional. When local indigenous governments first became autonomous there was total ignorance about the extent to which the rights of indigenous peoples were recognized; there is also a huge lag between the country’s existing legislation and the Western legal sys-tem concerning the demands of Paraguay’s indigenous peoples and laws concerning their specific rights.

A territory is an area where indigenous autono-my can be acquired and therefore, governance always has a territorial base. The concept of ter-ritorialized communities, of indigenous com-munities, refers to the space inhabited by territo-rial autonomies.

This principle makes it clear that managing indigenous territorial entities should be based on their ancestral customs in exercising their collective civil rights as citizens in multiethnic countries which, to confirm their democracies, should recognize the right of indigenous peoples to manage their resources under their own rules. Because conditions do not allow this, enormous challenges still remain in differentiating between local and national. Concerning the unequal rela-tionship between indigenous and Western in-stitutions the following question may be asked: to what extent are indigenous institutions al-lowed in national scenarios and to what extent

are they disallowed? Procedures adopted in the different countries show that the line is always drawn according to how resources are man-aged; another indication is how fiscal and legal frameworks function because it is at these levels that indigenous structures of power and author-ity always have to conform to Western standards; if the scenarios were different the indigenous path and project would be chosen.

In Bolivia, although fiscal centralization pro-cesses have been almost automatic it does not mean there are no cases of local authority mis-management and corruption. Political systems weigh very heavy when it comes to procedures: cattle interests play a part in keeping indigenous peoples in conditions of servitude; there is also a predominance of local interests, of domination and exclusion of indigenous peoples from the geographical areas and regions or territories they share with other sectors of the population.

�� TERRITORIALITy AS A mEANS OF ACQUIRING INDIGENOUS AUTONOmy

45 (Spanish 45-46)

The Bolivian experience shows two paths can be followed to help the indigenous peoples. One path is that adopted during the 1990’s when several lowland communities obtained consti-tutional recognition to own their lands; these areas may cross several municipalities and the intention is that the original inhabitants be grant-ed the right to become autonomous indigenous governments, which implies a long and complex process. The other, more expeditious, path to follow is that inhabitants of a given municipality hold a referendum to decide whether they could become an autonomous indigenous govern-ment. So far 12 municipalities have done so and today 11 of them have already designated offi-cials according to their uses and customs. The referendum was lost in the twelfth municipality in spite of the concentration of indigenous in-habitants. This will be repeated and expanded in the country in the next few years and, as established in the Constitution, indigenous governments will have access to fiscal resources formerly given to the municipalities. There are now four forms of autonomy in Bolivia with legal power: national, departmental, municipal and indigenous, and a fifth (regional) without legis-lative authority.

In the Andean region it is important to develop the indigenous population’s capacities and to connect local territorial development to all other levels of government; this is because develop-ing the local economy is not in itself enough to solve structural problems, manage resources and deal with the challenges of poverty, among others. Thus, in the local government structure

the area of health, for example, does not depend solely on local authorities and capacities but has to be supported with resources and by taking a broader view.

As to the problem of indigenous peoples’ territoriality in the region, land ownership is crucial and here different aspects must be con-sidered. On the one hand, because the subsoil and its resources are considered to be State prop-erty, the land is not always given in its entirety to the indigenous inhabitants. In this respect the United Nations made several recommen-dations in 2009 for national States to grant total land rights to their indigenous inhabitants; it also recommended prior and informed consulta-tion whenever it is intended to exploit resources on their territories. When environmental issues are dealt with only from the perspective of land conservation and the inhabitants’ vulnerability, all factors of democratic governance are not taken into account.

The issue of territoriality is very complex, especially in regard to the territorial division, and it challenges how governance mechanisms should be structured between those who declare them-selves to be indigenous and those who do not accept the classification because they have dif-ferent rights of access to resources. Some claim to be campesinos and owners of their plots, which originary authorities disagree because they want to work according to their own world-view. Perhaps, therefore, every territory should be able to define its own form of organization and government.

Some proposals in this respect were to:

1. Establish a territorialized system of uses and customs to elect authorities.

2. Defend micro-regional territorialized representation by making it possible to reconstitute populations by reinventing the community with territorialized governments and a micro-voting system.

3. Promote electoral reform to strengthen the gender quota in indigenous territories.

46 (Spanish 47)

Because life is the driving force of individual and collective activities indigenous organization is related to the different peoples’ cosmogony: life is everything and everything is alive; everything is inter-related. As mentioned earlier, in in-digenous societies a promise is taken very seri-ously because it has great value and is a question of honour. Even though the institutional system requires indigenous governments to leave a writ-ten record of their operations, the word alone is enough to endorse any cause, to make a con-tract or a commitment, etc.

Government and indigenous governance are, therefore, linked to the worldview, to thought and emotion, and in that sense the indigenous peoples in Bolivia – considered to be a devel-oping country – want to participate in national decision-making to enjoy their own life style and ensure their own well-being; as they become

more developed and Hispanicized they also become more alienated from their own values. No development process has yet taken place in Bolivia to let the indigenous inhabitants retain their own government structures; even though their participation is growing there is still a colo-nizer, colonized and colonizing outlook among both individuals and groups.

It is worth questioning whether people de-pend on the model or whether the model de-pends on people: should the model be changed or should the people be helped to apply the model? Indigenous people have underlying indigenous values that offer advantages depending on who occupies a position of more or less formal con-trol, and who has an active relationship with the community. The principles of indigenous govern-ment can be characterized by:

�� WORLDVIEW AS AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIETy AND NATURE

1. The concept of indigenous local government based on the pursuit of equality;

2. Discrete, appropriate and satisfactory conflict management that simply seeks to reset the balance without expressing opinions for or against;

3. The implicit and insistent value placed on accumulating prestige and a lack of interest in accumulating power; and

4. Respect and solidarity as principles of government.

The worldview associated with governance starts with the idea that for there to be order there must be chaos and therefore, to the Que-chua-Aymara way of thinking, conflict is not a problem; the problem is in not knowing how to manage it. The order-chaos logic is a product of the indigenous mind set. On the other hand is the issue of norms established and based on necessary agreements (common law) that are also logical in community law: every community has internal rules that establish a criminal code

based on local realities. This is known as “au-tonomy within autonomy” and implies that in-digenous regions and different territorial levels structure their own degrees of development.

Indigenous peoples seek their own eco-nomic, political and social structures based on what they have preserved, learned and rebuilt. What inputs do indigenous men and women have to permit them to decide about their col-lective well-being?

47 (Spanish 48-49)

It has been seen that land can be managed by using the communities’ worldview; a charac-teristic of indigenous government is to look after the well-being of the municipality by making proposals about how it should be managed and what form it should take. The Guatemalan

�� LEGAL AND STRUCTURAL FRAmEWORk FOR DEmOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Regarding the legal framework on indigenous peoples’ rights, the existing body of laws has failed to give specific recognition to their rights either because the required regulatory mecha-nisms have not been established or because na-tional governments are not fully aware of them.

Here one of the urgent challenges is to effec-tively apply the commitments of Convention 169, an essential document concerning the rights of identity, land, water ownership, membership, and participation in all representative bodies; even though this is a crucial starting point it has not been possible to promote it in all the national States analysed in this document. There are gaps in how the Convention is being applied: for ex-ample, the exploitation of resources is not regu-lated and in several countries no account is taken of indigenous peoples’ collective rights.

Three countries studied (Bolivia, Peru and Colombia) have recognized Convention 169. In Bolivia it may be said that power and government are exercised by organizations at territorial and state levels. In Peru there are no mechanisms to implement the provisions of the Convention and indigenous rights are denied. Finally, in Colombia legislative advances have been made but they are inevitably diminished because indigenous organizations are caught in the middle of an armed conflict between paramilitary forces and drug traffickers. However, Peru and Colombia have sought to assimilate indigenous popula-tions into the national State and both have in-digenous participation mechanisms albeit it is

subject to conditions. A focal point is the politi-cal system and the different types of national governance; because, for example, there are other non-electoral or political participation mecha-nisms, officials are not necessarily appointed as a result of voting/elections. The Plurinational Bolivia State recognizes the rights of its Afro-American populations.

In view of the above, work has to be done on political participation in the different indigenous communities. The territory is seen as being shared and so is political participation; in other words, the mechanisms that define political representation and the exercise of government in each country.

Where that has not occurred, a solid basis on which to begin the intercultural reconstruction of Latin American States would be to apply all chapters of Convention 169. In practice, the terms of the Convention have allowed indigenous communities to establish internal institutions of government within the framework of national governance. This “inward” governance, in turn, allows them to include their own cosmogony in how they are represented and in government functions, and to recover the structures and gov-ernment systems of each community and culture. As to “outward” governance, it recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to participate by using coordination mechanisms foreseen un-der the law and, as specified in the Convention, expressed in how they are represented in dem-ocratic structures.

cultural constitution is not explicit in terms of the Maya people’s territorial concentration. Because there is significant social mobility, in some municipalities the population is 50 per cent indigenous.

48 (Spanish 49-50)

On the other hand, this links local governance to the separation of two parallel legal orders be-cause indigenous common law conflicts with the Western legal system which, in several coun-tries considered, does not recognize any indig-enous legal systems. It is essential, therefore, to create a fourth floor in the government structure to take account of community autonomy and for the State to recognize social diversity and the urgent need for inclusion.

In Bolivia autonomy has been one of the most complicated focal points in the country’s consti-tutional reform. Political agreements have helped to recognize four levels of government with legis-lative powers: national, departmental, municipal and indigenous. The country is now beginning to prepare legislation and the first initiatives include the statement that in municipalities with a large indigenous population the people will establish their own government and it will be recognized as such; it will be established according to in-digenous uses and customs, and recognition may be given to the first territories with legal pluralism that apply traditional forms of justice. Because half of the municipalities in Bolivia have a large indigenous population, government sys-tems must increasingly include the two views of governance: Western and indigenous.

All Latin American countries have signed in-ternational conventions on indigenous rights and the rights of women; however, no country has effectively followed up these commitments. Regional and national differences exist as do other structural variables and barriers built around the indigenous peoples’ class subordi-nation, together with barriers in indigenous com-munities concerning gender and the environ-ment; there are also de facto obstacles imposed by the countries’ formal democracies by failing to offer indigenous peoples alternatives.

The Universal Declaration on the Rights of In-digenous Peoples presents a valid but not exclu-sively indigenous viewpoint; in that respect, when discussing problems faced by local indigenous governments it is important to consider making way for sectors within indigenous societies while, at the same time, accepting the need to reconsti-tute and strengthen community governance by recognizing regional-level municipal diversity with the creation of a “multi-level regime”.

In this context institutional challenges are related to the legal rules that pit indigenous governance against Western governance and, therefore, the legal framework developed should focus on Western institutions making way for institutions based on uses and customs and lo-cal government systems.

Mexico’s laws protecting the rights of indig-enous peoples did not result in comprehensive changes in hierarchical relationships between indigenous governance structures and national systems; but even when it might be thought institutions have been re-structured without changing the State-indigenous peoples balance of power, the reality is that since the 1990’s these relationships have undergone a gradual process that has included all indigenous sectors.

In Colombia indigenous peoples have only recognized the Constitution as a document of State since they first began to feel they were part of a structure that reaches beyond their internal organization. This explains the country’s many successful cases of local indigenous governance.

5Indigenous Peoples’ Local Government Models: Cases Discussed

51 (Spanish 53)

This chapter reflects on the experiences of local indigenous governments in the region. The Mexican participants did not give de-

tails about the specific experience of Good Gov-ernment Boards in Chiapas although reference is made to their relations to local governments.

Indigenous Peoples’ Local Government Models:Cases Discussed8

• GUATEMALA: Maya Programme• NICARAGUA: Autonomous Territories, the RAAN and the RAAS• BOLIVIA : The Ayllu

- Indigenous Territorial Management (GTI) and Communal Territories of Origin (TCO)

• PARAGUAY: Three emblematic cases

�� GUATEmALA: mAyA PROGRAmmE

The inter-agency (OHCHR, UNICEF and UNDP) Maya Programme funded by the Norwegian Em-bassy is intended:”To help to improve the situation of the Maya as well as the Garifuna and Xinka peoples to achieve the full exercise of their rights in the legal, education and political systems and thereby support the transformation towards a Plural State better able to develop more sustainable and improved ways of combating poverty in Guatemala”.

UNDP is responsible for leading the Political Participation Component that cooperates with 23 organizations of which 91 per cent are indigenous and are in 12 departments with an indigenous majority. The work of the organizations helps to achieve “A more representative and legitimate de-mocracy at local and central levels through better training programmes and political representation of Maya leaders, both men and women, so that they can exercise their legitimate rights and interests.” 9

8. Based on presentations by José Eusebio Guoz, Martha González de Paco, Christian Jette, María Rosario Saravia Paredes and Jorge Servín.

9. Impact sought by Component 3: Political Participation, under the responsibility of UNDP, in the framework of the Maya Programme.

REFERENCES

52 (Spanish 54-55)

It is founded on:

Ð Indigenous peoples with substantially increased official registration and documentation to guarantee the exercise of their civil, economic, social and political rights.

Ð Indigenous leaders, both men and women, with improved representation in local and central political systems to allow their people to better exercise their rights and specific interests.

Ð Strengthening the Maya authorities’ ancestral organization, institutions and advocacy capacities.

Ð A sustainable dialogue between Maya leaders and the State. Ð Improving how indigenous peoples can exercise their collective and individual

rights by complying with Convention 169.

The lessons learned from this exercise of gov-ernance have shown the need to define concepts such as multiculturalism, interculturalism and pluriculturalism and how they are, or are not, connected to how indigenous people suffer dispossession, discrimination, co-optation, as-similation, paternalism, protectionism, exploi-tation and oppression. On the other hand, it is clear that attention paid to indigenous peoples in public policies must be transversalized and mainstreamed and should go beyond what up to now have been good intentions and lip service. Finally, it is shown that consideration must be given to the true dimension of their indigenous knowledge and skills and how they can be used to help build a better society.

Lessons are learned by recognizing how in-digenous people participate in local, municipal, departmental, regional and national politics. In Guatemala indigenous authorities can be found in positions to which they were appointed ac-cording to the norms and principles of their ancestral legal system and by their own way of electing representatives; they occupy unpaid positions agreed and decided upon by consensus according to the peoples’ particular worldviews legitimized throughout history; this explains the need to interface with a State hierarchy, with

a legal framework and with the authorities to find an alternative to these two mindsets, that is to say, the two different but complementary concepts needed to build a society based on fairness and equality.

In Guatemala it has been shown that: politics should be managed nationally instead of locally; a culturally pertinent political, social and eco-nomic framework must be created, a system that respects diverse citizen participation and with operational activities, baselines and solid indicators in development plans and projects; relevant, feasible and objective mega-pro-grammes must be implemented based on the peoples’ values and principles where authority means unselfishly serving the community.

If well-being is to be achieved account must be taken of each municipality’s cultural diversity. Methods proposed by indigenous peoples are centred on how they view the territory and on cohabiting in municipalities with their own people and cultures.

53 (Spanish 55-56)

Here the methodologies used must be men-tioned. On the one hand, the assessments are what give life to a development project and should produce changes in the traditional out-look, i.e. short term, reductionist, little or no participation, bias, no validation, etc. Because they are so important, analyses should not be vertical or subject to time limits but become effective participatory tools, i.e. based on how in-digenous people view time periods and life itself. Therefore, the facilitator’s role must be redefined to produce the best possible analyses; because multiple analyses have been made for each municipality, many of them have already been

over-analysed without the people being aware of it, so they must be brought up to date, com-bined, and based on bottom-up community participation. An analysis with these character-istics considers the peoples’ creativity; it divides data by sex, rather than simply counting men or women, to more precisely reflect the power relations existing between different social groups within and outside indigenous communities con-cerning gender relations, age, health, education, etc. The importance of existing natural and cul-tural assets in each community and their impact on local governance should also be made known.

�� NICARAGUA: AUTONOmOUS TERRITORIES, THE RAAN AND THE RAAS

In Nicaragua, as in other countries, the State fragments indigenous territories that cross na-tional borders. The Nicaraguan Caribbean coast, with 13 per cent of the population, covers 47 per cent of the national territory. This area has been invaded by the Mestizo people who through no fault of the indigenous peoples, were dis-placed by armed conflict that caused inter-com-munity tensions. The ethnic groups are: Miskito in the northern and southern autonomous areas and extending along the Atlantic coast of Hon-duras; Sumu-Mayangna in the ecological reserve; Afro-descendent Garifuna in the southern Ca-ribbean without their own language; Creole in the autonomous regions; and Rama located in southern Nicaragua.

The Caribbean Autonomous Region is di-vided into two subregions: RAAN (North Atlantic Autonomous Region) and RAAS (South Atlantic Autonomous Region). National law provides for intermediate governments in these subregions and promotes participation by all indigenous peoples. The 45 regional councils elected in 15 districts are not necessarily the same as the municipalities mentioned in the Constitution or the indigenous territories established by law (Law 445 on Communal Property Regime of the Indig-

enous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua and of the Rivers Bocay, Coco, Indio and Maíz) and this is the first contradiction in the country’s laws. However, Law 445 recognizes indigenous territories and territorial governments and there are now five levels of government in the country with their own representations: Com-munity Government; Territorial Government; Municipal Government; Regional Government; and National Government. The challenge is for all levels of government to have a close relationship without infringing upon one another’s authority or powers, and guaranteeing indigenous and Afro-descendent people genuine participation at all government levels. This means there should be no structure of government at any level without the presence and full representation of indigenous and Afro-descendent people. Territo-rial and community governments are now obliged to have representatives from each community.

54 (Spanish 56-57)

The Sumu-Mayangna people are an example with a national government covering nine territo-ries and with 60 communities (15,516 inhabit-ants with 7.69 per cent of the national territory) where democratic and economic issues concern-ing all sectors of the population are dealt with, thus strengthening social cohesion and allowing them to prepare plans on territorial development, community, and human well-being.

The Sumu-Mayangna region has its own population, status, language, and community service; the people elect community authorities who elect territorial authorities who, in turn, elect the nation’s government. At present the discus-sion focuses on mechanisms under which territo-rial governments can administer their territorial resources; the Sumu-Mayangna nation proposes to obtain resources from the national budget for projects on development, education, health, food, and others.

�� BOLIVIA: THE AyLLU

In Bolivia there are some modern territories that apply autonomy exercises from ancestral cul-tures. The Ayllu highland territories are united and interdependent and based on comprehensive planning and legislative, educational and health organization, etc. With the Ayllu as an example, a local analysis is prepared, plans are drawn up and priorities established by taking available natural, cosmic, technical and political indicators as a basis. The role of the indigenous authority and its organizations is to ensure food production and then to systematize Ayllu political practice.

Indigenous governance mechanisms include different levels of community territorial planning expressed in departmental forums and councils; ancestral society also has forms of political or-ganization including the territory’s political management. The indigenous political project, therefore, intends to demonstrate the Ayllu model taking into account the difficulties of participating given the persistence of internal and external colonialism, opportunism and party interests.

�� Indigenous Territorial management (GTI) and Communal Territories of Origin (TCO)

Numerous minority indigenous peoples settled in the lowlands have obtained recognition of their TCOs (Communal Territories of Origin) many of which cover two or more municipalities and two or more provinces, and are sometimes found in more than one department. For 28 years lowland peoples seeking ways to become autonomous have been organized as an active indigenous movement.

In the Yuracaré and Lomerio communities work has been carried out on GTI (Indigenous Territorial Management). The experience of in-digenous land management in communal ter-ritories of origin has resulted in indigenous ter-ritories being consolidated at different levels of territorial planning. They have also boosted their own management systems with: GTI; compre-hensive normative systems; by working in the GTIs; and by preparing working rules and reg-ulations on managing the territory’s resources.

55 (Spanish 57-58)

Concerning gender equality, although the move-ment’s historical struggle has always included women, their participation was not recognized; is it only since 2006 that indigenous women’s opinions have been sought in public decisions and in self-government.

To a certain extent the territory’s own gov-ernment organization responds to the need to make sustainable use of renewable natural re-sources, as well as to defend a regulatory system that led to bylaws being passed on managing the territory’s resources. Indigenous local governance also identifies the need to train local and com-munity-based technicians to manage their ter-ritories and strengthen their impact on public and private institutions.

To start these indigenous governance exer-cises it is proposed to carry out demonstration projects taking into account the potentialities of each region; in Bolivia, the Project School for Indigenous Peoples (ESIPIRO) has prepared 32 projects financed by the hydrocarbon resources.

The indigenous peoples’ historic struggle for a new constitutional pact has helped in the cre-ation of the TCOs Land Management Model. A March for Territory and Dignity took place in 1990 because no constitutional article acknowledged their existence and the movement resulted in a new agrarian reform law being approved that led to the TCOs being established.

During the Constituent Assembly of 2006 debates took place between the five national indigenous organizations about more than 50 per cent of the indigenous proposals embodied in the New Constitution. Preparation of the con-stitutional rules and regulations was completed in 2010 and discussions are now taking place on indigenous autonomy; however, its application is being hindered because for communities to acquire autonomy they must have more than 3,000 inhabitants.10 Achieving a breakthrough implies allowing communities to elect their own indigenous mayors; however, that would not necessarily ensure good municipal management.

Because the participation rate of 50 per cent indigenous candidates has not yet been respect-ed, and they are still unable to freely elect their candidates, the Bolivian electoral participation experience has made indigenous peoples reflect on the need to have their own political instru-ments. In many cases they directly participate through their organizations and, to a lesser extent, by holding elections. One demand is for the Constitution to recognize participation in State structures by 36 of the country’s original peoples. As mentioned earlier, this has been blocked by both the Left and the Right even though some of their constitutional demands are backed by Convention 169.

It is not easy for the State to readily recognize the indigenous people’s historical struggle; whatever successes they have had to date have been achieved by their own sacrifices. However, a debate is now taking place about legislating laws relating to the indigenous movement.

10.The Law finally approved in July 2010 establishes that in the territory there should be a population basis equal or greater than ten thousand (10,000) in the case of nations and indigenous peoples of campesino origin in highlands, and in the case of indigenous nations and peoples with campesino minorities, a population basis equal too or greater than a thousand (1,000), according to data from the latest official census.

REFERENCES

56 (Spanish 58-59)

�� PARAGUAy: THREE EmBLEmATIC CASES

There are no recognized indigenous govern-ments in any district or department in Paraguay; there are, however, community governments with leaders, women as well as men, politicians and members of religious orders.

In Paraguay 1.7 per cent of the population is indigenous – about 108,000 people – according to census figures on 20 indigenous communi-ties.11 Because 91.5 per cent of indigenous people live in rural areas and only 8.5 per cent in urban areas the problems they face are mostly rural.

Just as in other countries in the region, Par-aguay has a broad legal framework favouring its indigenous peoples; nevertheless, the figures in the last National Indigenous Census in 200212 are discouraging and show a high degree of ex-clusion from basic services. For example: only 2.5 per cent of households have access to running water, while the national average in rural areas is around 40 per cent; one per cent have modern

bathrooms (with septic tank); fewer than five per cent have garbage collection; and 10 per cent have electricity. The same source reveals indig-enous children attend school for an average of just over two years, far below the national av-erage of seven years.

It is in this context that the relationship be-tween indigenous peoples and their leaders with UNDP has been developing thanks to a combina-tion of efforts and a willingness to help reverse their high degree of social, political and economic marginalization.

Experiences point to the need to establish im-pact and governance links between the stake-holders, with special consideration given to indigenous organizations that have emerged in the country in recent years. Three emblematic cases of community efforts to build indigenous governance can be identified:13

Ð The Ayoreo Totobiegosode case is one of support provided to isolated peoples with whom first contact was made following a request to UNDP-Paraguay by the Organización Payipie Ichadie Ayoreo Totobiegosode (OPIT) towards the end of 2006 to organize an inter-institutional roundtable with the principal objective of uniting efforts to protect and secure the Ayoreo Totobiegosode Natural Cultural Heritage (PNCAT) in the department of Alto Paraguay. From 1993 to date the Paraguayan State has guaranteed indigenous peoples about 100,000 hectares of the 550,000 they originally requested. The main task of the inter-institutional roundtable is to guarantee the rest of the land, but primarily the part known as the “the nucleus zone area”, to safeguard the rights of all indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, and to try to counteract deforestation and rampant livestock advance.

11. Data from the Indigenous Household Survey, 2008.

12. Second National Indigenous Population and Housing Census 2002. Indigenous Peoples of Paraguay. Final results. Directorate General of Statistics, Surveys and Census. Fernando de la Mora, Paraguay, DGEEC. 2003.

13. See complete publication at www.undp.org.py.

REFERENCES

57 (Spanish 59-60)

Ð The Case of Coordination for Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (CAPI)14 followed a legitimate claim by the indigenous peoples for their rights and, in particular, because of their interest in governing their own communities and controlling their natural resources. In 2008 the indigenous CAPI leadership joined UNDP to support the preparation of a public policy proposal. That was the year of a historic event in Paraguay when the government changed after the elections in April. By April 2009 the proposal was ready and delivered to the country’s principal authorities. As indicated in the document, the proposal was the result of the State’s failure to take appropriate action to remedy the indigenous peoples’ critical situation and it was planned to do so by adopting the following measures: respecting self-determination; creating new institutions; establishing specialized indigenous jurisprudence and legislative reforms.

Ð The Mbyá Guaraní case concerns part of their population living in the south of the country between the departments of Itapúa and Caazapá who made a claim for territory and the full exercise of their systems of government in their communities so that they could keep their own systems of inter-community relationships and land management. The territory in question is the reserve area for the San Rafael National Park15 which coincides with the ancestral Mbyá Guaraní territory called Tekoha Guasú by the indigenous inhabitants.16 Over the past few years, and with UNDP assistance, discussions have taken place between the Association of Indigenous Communities of Itapúa (ACIDI), the indigenous organization Teko Yma Jee’a Pavë and the Environment Secretariat (SEAM), with agreements and disagreements until a rapprochement was reached with information exchanged between the parties about SEAM activities in San Rafael, and in an agreement being signed. The agreement and its annex, the Study and participatory community mapping of the occupation, use and traditional knowledge of the Mbyá Guaraní Peoples of Itapúa and Caazapá became an important milestone for the country as it resulted in a reconciliation between an environmental public institution and the indigenous peoples’ representatives; it also helped to build a shared vision about a territory that is exceptionally rich biologically as well as culturally.

14. Now the Federation for the Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (FAPI).

15. In 1992 the government created the reserve area of about 78,000 hectares for the San Rafael National Park where there are a number of indigenous and non indigenous land owners; on the other hand, in 2008 the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) issued a resolution recognizing the “Mbyá Guaraní or Tekoha Guasú as ancestral territory as a reserve for the San Rafael National Park….”.

16. Big house in the Guaraní language.

REFERENCES

6 Gender Outlook in Local Governments

61 (Spanish 63)

�� WOmEN’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND GENDER TRANSVERSALIzATION

Gender Outlook in Local Governments17

• Women’s Political Participation and Gender Transversalization• Political Participation of Indigenous Women: UNDP

Indigenous women struggle for equal partici-pation with men and non-indigenous women. If indigenous women are to become part of

the political transversalization approach the balance between them and non-indigenous women must be adjusted, and then the balance between women and men. The United Nations gender perspective must be directed at the spe-cific rights of indigenous women and equity has to be promoted by the women themselves. UNDP should start by adhering to the principle, con-tained in their documents and followed in practice, making it an obligation to work with a perspective that takes account of gender and of the interests of indigenous stakeholders. This

requires re-thinking about the rights of indig-enous peoples and local stakeholders looked at from a gender perspective understood as human dignity, and with a focus on the right of women to equity whatever their situation. This approach should help by encouraging those who work on the theme to support indigenous women living in indigenous populations by in-cluding the gender perspective when preparing a project.

17. Based on presentations by Paloma Bonfil and Otilia Lux de Coti.

REFERENCES

62 (Spanish 64-65)

Positive action includes: providing informa-tion; encouraging participation; developing par-ticipatory methodologies; raising awareness about the issue of participation within and be-yond borders; giving priority to strengthening women’s participation in decision-making; fol-lowing up on States’ international commitments; supporting existing female leaders; and reconcil-ing the relationship between indigenous leaders at different levels of government. The capabili-ties of grassroots organizations and of women must be improved to enable them to prepare projects on infrastructure, administration of resources, public expenditure management, accountability, etc.

UNDP has a mandate to work with a gender perspective. The focus on rights, gender, ethnicity, and on using inter-agency and local gender groups must ensure that indigenous women are included when programming UNDP projects. This approach is helped by guaranteeing local stakeholders, both men and women, participate. Transversalization should apply to the content and to all processes involved from designing to evaluating actions, always keeping in mind the interests of indigenous women and men. Par-ticipatory appraisals should break down the results, not only by counting men and women but also by making a more detailed gender and age analysis and including education, health, and natural and cultural goods.

Transversalization approaches to rights and gender rights have to begin with male and fe-male stakeholders and with a redefinition of the terms used. Experiences of indigenous people should also be systematized to account for the specific nature of women’s local government participation: their activities, demands, and needs. This would allow a determination to be made of the value of their experiences of governance, and to learn about opportunities to participate in indigenous governments, especially for women and young people, both male and female.

The indigenous peoples’ dream of a harmo-nious lifestyle includes a desire for joint and com-plementary participation. In fact, in some indig-enous cultures power is based on duality, that is to say it is shared equally by men and women; if a woman or a man is elected as an authority, then so is her or his companion, but this only applies when they are in positions of power. Human dignity has to be considered as meaning equity. It is obvious that in many communities the equal power relation has been broken (it is a de jure but not a de facto duality so that women can neither express opinions nor decide); there-fore, equity must be re-established if everyone’s (women’s and men’s) dignity is to be considered. It is important to emphasize the rights of women if an end is to be put to exclusion.

Because of the many contexts, the approach has to be different in each country; in all cases the processes and how to address problems must be clearly understood. Determining the context requires knowledge of who the local indigenous authorities consider to be leaders and women and men stakeholders. Indigenous local govern-ment includes other factors of social and cultural transformation. The emergence of women as social stakeholders has come in the midst of tensions in the relationship between indigenous structures and women’s rights organizations and, because the debate about the meaning of political participation by indigenous women has not yet been resolved, this is not an easy issue.

Government public policy and how it is pri-oritized in municipalities with a low HDI, and how the gender approach is transversalized, has resulted in more indigenous women participating and coming together to make their best efforts to engage in productive activities. However, these are top-to-bottom government proposals instead of coming from the grassroots as indicated in Convention 169. Transversalization is an invitation to adopt a practical approach to a more tangible pragmatism rather than vague concepts, and with a clear position being taken by the indigenous peoples. Electoral reform can increase the mu-nicipalities’ gender quota.

63 (Spanish 65)

�� POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS WOmEN: UNDP

Indigenous women’s political participation is recognized as an opportunity for UNDP, and ex-perience of working in this area includes pre-paring a comparative analysis of their political participation in six Latin American countries: Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. There is a new generation of indig-enous women with higher levels of schooling and with other scenarios of participation in their communities. At the same time, because of the ongoing debate about the meaning of indige-nous women’s political participation, links with women’s rights organizations have not been easy.

The possibilities of UNDP intervening in these countries were explored and the relationship made clear between UNDP and civil society orga-nizations interested in strengthening indigenous women’s leadership based on their knowledge of political participation processes.

One of the findings was that while all coun-tries have signed international conventions on indigenous and women’s rights not one has fol-lowed up or met the commitments. There are regional and national differences as well as other structural variables and barriers caused by: class subordination of indigenous peoples; gender barriers within and outside indigenous popula-tions; and obstacles imposed when countries’ formal democracies fail to offer alternatives to indigenous peoples.

This analysis was made by using information campaigns, encouraging participation, devel-oping participatory methodologies, and high-lighting the issue of participation within and beyond borders. It begins with the conviction that UNDP can play an important role by insist-ing priority be given to strengthening women’s participation in decision-making in order to promote female leadership, to follow up on ex-isting international commitments assumed by States, and to assist indigenous leaders at dif-ferent levels of government.

7 Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous Peoples’ Governance

67 (Spanish 69)

�� UNDP AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Because States have very little structure to care for indigenous peoples there are win-dows of opportunity for UNDP to have an

impact on citizens in countries such as Bolivia and Peru. In countries where the State’s structure is very strong, Mexico for example, resources should be targeted at filling any gaps. At the same time, UNDP can play an important role by com-municating with civil society.

The United Nations provides technical assis-tance. Latin American countries are leading the pace concerning indigenous rights. The Pro-gramme has promoted dialogue with represen-tatives of indigenous organizations and recog-nition of indigenous territories. It is in a position

to encourage intercultural dialogues in territories where communities can democratically define programmes and projects. Intercultural dialogues, communities, and indigenous leaders must be given support.

The position now occupied by indigenous peoples and their political empowerment in the world agenda is due to the strength of the indig-enous movement that has been accepted since the 1990’s. The struggles for natural resourc-es have been taken up by the indigenous and campesino movements without any local, state or national governments, or even universities, participating.

Conflicts, UNDP and Indigenous Peoples’ Governance18

• The Role of UNDP in relations with Indigenous Peoples• The work of UNDP in the region

- Decentralization in the Context of Indigenous Rights and Autonomy- Forced displacement

• Proposals, demands and challenges

18. Based on presentations by Otilia Lux de Coti, Araceli Burguete Cal y Mayor, José Eusebio Guoz, Jesús Virgilo Rivera, Mario Solari, Jorge Servín, Beatriz Fernández, Fernando Medellín, Leonel Cerruto, Paloma Bonfil, Christian Jette, Marco Stella, María Rosario Saravia Paredes, and Oscar Torrens.

REFERENCES

68 (Spanish 70)

It often happens that, because the outlook is institutional, autonomous experiences of com-munity self-government are not thought of as local government. References to Western-style governments eclipse the experiences of indig-enous peoples who have their own rules, insti-tutions, norms, etc. as forms of government. That is why the idea of democracy must be recon-

sidered in terms of cultural diversity rather than with a colonizing outlook. Recognition has to avoid the risk of everything being standardized by imposing new rules of assimilation. Thus, with-out ignoring self-government, the very concept of local government must be rethought and an indigenous government appointed.

How can UNDP promote activities with indigenous peoples at local-level from its four areas of work?

The issues must be thoroughly understood given that the situation is one of exclu-sion, disadvantage, and unequal power. As this is not easy, emphasis must be placed on the importance of consultations; it is also essential that work be done with and bottom-up support given to indigenous organizations.

Ways must be found to communicate with indigenous peoples; however, this is no easy task because of fragmentation and the absence of spokespersons to represent them; therefore, because the impact made depends on how projects are addressed, great care has to be taken to focus on the work to be done. UNDP is committed to helping indigenous peoples and one of its guidelines is to find the best way to work with their communities.

Work by UNDP can serve as a bridge between the UN Permanent Forum on Indige-nous Issues and the Programme. The Forum is an inter-agency group working with in-digenous peoples and whose experts advise the Human Rights Council by carrying out studies on relevant themes.

UNDP offices should employ indigenous staff whose experience in these areas could be helpful. This would involve updating and improving the U.N. organizational struc-ture that is outdated in many of these areas. As all cultures on the continent must be al-lowed their own social, political, and economic structures, there is no single policy-making method and it is now time to open the door to political diversity.

The objective has always been for constitutions to recognize communal types of government. If indigenous management is to be possible the many limitations of intellect, conscience, and identity these issues have to be tackled and solved.

69 (Spanish 71)

Local governance makes sense when it is able to reconstruct institutions. People in the region see decentralization as a gift from above so it is im-portant that UNDP consider what can be done concerning regional-level governance.

How can decentralization be decreed from below? Given that the ways in which indigenous peoples govern are different from and challenge State structures, the issue of indigenous gover-nance calls into question not only the decentral-ization that has occurred in some countries but also the very concept of State. Communities like the Mestizo and campesino do not have the capacity to demonstrate their diverse principles of governance.

Several examples show solidarity is an impor-tant characteristic of indigenous organization and that indigenous governments have signifi-cantly different concepts of justice; they see governance as being holistic in contrast to the decentralized sectorial view. How indigenous governance functions challenges existing insti-tutions; it has a political role, a political sense of transformation, of suggestion.

Political participation is intended to allow indigenous voices to have an impact beyond their own territories. This is not an internal matter but rather a question of how indigenous com-munities can express an opinion and how their political position can influence public policies. Societies must be transformed by changing laws and this has to be done without altering the community’s existing fabric. Inter-cultural dia-logue is just as essential for participation, that is to say consultation mechanisms must be sup-ported and meeting places made available where agreement can be reached.

There are also some local territories where indigenous leaders have governed and are still governing, but because they are not necessarily recognized as indigenous representatives, they have a different capacity to govern elsewhere.

Given that indigenous authorities may have a broader and better view of how to reach the Millennium Development Goals, UNDP should work with them to assess the impacts of meet-ing them.

Regarding regulations, recent laws transfer-ring powers to local governments have many downsides. As already mentioned, because they transfer resources but not capacity the result is a de facto transfer of resources to be adminis-tered. The same goes for participation: there are indigenous mayors, aldermen and local govern-ment authorities but with very limited participa-tion. On the other hand, very strict rules about allowing organizations to participate tend to produce the opposite effect.

UNDP has opened offices in the interior of some countries to start a decentralization pro-cess that has shown good capacity-building results; resource management has been improved and, where necessary, organizations have been restructured. They have also worked on empow-erment issues.

However, regionalization has not gone far enough and the transfer of powers does not in itself produce results in a centralized country with weak regions. Very different regions must follow the same rules; however, when resourc-es are managed these differences are not taken into account by inflexible Economy and Finance Ministries. Regions are now confronting central governments and demanding improvements to allow the proper use of resources.

�� Decentralization in the Context of Indigenous Rights and Autonomy

�� THE WORk OF UNDP IN THE REGION

70 (Spanish 72-73)

As mentioned above, UNDP should include indigenous staff who can use their experience to deal with issues pertaining to their areas. They could work with United Nations agencies in general and accomplish specific tasks with UNDP.

Many indigenous people do not live in their own territory. Some occupy rural areas while many others live near cities where they are at risk of losing their identity and recognition as a community; they also face the dangers of urban insecurity (crime, prostitution, food insecurity, violence, etc.). As of now UNDP is not taking action on this issue while the State is developing welfare mechanisms without permitting others to do likewise.

If representation is allowed the person chosen must be the people’s legitimate representative. As there are no uniform criteria to define rep-resentation, UNDP should help to prepare a definition. Also to be considered is the complex issue of how indigenous movements have be-come fragmented.

It is proposed that work be done at different levels of government on establishing horizontal and vertical networks to support economic de-velopment; tools are also needed to make it easier for stakeholders to become involved in promoting initiatives that have an impact on the indicators. Increased use can be made of networks to improve plans to deal with the in-digenous question.

Local development issues must be dealt with at all levels given that, by itself, local autonomy cannot challenge structural systems. Areas such as health, education, and labour rights, for ex-ample, do not depend only on local authorities and capacities. It is suggested that UNDP work concerning indigenous peoples in different areas be transversalized.

The agenda should include the issue of dem-ocratic governance and indigenous peoples, spe-cifically concerning the environmental problem that has been addressed only from the point of view of conserving the territory and its inhabit-ants’ vulnerability.

Capacities of local and national indigenous organizations must also be strengthened and information provided about successful cases of dialogues between indigenous peoples and governments while, at the same time, a de-scription is prepared about the quality of local indigenous administration.

While UNDP can make available intercultural meeting places in different territories, the commu-nities are capable of democratically defining pro-grammes and projects. It is important that support be given to indigenous leaders and communities to allow intercultural dialogues. UNDP has made a commitment to indigenous peoples and has set guidelines about interacting with them.

Some structural elements in the eastern part of Bolivia and the Paraguayan Chaco are not touched upon by the constitutions, elections, UNDP, etc. and there are two obvious work areas: (i) with indigenous organizations and (ii) with State institutions. In addition, UNDP is mandated to work with a gender perspective.

Concerning the conflict in Bolivia, UNDP’s work played an important role during negotia-tions to help end the conflict and helped to reach an agreement by seeking to link different levels of government. It also supported legislative as-sembly committees and indigenous organiza-tions that joined the debate, as well as working on promoting information systems. The last-mentioned task was accompanied by attempts to produce culturally relevant and as broad and transparent as possible development indicators.

71 (Spanish 73-74)

More than 15 years after the events in Chiapas, the issue of internal displacements remains unre-solved and the displaced victims are marginalized between the Zapatistas and the Mexican State.

Because there nothing in Mexican law gives the displaced population access to justice, the first component and principal objective of the programme on displacements is to make internal displacement a legal matter. It is hoped that the issue of internally displaced persons will be placed on the legislative agenda, at least at State level, and that the State will compensate for the ter-ritorial damage suffered.

A second component of the programme is to seek to build bridges of understanding and dialogue to make peace between the parties, i.e. between good government councils (the Zapa-tista movement’s civil groups). Meanwhile, the State has not reached out to the displaced com-munities who, though not Zapatistas, have no access to government services. The programme will work in the municipalities of Salto de Agua, Yajalón, Tila, and Tumbalá where the population displaced by White Guards (property owners’ private armies) and paramilitary groups is locat-ed, and also in the municipal seat of Ocosingo where people displaced by the Zapatistas have been settled.

Because for many years this and other prob-lems concerning the conflict have been ignored, it is considered an achievement that forced dis-placement has been placed on UNDP’s agenda. In Chiapas it is clear that, pending the solution of the state’s armed conflict, it will be impossible to legislate and no legitimate proposal can be presented. Despite the government’s refusal to recognize the unresolved armed conflict in the state, the Zapatistas are still there and the con-flict continues.

It has been a challenge to sub-offices in Chiapas and Yucatan to deal with such an impor-tant issue that had not previously been taken into account. Inter-agency coordination is among its challenges; no one agency is in charge and each one operates according to its own man-date: Drugs and Crime attends to legal aspects; UNESCO culture and education; UNICEF children; and UNDP questions concerning development. It is noteworthy that because the programme on displaced persons is headed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime controversy has arisen about how the United Nations defines the conflict.

The RED (Rural Economic Development) pro-gramme in particular is being prepared and in-digenous leaders and communities are already being trained and, at the request of indigenous leaders, it is planned to hold workshops to pro-mote it in communities.

In Peru the social protest mobilized by the dispute concerning land rights has been crimi-nalized, even in reforms made to the penal codes, and the conflict continues. Action taken by the Peruvian Ombudsman’s Office, UNDP and the

humanitarian aid of the Catholic Church con-sisted in issuing communications seeking a government response and in organizing work-shops and forums for dialogue.

In Paraguay, when some members of the Guaraní people were isolated UNDP arranged for talks with representatives of indigenous or-ganizations and, as a result, indigenous territo-ries were recognized and an agreement signed between the Ministry of the Environment and the indigenous organizations.

�� Forced Displacement

72 (Spanish 74-75)

�� PROPOSALS, DEmANDS AND CHALLENGES. WHAT mORE CAN BE DONE?

Ð Allow a space for dialogue between indigenous and social stakeholders and institutions.

Ð Strengthen the operations and capabilities of indigenous organizations and institutions and the ways in which they express their proposals so they can be presented more clearly at dialogue roundtables.

Ð Inform the indigenous people about their rights, build indigenous stakeholders’ social skills and facilitate the dissemination of information on matters being discussed.

Ð Facilitate partnerships with indigenous organizations, make preparations about strategic issues, and provide for effective participation with the resources assigned.

Ð Strengthen indigenous social networks and work with authorities in communities and localities.

Ð Emphasize each country’s particular context when devising national strategies. Ð Map stakeholders and define their relationship to give them better support. Ð Promote the preparation of a free, prior and informed consent protocol, adjusted

to each country, by arranging discussions between all parties concerned. Ð Be on the lookout for the reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human

Rights so that governments are aware of studies on Latin America prepared according to the standards of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.

Ð Encourage the preparation of a project to support indigenous women and populations where activities are being undertaken with people working on promoting the gender issue.

Ð Ensure all internal activities include the opinion of indigenous people. Ð Give priority support to capacity building for men, women and young people

by such means as: informed public consultation; providing participation oppor-tunities; controlling and monitoring public resources; electoral participation; and others. In this respect two aspects should be considered: (i) their own Worldview and (ii) the State’s view.

Ð Strengthen existing uses and customs and recover those that have been lost by improving the communities’ own legal systems, for example in such cases as IFV.

Ð Assess, recognize and articulate traditional forms of organization to help communities define as broadly as possible their own agendas and political participation in the State.

73 (Spanish 75-76)

Ð Become involved in and help build the capacities of indigenous and non-indigenous State institutions to enable them to give their prior, free and informed consent to large public and private projects and investments.

Ð Establish mechanisms to ensure public resources are allocated for political participation by indigenous organizations.

Ð Indigenous populations in these regions must decide about their own development model for it to be adopted by the government. Other countries’ experiences and best practices can also be adopted.

Ð Support the preparation of an indigenous public policy agenda. Because they have not yet been sufficiently represented, indigenous leaders are now seeking a place in different local government levels.

Ð Strengthen the indigenous population’s capacities to enable them to clarify and systematize their message to the government: concepts of consultation, territory, and land in Western and indigenous terms need to be clarified so that they have equal weight without one being preferred over the other.

Ð Improve the Human Development Index by ensuring indigenous communities match the Western development rate.

Ð The agenda should include the issue of democratic governability and indi-genous peoples; in Colombia environmental issues have only been dealt with from the point of view of conserving the territory and the vulnerability of its inhabitants.

�� UNDP country offices

Ð Transversalize work areas on issues concerning indigenous peoples. Ð Ensure these activities are integrated in territories where work is already

being done. Ð Facilitate processes, act as bridges, and ensure there are opportunities for

dialogue between governments and indigenous organizations. Ð Besides requesting information from UNDP Country Offices, make sure they

also receive it so that there is a flow of information within UNDP itself. Ð UNDP should help to execute the observatories proposal, the key to their

success being building the system with local situations in mind rather than with what might be expected by implementing the Declaration.

74 (Spanish 76)

�� National counterparts

Ð Besides local governments, these include indigenous organizations, NGOs, and traditional authorities.

Ð At local level they should take a lead in preparing processes and implementing projects.

�� RBLAC, regional centre, BDP

Ð Prepare initiatives and open working spaces that are difficult to establish at national level.

Ð Help to create a regional image: learn about each office’s activities to ensure synergies and thus become more efficient and effective.

8 Preparing an Agenda on Local Governance andIndigenous Peoples

77 (Spanish 79)

�� ACTIONS NEEDED

From the analysis presented earlier prepared in plenary discussion sessions and at roundtables, proposals and strategies were outlined to address the problems. The results cover a wide range of issues relating to the dynamics and inner workings of UNDP as well as to how best to

include indigenous representatives in local government structures, and their complex and varied relationship with national political administrations.

Preparing an Agenda on Local Governanceand Indigenous Peoples19

• Actions needed• Agenda on Local Governance and Indigenous Peoples

19. Based on presentations by Maria Rosario Saravia Paredes, Marco Stella, Jorge Servin, Leonel Cerruto, Diego Iturralde, Guillermo Tapia, Mario Solari, Paloma Bonfil, Fernando Medellín, Otilia Lux de Coti, Blanca Ruth Esponda, Aracely Burguete, Jose Eusebio Guoz and Jesus Virgilio Rivera.

REFERENCES

78 (Spanish 79-80)

�� AGENDA ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Thought has to be given to how, while mindful of vulnerabilities and supporting freedom, inclusive and non-discriminatory cohabitation can be achieved for complete social cohesion. One of the most significant proposals for action was to promote reforms and modifications in national legislations to give effective recognition to both indigenous structures of government and to the right of indigenous peoples and their representatives to participate in national decisions; this would be part of a gradu-al process of decolonizing States, their policies and government practices. Action to be taken in this respect should include:

Ð Promoting a reform of the Law on Decentralization in Guatemala to allow indigenous authorities to participate in politics.

Ð Establishing the so-called fourth floor in Mexico’s political-administrative government structure which, together with institutions at federal, state and municipal levels, would recognize and allocate resources and areas of authority to community forms of government.

Ð Creating a regulatory regime that recognizes common law or traditional (uses and customs) systems in elections for local authority offices in countries and regions where they do not yet exist (in Mexico, for example, this system is recognized in some states but not in others).

Ð Encouraging indigenous territorial representation at micro-regional level to ensure effective participation and government by all indigenous peoples living in determined areas to promote the reconstitution of indigenous peoples and the restoration of community social fabric; this would have the effect of reinventing a community with its own distinctive structures of authority, such as a territorial alderman (regidor) for example.

Ð Encouraging electoral reforms and effective positive discrimination practices and quotas to promote women’s role in local and municipal government and include dialogue between women leaders and their peoples’ organizations and authorities; capacities of grassroots organizations and of the women themselves should also be strengthened to enable them to design their own projects on infrastructure, resource administration, public expenditure mana-gement, accountability, etc.

Ð Developing conceptual methodologies and frameworks to enable indigenous communities to define the limits and structures of their self-appointed micro-local level governments and recognized as authorities capable of making binding decisions; indigenous political stakeholders should also be identified whose representation ensures that dialogues with and interventions by governments and UNDP do not disrupt the community social fabric or cause greater divisions in indigenous societies.

79 (Spanish 80-81)

Ð Promoting effective recognition of: indigenous authorities’ election processes; their government forms and values such as occupying unpaid posts and providing a community service; and their own culturally established and internationally protected decision-making and conflict-solving mechanisms as legitimate forms of indigenous groups’ social identity so that they can maintain, where appropriate, a horizontal relationship with municipal govern-ments or regional institutions.

Ð Developing viable relationship and coordination mechanisms between different local-level government entities and indigenous governments in a setting of inclusion and equality when exercising functions and managing resources; this will ensure participation and representation by all indigenous peoples in strengthening indigenous government institutions, from allocating sufficient resources to carry out their functions to promoting the appointment of indi-genous leaders in indigenous regions.

Ð Recording and studying relations between local indigenous governments and national systems to recognize successful practices that can be adapted to other scenarios; an example is external governance in Colombia that has mechanisms to coordinate the relationship between the State and the indige-nous communities. This is possible because a law provides for creating national coordination and electoral participation mechanisms such as parliament and indigenous representatives, as well as establishing indigenous political parties.

Ð Supporting and disseminating information about measures that have enabled indigenous peoples to establish their own “inwards” institutions or governance mechanisms where cultural elements identifying them are integrated and expressed, as well as their particular ways of exercising power and administrating resources and justice. This is to be combined with “external” governance that allows the right to participate in a formal democracy to be included in national and local government electoral processes, as well as the right to have access to public resources. In Colombia, for example, these mechanisms have allowed indigenous communities to survive even in times of heavy armed conflict and, to a certain extent, have permitted them to safeguard their territory.

Ð Encouraging civil registration and official documentation among the indigenous population. This is an important means of guaranteeing the individual and collective exercise of civil, economic, social and political rights as part of measures to ensure local-level indigenous governance.

Ð Strengthening technical capacities of national administration and government policy structures to recognize and support indigenous local governments as a mechanism to guarantee the exercise of the indigenous peoples´ rights by taking relevant, effective and timely decisions.

80 (Spanish 82)

Ð Encouraging the use of culturally appropriate and socially contextualized measures to solve conflicts assuming that tensions are due to the opposing parties’ histories and identities and that standardized forms of intervention, besides having little effect, result in an uncalled for imposition on indigenous societies and priorities. Note is taken of the need to allow different national and local indigenous communities to solve conflicts according to their own cultural practices.

Ð Helping to strengthen local indigenous government so that communities can prepare their own political projects, consolidate territorial and community governments, and improve their relations with municipal administrations in their regions.

Ð Developing mechanisms to strengthen political ideas and the discourse about indigenous governance with a sense of inclusion, representation, and social validation to project them from local to regional and national levels; this can be done by using different experiences of giving indigenous peoples access to national political structures, as well as increasing community participation in the national affairs of the region’s countries.

Ð Promoting recognition of the ethical principles and moral values that support indigenous government functions, as well as appropriate national and local governance participation and authority mechanisms; also to be considered are local indigenous governments’ specific vulnerabilities. This, however, does not prevent the relationship from bolstering inclusive and non-discriminatory mechanisms that help local and national indigenous systems to coexist and support the resulting social cohesion.

Ð Identifying the main indigenous political processes and measuring their achievements based on indigenous peoples´ knowledge and cultural experi-ence that shape their view of municipal territory and ownership.

Ð Developing an image of municipal management by establishing a pertinent political, cultural and economic system that respects: participation by citizens, society in general and indigenous peoples; the diversity of public policy proposals and intervention models that allow more pertinent and feasible action to be taken with objectives that have been agreed, are socially based and guarantee continuity and sustainability of government actions by including such indigenous values and principles as building well-being.

Ð Encouraging the inclusion of indigenous peoples when defining national and local development models and activities so that the latter meet the population’s needs and priorities. This proposal can be supported by recording and dissemi-nating information about successful experiences in building indigenous political agendas in countries where the indigenous population has submitted proposals that governments have addressed. That is to say, an indigenous agenda must be promoted on national public policies.

81 (Spanish 82-83)

Ð Strengthening indigenous local, regional and national impact and leadership capacities as a strategy to counter exclusion and lack of indigenous representa-tion in decision-making and government, and to encourage joint and integrated political views and concepts.

Ð Promoting indigenous participation in government by: developing participatory methodologies; systematizing experiences within and beyond borders; fostering the specific involvement of women in public decision-making; following up on international commitments by national governments; promoting existing female leadership; and mediating between indigenous leaders and national power structures at their different levels of government.

Ð Promoting intercultural dialogue between indigenous systems of local and national government by using consultative mechanisms, meeting places and get-togethers between indigenous and non-indigenous authorities to transform national discriminatory, exclusionary and racist structures and strengthen their own and community government structures.

Ð Assessing the impact of local indigenous government in complying with the MDGs and that would undoubtedly be strengthened by accepting indigenous proposals about how they might be achieved.

As to how to put an end to the tensions in indigenous regions, each nation must find its own solutions instead of copying others, as usu-ally happens. The causes of conflict are different in each culture and each one should decide its own alternatives. For example, how should the problem of transnational corporations or that of changing business and production models be solved?

Because the relationship between countries is unfair and indigenous peoples are prevented from exporting in a world of free markets, it would be helpful if changes could be made and consideration be given to a new international economic and political order. This could be done by reforming constitutions but also by adhering to international treaties that take precedence over national legislations. Work has to be done with new models and outlooks on global as well as local governance.

ANNEX Seminar Agenda

ANNEX

85 (Spanish 87)

�� PANELS

�� Panel 1. Context. Opportunities and Challenges of Local Governability and Indigenous Peoples in Latin America.

GUATEMALA, Otilia Lux de CotiFLACMA, Guillermo TapiaCHIAPAS STATE, Blanca Ruth Esponda

�� Panel 2: Advances, Challenges and Lessons. Experiences in mexico and Central America. What has been done? Results, Lessons, and what more can be done?

CHIAPAS, Araceli Burguete Cal y MayorGUATEMALA, José Eusebio Guoz NICARAGUA, Jesus Virgilio RiveraBOLIVIA, Christian JettePERU, Mario SolariCOLOMBIA, Marco Stella

ANNEX: Seminar Agenda

• Panels• Round Tables

86 (Spanish 88)

�� Panel 3: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes: Indigenous land management in community territories of origin.

BOLIVIA, María Rosario Saravia ParedesPARAGUAY, Jorge Servín

�� Panel 4: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes.MEXICO, Paloma Bonfil SánchezBOLIVIA, Martha González de Paco

�� Panel 5: Reflections on transversal experiences and themes.CHIAPAS, Óscar TorrensBOLIVIA, Leonel Cerruto

�� Panel 6: Sub-national Space as a Platform for Promoting Actions on Themes of Indigenous Peoples: Challenges and Opportunity.

Mexico, Diego IturraldeUNDP-NY, Beatriz FernándezUNDP-Colombia, Fernando Medellín

�� ROUNDTABLES

�� Roundtable 1: Regulatory/Legal.

�� Roundtable 2: Decentralization, public management and government programmes.

�� Roundtable 3: Participation of the indigenous population in electoral processing and decision-making.

�� Roundtable 4: Dialogue and building agreements.

87 (Spanish 89)

�� ACRONymS

ACIDI - Association of Indigenous Communities of Itapúa (Paraguay)

BDP - Bureau of Development Policy

CAPI - Coordinator of Self-Determination of the Indigenous Peoples (Paraguay)

ESIPIRO - School of Projects for Indigenous Peoples (Bolivia)

EZLN - Zapatista Army of National Liberation

FLACMA - Latin American Federation of Cities, Municipalities and Local Government Associations

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

GTI - Indigenous Territorial Management

HDI - Human Development Index

IFV - Intra-Family Violence – Domestic Violence

ILO - International Labour Organization

INEC - National Institute of Statistics and Census of Nicaragua

MDG - Millennium Development Goals

OACNUDH - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

OPIT - Organización Payipie Ichadie Totobiegosode (Paraguay)

PNCAT - Ayoreo Totobiegosode Natural Cultural Heritage

RAAN - North Atlantic Autonomous Region

RAAS - South Atlantic Autonomous Region

RED - Rural Economic Development

RBLAC - Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean

SEAM - Environment Secretariat (Paraguay)

TCO - Communal Territories of Origin

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF - United Nations Children’s Fund