5th Meeting, 14th Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development

Good morning. The fifth meeting of the 14th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development is called to order. Yesterday, we concluded consideration of thematic study under agenda item 5A and started discussions under agenda item 5B, which comprises three thematic discussions on different issues pertaining to the realization of the right to development. We have concluded 2 of these focused thematic discussions, and now we move to the next thematic discussion, which is entitled Indigenous People and the Right to Development. We are honored to have for this panel the following distinguished speakers. Ms. Sharon Peake, Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Professor Dr. Minerva Rivas Velarde from International Brain Initiative; Mr. Rémy Orcier, Director of Indigenous Peoples Center for Documentation, Research and Information; Mr. Antine Sondey from Indigenous Representative from Burkina Faso; Ms. Valmaine Toki, Chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous People, by video message, and Ms. Alouki Coutier, Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People, also by video message. A very warm welcome to you all, and thank you for being here today. The dialogue will be introduced and moderated by my fellow expert, Brian Kim. Brian, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. Excellencies, colleagues, friends, students. So welcome to this session. I think this is a very important session in the work that we're doing. The participation and engagement of Indigenous peoples in the design, management, administration, and evaluation of development programs is vital to achieving real progress. Without such engagement, programs won't capture the nuances, the diverse cultures worldwide, the knowledge that peoples have around the world. So 40 years ago, as we've been discussing this week, the Declaration on the Right to Development affirmed that every person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy development. It also recognized that this right includes the full realization of people's right to self-determination, including sovereignty over their wealth and natural resources. 20 years later, 19 years later, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted. and kind of reaffirmed that promise. The preamble says, "Indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories, and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests." Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms their right to self-determination and to freely pursue their economic, Social and cultural development, Article 23 recognizes their right to determine their own priorities and strategies for development. And Article 32 requires the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples before projects affecting their lands and resources go ahead. So these two declarations kind of speak the same language. Yet for many indigenous peoples, development has been something that's more done to them instead of by them. Dams, mines, plantations, carbon projects, and now the extraction of data and knowledge have too often been carried out in the name of development while dispossessing the very peoples whose territories sustain them. The perspectives and objectives of indigenous peoples have been overridden by other more powerful actors. Historical patterns of discrimination continue, and when they try to assert their right to self-determined development, all too often they're met with violence, criminalization, threats, intimidation. Indigenous peoples for too long have been treated as obstacles to development and kind of Western notions of progress. Been treated as stakeholders to be consulted or as beneficiaries, and they're none of those in reality. They're rights holders, and they have a vital role to play in development. The reality is that development with respect for indigenous peoples' rights is not only practical, feasible, and functional, but it leads to more successful development outcomes. So in this panel, we will look at what it would mean for the right to development to be realized with indigenous peoples as partners. on their terms, through their own institutions, and according to their own visions of a good life. To explore this, we have a great group of speakers, as Ramona, the chairperson mentioned. And this conversation, I hope, is also a beginning that lays the foundation for lasting collaboration amongst different UN mechanisms that are dedicated to indigenous people's rights and this expert mechanism on the right to development. So, we will begin. Do we have a. So, we'll begin with Ms. Sharon Peake, Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada. Ms. Peake. Canada is one of the few states that has legislated implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at home through its 2021 UN DRIP Act and the National Action Plan that followed. Canada is also a significant provider of international development assistance. So my question is, how is Canada applying the commitments it has made to indigenous peoples at home, including free, prior, informed consent, to its development, cooperation, and its companies operating abroad? And what has Canada learned that other states could use to make the right to development real for indigenous peoples?

Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Chair. It's really an honor to be here, and Canada really welcomes this discussion on indigenous peoples and the right to development. Canada recognizes that realizing the right to development requires processes that are inclusive, sustainable, participatory, and respectful of human rights. For Indigenous peoples, this must be grounded in recognition of their status as distinct rights holders and their right to self-determination. Indigenous peoples are not simply stakeholders in or beneficiaries of development. They are distinct rights holders and development leaders with their own governance systems, knowledge, laws, and priorities. Canada's understanding is informed by its ongoing work toward reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people. Colonial policies denied Indigenous peoples' rights and created barriers whose effects continue today. So Canada, I, therefore, present our experiences not as a completed model, but as an iterative process of implementation and ongoing learning. In 2021, Canada's United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act entered into force. It provided a federal framework for implementing the declaration through an action plan, developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, and annual progress reporting. Free, prior, and informed consent is central to this work. Canada understands it is a manifestation of Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, grounded in meaningful participation in decisions affecting them, their communities, and their territories. Its implementation is contextual and does not follow one single process. In practice, participation in decision-making should begin at the outset and enable Indigenous peoples' rights, knowledge, governance systems, and priorities to influence decisions and outcomes. Canada's action plan identifies rights respecting natural resource development as a priority, including seeking to obtain free, prior, and informed consent, integrating Indigenous knowledge, increasing Indigenous economic participation, and strengthening Indigenous roles in regulatory decision making. We further recognize the importance of safe and equitable participation for Indigenous women and girls and for 2SLGBTQI+ people. Canada is also working to reflect these principles in its international engagement. Measure 72 of the action plan commits Canada to co-develop distinctions-based, whole-of-government guidelines with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis rights holders, or their national designates, on international issues affecting them. Led by Global Affairs Canada, it seeks to strengthen Indigenous peoples' participation in decisions affecting their rights, consistent with Article 41 of the UN Declaration. including within the UN system and other intergovernmental organizations. International assistance is one area where Canada is putting this approach into practice. The Indigenous Peoples Partnering for Climate Initiative supports partnerships between Indigenous peoples in Canada and Indigenous peoples in developing countries to advance their global climate priorities. This model recognizes that Indigenous peoples already possess expertise, relationships, and solutions that extend beyond state borders. Government should support those relationships and remove barriers rather than unilaterally lead development efforts. Challenges, of course, remain. International assistance systems were not designed around Indigenous governance structures, and Indigenous organizations can face barriers to accessing resources directly. Canada continues to consider how its practices can better support Indigenous leadership in programming. These principles also extend to supporting Indigenous economic leadership and addressing the impacts of business activity. Through the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement, which is an Indigenous-led, government-enabled initiative, Canada supports Indigenous participation in trade and helps Indigenous businesses benefit from international trade and investment. Canada also expects Canadian companies abroad to respect human rights, act in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, engage affected communities, and adopt internationally recognized standards. These include the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Companies should engage early and meaningfully with Indigenous peoples and exercise appropriate human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts, particularly where their activities may affect Indigenous peoples' rights, lands, territories, resources, cultures, or livelihoods. So these lessons are not a universal template. Approaches must reflect the distinct rights, institution, and priorities of the Indigenous peoples concerned. For Canada, development must do more than generate economic growth or deliver benefits. It must respect rights, advance self-determination, and enable Indigenous peoples to shape decisions affecting their lands, territories, resources, and futures. So Canada remains committed to advancing this work in partnership with Indigenous peoples at home and abroad. Thank you.

Thank you. And just say it's very heartening to see Canada moving forward with implementing the rights as elaborated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I remember in 2014, there was the UN Conference on Indigenous Peoples where states and indigenous peoples met, and one of the One of the kind of promises made in the outcome document by states was that they would develop national action plans for implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we haven't seen much of that since 2014, so it's very nice that Canada is leading the way on this, and I think you offer a lot of sort of best practices that could be helpful to other states. Speaker is Professor Dr. Myrna Rivas-Villarde. Thank you for coming. So neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and data-driven research are fast becoming part of what development means. And Indigenous peoples are increasingly being approached as sources of data, from voices and languages to genetic and neurological information. So my question is, from where you sit in the global brain research community, What would it take for research and technology development to recognize and respect indigenous peoples' data sovereignty, and to treat indigenous peoples as rights holders whose free, prior, and informed consent shapes the research itself, rather than as a source of data to be collected? Are there safeguards the scientific community should adopt now before these practices become entrenched? The floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, Excellencies, distinguished representatives of indigenous peoples, member states, UN agencies, colleagues, and friends. The 2025 State of the World Report on Indigenous Peoples report that indigenous peoples, who are about 6% of the world population, safeguard 80% of the planet remaining biodiversity. I would like to draw this panel attention to one word in the finding: safeguard. This report doesn't say that Indigenous peoples own these lands or explode them. It says that safeguard them for their own communities and for all of humanity. Today, Indigenous peoples are carrying that role to a new domain. They are safeguarding data sovereignty, the fundamental right to choose and control our data and to give it meaning. Right now, that right is at stake with the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence powered tools and uneven data governance frameworks. Building on the advocacy and research work of the International Brain Initiative, I would like to make five points to your question. An International Brain Initiative is an international consortium of the world's major existing and emerging brain research projects where I cross-lead the cross-cultural working group. The first, it refers to epistemic justice. Indigenous peoples more served as the intellectual compass for the governance of these technologies, not as a footnote to it. This means equal authority, not advisory input, in shaping how AI and neurotechnology are designed, tested, and deployed. Holistic indigenous epistemologies understand the mind, the body, the community, and that the land are connected. They should be actively guided design of new technologies because they reveal that what approaches focus on the individual cannot see. They see collective rights, relationality, stewardship, and the interest for the future generations. Second, the colonial risk is an ongoing reality, not a matter of history. Data, whatever collected through research, administration, or violence, is a cultural, strategic, and economic asset. Today, struggles over data mirror the long struggle against land grabbing. Technoscience continue to reproduce patterns of extraction, classification, and exploitation. We are witnessing a new form of data farming, in which data from indigenous communities, including genomic and neurodata, is harvested without consent or on the consent mechanisms that lack legitimacy. Artificial intelligence deepens this problem. Because knowledge persists in trained models and derivated data even after the original data is withdrawn. We must therefore explore and adapt mechanisms of informed consent, including collective consent, understanding right to contest and withdraw it. We must be honest also about its limits. Consent alone cannot correct a structural imbalance. Financial consideration must be addressed directly. Who profits from indigenous data? How benefits are shared? And who funds the indigenous institutions that are expected to govern those processes? Third, our ethical and legal grounding exist already, thankfully, but its implementation needs reinforcement. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples establishes the right to self-determination, to free, prior, and informed consent, and to control over cultural heritage and traditional knowledge. Indigenous data sovereignty and the right of indigenous peoples to exercise self-determination over the knowledge, their data, and cultures follows directly from these rights. Rights include also access, access to the benefits of those technologies, including therapeutic neurotechnologies, and access to the forums where decisions are made. Several states have adopted binding instruments that recognize indigenous data authority, and specific governance bodies are emerging. Yet, many of the councils, register, and informing mechanisms these law require are not yet functioning. Fourth, Geopolitical fragmentation is a practical obstacle. Right-based markets, right-based, market-based, or state-led models of governance are advancing in parallel without coordination. This divide undercut trust and widening the representation gaps. Data collection moves within and across countries regularly. Some communities are less protected than others. And unequal digital access compound this exclusion. Communities without connectivity, infrastructure, or technical capacities are showed out of the very governance processes that determine how the data is used. For us in brain research, health, and public health, we pretty much depend on the ability to share interoperable data. We must Take this task with and pursue it with epistemic humility and share standards that must include shared governance, not only technical protocols. Fifth, and this is the unresolved institutional gap. We welcome the UNESCO recommendation on ethics of neurotechnology and the work of the World Health Organization and the OECD and the new United Nations bodies on artificial intelligence. But despite these efforts, protections against neurotechnology colonialism remain insufficient. The rollout of these instruments is being decided now. And this, I think, addresses your question directly. It is now the time to act. Once these documents and these procedures and protocols are in place, it will be very difficult to change them. We therefore respectfully call member states and standard setting bodies to, first, secure indigenous participation with equal authority immediately when mandates, membership, and procedures of new AI and new technologies bodies are defined. Second, to extend indigenous data sovereignty explicitly to narrow data and narrow AI, to develop Adapted consent mechanisms, including collective decision making and standing right to withdraw across the entire data cycle and AI life cycle. To write sovereignty into operational rules and accountability, oversight, audit, and benefit sharing. To recognize Indigenous peoples organizations as core regulator rather than stakeholders, drawing on models such as the permanent participants of the Arctic Council. Invest on digital access in indigenous institutions that make existing legal recognitions real. Chair, let me return to where I began. Indigenous people have long safeguarded the natural resources on which all humanity depends. In the age of artificial intelligence, they are safeguarding something equally precious, our choice and control, our ability to give meaning to data and to hold wisdom. to hold wisdom in what we create, the networks we create, the predictions we make, and the learning that we do with our AI techniques. We believe that Indigenous peoples are the whistleblowers of our time. They alert us to hold on to our rights and warn us about the dangers ahead. Sadly, they do so out of experience. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of the Right to Development. Let this anniversary serve as a landmark to celebrate, embrace, and protect indigenous people's rights to development in their own terms, including new technology advances. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you for all the work that the International Brain Initiative is doing to kind of advance this conversation. Let's see, our next speaker is Mr. Antine Sondi. an indigenous peoples representative from Burkina Faso. In the Sahel, indigenous peoples face the combined pressures of insecurity, climate change, displacement, and limited recognition of their status as indigenous peoples and their territorial rights. So my question in that context is, what does the right to development mean to your communities today? When development programs and security responses arrive in your territories, are communities being consulted? And what would self-determined development look like if indigenous peoples were setting the priorities?

Thank you.

Chair, experts, distinguished delegates, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on indigenous peoples and the right to development. Before responding to the question asked of me, I'd like to draw your attention to the situation that's particularly alarming with respect to pastoralist Fulbe communities in the Sahel. When I speak of the Fulbe people, these are Poles. Their security, land, livelihoods, cultural identity, and more fundamentally, the very conditions of their survival now seriously under threat. The Fulbe people are one of Africa's major pastoralist peoples. For generations, they've developed livestock breeding system based on mobility, in-depth knowledge of ecosystems, and natural resource management adapted to the realities of the Sahel, as you mentioned, Chair. Transhumance is at the heart of their way of life. Transhumance is not a sign of being behind, it's a way of life, cultural heritage, and an economic system that enables pastoralist communities to adapt to the environmental conditions in the Sahel. This reality has also been recognized in the work of the FAO on pastoralism in Africa and their study on the economic assessment. of pastoralism in the Sahel. However, insecurity, violence, forced displacement, mobility restrictions, land use pressure, and climate change are seriously weakening these communities. Chair. The first prerequisite for development is the right to life and security. On 2 April 2026, Human Rights Watch published a report documenting 57 incidents where over 1,800 civilians were killed in Burkina Faso between January 2023 and August 2025. So in two years. It set out serious crimes committed by several parties to the conflict, namely violence targeting the Fulbe people. These facts showed the dangers of collective stigmatization and assimilating an entire community to armed groups due to their ethnic belonging. No ethnic group or belonging can justify death, persecution, forced disappearance, or displacement. The Fulbe communities have the right to the same protection as all other civilian populations. They must not be collectively suspected or deprived of their rights due to their identity. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right to life. In General Comment 36, the Human Rights Committee sets out the scope of this protection and states obligations. This requires effective protection of civilians, impartial investigations into violations, combating impunity, and respecting human rights in security operations. In addition to this violence, there are forced displacement and restrictions on access to land, grazing land, water sources, and transhumance corridors. The FAO underscores that disturbance or disruption to pastoral routes and difficulties in accessing natural resources worsens the vulnerability of communities. The right to development cannot become a reality when populations are living in fear, where they're losing their territories. or where they are forced to abandon their livelihoods. The protection of life, dignity and the security of communities must therefore be considered as a fundamental condition for development rather than a secondary issue. Ladies and gentlemen, experts, the second difficulty relates to participation of communities in Decisions that determine their future, land use decisions, development projects, conservation initiatives, and some investments can restrict pastoralists’ access to their natural resources without their concerns being sufficiently considered. A fundamental question is therefore raised: how can we speak of the right to development when the people affected cannot define their priorities or truly participate in decisions that will shape their future? The UN Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the General Assembly in 1986, recognizes in its first article the right of each person and all peoples to participate in, economic, social, cultural and political development. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the rights to self-determination and autonomy. These principles must be turned into concrete action through the recognition of community institutions, traditional resource management systems, and the right of communities to determine their own development priorities. Consultation must not just be a formality that's carried out after decisions are taken, unfortunately. It must take place sufficiently early to enable communities to understand projects, express their concerns, and to really evaluate decisions. Free, prior, and informed consent must be respected in line with applicable international standards. Communities must have complete accessible and comprehensible information in languages they understand in order to be able to understand the consequences of projects on their land, their resources, and their future. Development must never become a tool for dispossession, for exclusion, or cultural erasure. What would real, self-determined development look like for pastoralist communities in the Sahel then? It would guarantee the security of people, the recognition of customary and collective land rights, as well as protection of land, grazing land, water sources, and transhumance corridors. It would enable communities to access health services and education adapted to their mobility, to accessible veterinary services, and functioning markets. pastoralist development initiatives supported by the FAO and partners demonstrate the importance of adapted infrastructure, namely with respect to water sources, livestock markets, and sanitation facilities. In light of this, we have four recommendations, priority recommendations to the mechanism. First, strengthening the consideration of the right to life and security; second, promoting self-determination and effective participation; third, encouraging policies and programs for development drawn up with pastoralist communities; fourth, providing for institutional cooperation between the expert mechanism on the right to development and the expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples to identify obstacles to self-determination and to look at the difficulties faced by pastoralist communities and indigenous groups. In conclusion, indigenous peoples are not asking for their future to be decided for them. They are asking that their rights are recognized, that their voices are heard, and their choices are respected. We are not rejecting development, we're upholding development based on human dignity, self-determination, justice and the respect of our identities. The right to development must enable our communities to conserve their mobility, to protect their territories, to transmit their knowledge to future generations and to fully contribute to peace and the prosperity of our societies. Because there cannot be real development without the protection of life, without security, without effective participation and without the respect of human rights. Nothing about us without us. No sustainable development can be without the recognition of our rights, the protection of our lives, and the respect of our self-determination. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Sondi. Yeah, it's a very sad situation in the Sahel with the pastoralists, and I think it's a good example of Development gone bad, most of it has to do with critical minerals. And there's a lot of mercenaries and other armed groups in the region that are committing grave human rights abuses against the pastoralists of the region in order to get to those critical minerals. And your point on free, prior, and informed consent, I think, is, you know, something that we really need to think about because What we're seeing around the world is all the resource extraction companies are claiming that they get free, prior, informed consent, but it's kind of the creation, creating illusions of free, prior, informed consent. Consent gets sort of dumbed down to consultation, which then gets dumbed down to a courtesy call after decisions have already been made, as one of the panelists had mentioned. So, yeah, thank you for your input. Our next speaker, Mr. Remy Ocia from DOSIP, the Indigenous Peoples Center for Documentation, Research, and Information, an organization that's been documenting the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Movement, particularly within UN systems, for many, many years, and I think their work speaks for itself. Dr. Velarde actually mentioned some facts and figures that she got from one of the last reports of DOSIP, so the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. The question about indigenous peoples participating to development is not whether indigenous peoples participate in development, because in many places they are usually consulted, invited to workshops. They have been asked to sign attendance sheets or shown maps and impact assessment. The real question is whether that participation can change the decision. So my answer to the question, if indigenous peoples participate to development, is that the biggest gap lies between recognition and power. International standards increasingly recognize indigenous peoples' rights to determine their own development priorities, to participate in the design and evaluation of plans affecting them, and to give or withhold free, prior, and informed consent. But too often, in practice, indigenous peoples are brought in after the essential choices have already been made, where the dam will be built, which territory will be concessioned, what the financing structure will be or whether relocation is already considered inevitable. That is not participation, it is notification. The documentation held by my organization, DOSIP, makes this pattern visible. It records indigenous organizations' interventions, alternative reports, statements to UN bodies, and expert discussions over decades. Read together, they show a repeated demand: not simply to be informed, but to be able to say no, to propose alternatives, and to shape the terms of development. Let me give a few examples. In 2009, indigenous representatives from Manipur in India addressed the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues about the Loktak hydroelectric project, commissioned in 1984. They described the flooding of nearly 50,000 hectares of arable land and the displacement of thousands of Maité and Kaibui people without adequate rehabilitation. They also raised concerns about the proposed Tipaimukh Dam, which they said would submerge indigenous lands, affect dozens of villages, and destroy sacred sites. Their central point was not that consultation had never occurred. It was that large infrastructure had been pursued without respecting Indigenous peoples' rights to free, prior, and informed consent, and without a genuine opportunity to influence whether the project should proceed at all. That example captures the first form of symbolic participation, consultation after commitment. When a project's location, financing, and technical design are already fixed, communities may be able to negotiate compensation or mitigation, but they cannot meaningfully shape the development model itself. A second example comes from Cambodia, documented in a 2007 report by what was called at the time the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. He examined land registration policy affecting indigenous communities and stressed that indigenous peoples must be able to determine their own priorities and strategies for the use of their traditional lands, including shifting cultivation, and they must participate in development plans affecting them, and that they should be consulted before exploration and exploitation of natural resources. He also stated that removal from traditional territories should be exceptional and require, once more, free, prior, and informed consent. This matters because land is not simply an input into development. For many Indigenous peoples, land, territory, culture, food systems, and political authority are inseparable. If development planning treats lands as available for external decision-making, while Indigenous communities are consulted only on the consequences, the process reproduces the very exclusion it claims to remedy. The SIBS documentation also shows what more meaningful participation can look like. For example, in 2005, A submission on IFAD-supported projects described initiatives in Nepal that provided indigenous women and men with information and training on their rights, then supported them in asserting those rights themselves. In the Philippines, a project supported the documentation of indigenous knowledge relating to plants and genetic resources, together with protection of the intellectual property rights of knowledge holders. In Ecuador, another initiative supported the revitalization of tangible and intangible heritage of the development of cultural microenterprises. These are obviously not perfect models, and they do not erase structural inequalities, but they illustrate a different logic. Indigenous peoples are not merely beneficiaries of services designed elsewhere. They hold knowledge, priorities, and institutions that should shape the interventions from the outset. The SIP records of a 2006 seminar on permanent sovereignty over natural resources make the point especially clear. Participants emphasized that free, prior, and informed consent must include the practical ability to say no to development projects. They also stressed that consent requires relevant information, time to assess risks and benefits, and respect for Indigenous peoples' own legal systems and decision-making processes. That is the decisive test. Consent is not a signature collected at the end of a meeting. It is a process in which communities have the information, time, language, technical support, and institutional space to reach a collective decision, and in which that decision has consequences. So, which form of participation leads to real influence? First, early participation. Indigenous peoples must be engaged before permits, concessions, financing, or strategic design choices are locked in. Second, collective participation through legitimate representative institutions. A meeting with a few individuals does not substitute for a community's own decision-making process. Third, participation with capacity. Communities need independent, technical, legal, and linguistic support to assess complex environmental, financial, and human rights impacts. Fourth, participation with consequences. There must be a clear mechanism through which Indigenous objections can modify, delay, condition, or stop a proposal. And fifth, benefit sharing and accountability agreed with communities rather than imposed by project sponsors. By contrast, participation remains symbolic when it consists of information meetings after approval, when compensation is treated as consent, when consultations target individuals rather than peoples, and when no mechanism exists for a community's position to affect the outcome. The lesson from DOSIP's documentation is not that consultation is worthless, it's that consultation without influence can become a tool of legitimacy for decisions already taken. Real participation begins when indigenous peoples can help define what development means on which territory, under whose authority, and for whose benefit. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you for your recommendations. Very good. And now we have a couple of video messages from people who could not make it. The first will be from Ms. Belmaim Tooke, the Chair of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Chair, distinguished panelists, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the invitation to join this interactive dialogue. It is indeed my pleasure to participate in this panel on Indigenous Peoples and the right to development. It comes at a particularly important moment as we approach the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, providing an opportunity not only to reflect on progress achieved, but also on the steps still required to ensure the realization of Indigenous Peoples' right to development. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mandated to provide expertise and advice to achieve the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Throughout its work, the Expert Mechanism has frequently interpreted and implemented its mandate with regard to the right to development. This is due to the right to development's significance in indigenous rights. The right to development features heavily throughout both the preamble and the substantive provisions of the Declaration. Indeed, the Declaration itself may be seen as a development. While Indigenous Peoples were not explicitly referenced in the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirmed their rights to development and to participate in development, providing important guidance on the implementation on the right to development in the Indigenous context. The right to self-determination and the right to development are intertwined, as shown by Article 3, which notes that the right to self-determination includes the right of Indigenous Peoples to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. The Expert Mechanism's work has extensively examined Indigenous Peoples' right to self-determined development. Across its studies, advice, and reports, the Expert Mechanism has discussed the rights of Indigenous peoples to participate and be consulted on land development and to control their own education plans and institutions, develop their own juridical institutions, and to obtain redress for the negative impacts of development projects. It has reaffirmed Indigenous peoples’ right to development and their right to decide and develop the priorities and strategies for exercising that right, and emphasised that States should recognise Indigenous peoples as important contributors to sustainable development, rather than perpetuating the stereotype that Indigenous peoples are obstacles to development, noting that this has been used as a justification for land dispossession. The Expert Mechanism has also emphasized that development affecting Indigenous Peoples must be grounded in free, prior and informed consent. The Expert Mechanism has, amongst other things, advised that States must ensure that consultation processes work towards seeking Indigenous Peoples' free, prior and informed consent. The Expert Mechanism has further addressed the negative impact development projects may have on Indigenous rights. Our work has highlighted concerns relating to the violations of free, prior and informed consent, extractive industries, resource exploitation, disaster risk, cultural heritage, health, and while advising that states consider and take measures against the possible impact of resource extraction development on increased disaster risk. At its 15th session, the Expert Mechanism specifically examined the impact of development projects on Indigenous women and girls, particularly in the context when free, prior, and informed consent was absent. That discussion highlighted the indispensable role of Indigenous women as practitioners of sustainable development, while drawing attention to the disproportionate harms that development projects may have on Indigenous girls and Indigenous women. The Expert Mechanism has also interpreted the right to development through its country engagement mandate. Its engagements in Finland, Brazil and New Zealand have highlighted cross-cutting themes, including the need to safeguard Indigenous livelihoods and cultures from harmful development impacts, ensure free, prior and informed consent for activities affecting Indigenous territories, and support Indigenous peoples in exercising control over their institutions and services. The Expert Mechanism and the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development have engaged in a constructive dialogue on the intersection between Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the right to development, laying an important foundation for continued cooperation. In particular, our interactive dialogue in 2022 and 2023 provided an important platform for exploring the interlinkages between the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and also the Declaration on the Right to Development, and for reflecting on how the right to development must be understood and implemented in ways that respond to the specific circumstances, rights, and aspirations of Indigenous peoples. Those discussions underscored the unique contribution of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to discussions on development, notably its recognition of Indigenous peoples as distinct rights holders and through the standards of self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent. They also highlighted that the interlinkages between the two declarations require the constant and active awareness of the context in which Indigenous rights should be promoted and protected, and this could be done by the joint work between the two mechanisms. Importantly, these exchanges identified significant synergies between our respective mandates. Among the areas identified for future collaboration were self-determination, free, prior and informed consent, Indigenous women, and development, remedies for harms arising from development activities, and Indigenous peoples' self-determined development models. In this regard, I would like to inform that the Expert Mechanism's next annual study will be focused on business and human rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we would like to invite the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development to contribute to this work. I once again warmly welcome this opportunity to build upon the important work already undertaken together. We hope that today's dialogue will serve as a stepping stone towards a more sustained and structured collaboration, allowing us to continue advancing Indigenous peoples' right to development. I thank you.

Okay, and now our final speaker is Ms. Aluki Kotir, who is the Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Greetings, distinguished members of the Expert Mechanism, Excellencies, indigenous representatives, colleagues. This year marks 40 years since the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development. Next year, we mark 20 years of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the right moment to bring these two declarations together. For Indigenous peoples, the right to development begins with self-determination. Article 3 of the declaration states that Indigenous peoples freely determine their political status and they freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Article 32 of the Declaration goes on to say that Indigenous Peoples have the right to set their own priorities for their lands, territories, and resources. States must consult them in good faith through their own representative institutions, and states must obtain the free, prior, and informed consent before approving projects that affect their lands. For Indigenous peoples, development is not only economic growth. Development builds on collective rights, tradition, and respect for ancestors, while also looking forward. Indigenous peoples' concepts of development are about values like reciprocity, solidarity, and sustainability. Too often, development paradigms portray Indigenous peoples as obstacles to development and their own culture are contradictory to economic development. Indigenous peoples have paid the price for this kind of development, designed by others. Real development strengthens Indigenous cultures, languages, lands, and ways of life. Meaningful progress has been made, yet serious obstacles remain. especially regarding self-determination, free, prior, and informed consent, and land rights. These tensions are the sharpest where natural resources are concerned, and in many legal systems, collective rights are not fully recognized. Participation in decision-making is a further challenge. Many Indigenous peoples' communities are far removed from centers of political decision-making. Yet, development is most effective when the people themselves are directly involved at all stages. Resources dedicated to indigenous issues remain limited. Disaggregated data on indigenous peoples is frequently lacking, and awareness of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also remains limited. As chair of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, I am delighted to participate in this discussion, and I wish I could be there with you in person. I am also pleased to see that you are working with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Permanent Forum is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council. It brings indigenous peoples, States, and the UN system together in open dialogue. It provides recommendations to the wider United Nations system. I believe that your insights and analysis could very much benefit the work of the Forum, and we should explore ways of working together. I would also invite the Expert Mechanism to draw on the Forum's many recommendations on development, as well as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in your work. The Forum stands ready to collaborate with you. Thank you.

Okay, so now we will go to the floor. First, we'll go to Venezuela. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, moderator. Venezuela is grateful for the valuable presentations given by the panelists. and highlights the importance of this area for thoughts about the rights of Indigenous Peoples and their relationship with the right to development, in particular when it comes to their effective participation in decisions that have an impact on their territories, cultures, and their living standards. We believe that the development of the right to Indigenous Peoples cannot be built on uniform models which are unaware of their historic and cultural specific features. On the contrary, It must be based on the culture, their identity, recognition of their traditional forms of organization, recognizing them as protagonists in their development process. In Venezuela, our constitution recognizes the multi-ethnic and pluricultural aspect of society and enshrines the rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to their culture, language, the habitat, and ancestral lands, as well as their political participation. This recognition is expressed in initiatives aimed at preserving and promoting ancestral knowledge of indigenous peoples, in particular through bilingual education, recognition of indigenous traditional medicine, and their link to the public health system. These experiences reflect the importance of building public policies which value cultural diversity and promote the exchange of knowledge. Also, Venezuela highlights that the full realization of the right to development of indigenous peoples means that international cooperation needs to be enhanced, also facilitate access to resources and technology, and allow for conditions so that these communities can actively participate in the sustainable development of their land and natural resources, in line with their own priorities and aspirations. By way of conclusion, we affirm that the realization of the right to development means guaranteeing the active, free and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in decisions affecting their present and their future. The challenge not only lies in expanding their opportunities for development, but ensure that they can define their own priorities and contribute to their realization, preserving their identity, culture and ancestral knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you to Venezuela. Our next speaker is Guatemala. The floor is yours.

Thank you, moderator. We would like to thank you, Mr. Brian Keene, and the panelists for their inputs. When it comes to the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development, Guatemala reaffirms that this right can only be realized fully if indigenous peoples participate in the definition of their own future. It isn't enough to draw public policies for them, it is vital to build them together with them, respecting their free, their self-determination, their institutions, and their own priorities. Guatemala believes that free, prior, and informed consent and consultation are closely linked. whose respect is fundamental to ensure self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. The implementation must go beyond formal procedures and promote genuine dialogue processes, and these must be built up by respecting their institutions and their ways of organization, thereby contributing to preventing conflict, strengthening peaceful coexistence and social cohesion. This is particularly important given the extractive industries that are taking place, conservation projects for transition, and climate financing mechanisms. Responses to environmental crises shouldn't lead to inequalities or neglect the rights of Indigenous peoples over their land, territories, and resources. Moderator, within the framework of the session of the Human Rights Council, the 63rd session, Guatemala, together with Mexico, promoted the resolution entitled the Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, which is adopted by consensus and through which we reaffirm the commitment to strengthen the promotion and protection of their rights, including their effective participation in spaces of dialogue, discussions, and deliberations. Nationally, the Catun Plan recognizes the cultural relevance, ancestral practices, and the participation of Indigenous peoples in land planning. Its update for 2052 has included dialogue in the 22 departments with participation of Indigenous leaders. This provides an opportunity to incorporate their own development priorities. Thus, we would like to ask the panellists how both mechanisms could draw up joint guidelines which would help States to incorporate development models of Indigenous Peoples in their national policies. And this is in relation to strengthening cooperation and coordination amongst this mechanism and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thank you very much, moderator.

Thank you, sir. And to reply to your question, we very much hope that this will be the time when we begin to collaborate with MRIP to provide assistance to countries in implementing the right to development with indigenous peoples in a way which respects and recognizes their rights.

Next, the floor will go to Malaysia.

Madam Chair, Mr. Moderator, Malaysia welcomes this discussion and thanks the panelists for highlighting the importance of Indigenous Peoples' priorities, institutions, and development aspirations. The right to development requires meaningful opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to shape decisions affecting their lives. Consistent with UNDRIP, This requires respect for their identities, customary institutions, and development priorities, taking into account national constitutional and legal frameworks. Madam Chair, Malaysia is undertaking a project from 2025 to 2027 to formulate the new Indigenous Peoples Development Policy in collaboration with UNDP. It encompasses seven key areas, including land, education, health, economic empowerment, leadership, infrastructure, and cultural preservation. This approach recognises that improvements in material well-being must advance alongside the preservation of identity and community life. Malaysia is also reviewing the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954, focusing on four key areas, namely: customary land matters, welfare, management of customary marriages, and governance of traditional leadership in the community. Direct engagements with more than 1,000 respondents have informed this process. These efforts underline the importance of incorporating community perspectives from the outset and throughout implementation. Guided by Malaysia's national aspirations and development priorities, we continue to implement targeted initiatives aimed at improving the socio-economic well-being of indigenous communities through infrastructure development, education, healthcare, entrepreneurship support, skills training, and poverty eradication programs. Madam Chair, national and international planning should provide space for Indigenous peoples' knowledge, customary practices, and development models. Access to education, healthcare, connectivity, and economic opportunities should respond to community needs while safeguarding cultural heritage and the environment. It is also important to ensure the participation of indigenous women, youth, persons with disabilities, and older persons, among others. In this regard, Malaysia supports closer cooperation between the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through joint dialogues, exchanges of good practices, and practical guidance developed with indigenous communities. Malaysia remains committed to constructive engagement and international cooperation to ensure that development responds to indigenous peoples' needs and aspirations. I thank you.

Thank you for your contribution, and it's very encouraging to hear that you're working on a new indigenous peoples policy with UNDP. And if you need some extra eyes on the development of the policy, or you would like the support of the expert mechanism, we would be happy to support that process. Next, the floor goes to Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator, and distinguished panelists. As recognized by many on the panel and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169, indigenous peoples are not merely beneficiaries of development policies, they are rights holders entitled to determine their own development priorities. From Brazil's perspective, the realization of the right to development must be firmly grounded in self-determination, with indigenous peoples exercising genuine agency over all decisions affecting their lives, territories, and collective futures. This understanding is particularly critical now in the context of the accelerating global demand for critical minerals required by the energy transition. While these resources are essential to advancing sustainable development and international climate commitments, transition cannot come at the expense of human rights. Development initiatives affecting indigenous territories must strictly adhere to international standards, centrally including free, prior, and informed consent. In this regard, Brazil recently adopted Law 15506 of 2026, establishing the national policy on critical and strategic minerals. This legislation seeks to foster sustainable, responsible value chains while embedding explicit safeguards to uphold the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples and traditional communities at every stage. And it's important to bear in mind that the consultation must be effective and consequential, not merely in letter, as highlighted by Mr. Orsier. Furthermore, We must highlight the grave and distinct situation of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. For these populations, the principles of no contact and precaution are non-negotiable. Their decision to remain isolated represents a profound expression of self-determination. Any development initiative, infrastructure project, or resource extraction must strictly avoid introducing risks of irreversible harm to their physical survival, lands, and cultures. Development planning at all levels should actively reflect Indigenous peoples' own government structures, traditional knowledge, and visions of well-being. Centuries of experience demonstrate that the sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and effective climate action are mutually reinforcing when policies are designed and implemented with Indigenous leadership and full respect for their territorial integrity. Finally, Brazil strongly supports deeper cooperation between the expert mechanism, the right of development, and the expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples, as many other delegations here have also supported. We trust that this institutional collaboration will foster clear multilateral roadmap, ensuring that the right to development is consistently advanced in full harmony with the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

Thank you, President, and thank you for bringing up indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation. I think that's an important point. Their self-determination and their free, prior, and informed consent, they make it clear by remaining in voluntary isolation. So their territories should be off limits to extractive industries and other development projects. Next, the floor goes to Mexico.

Moderator, we would like to thank the experts for including in this session a debate on the link between indigenous peoples and the right to development. We have taken note of the presentations. In Mexico, 23.2 million people are recognized as indigenous and over 7 million speak an indigenous language. For these peoples, the development is not just a challenge from the outside world, it's a way of viewing the world. Indigenous Mexicans are governed under certain norms of conduct, which we would like to share with this expert mechanism, given that they could be guidance to foster the right to development. These principles are the basis of Mexican humanism, which govern development policies fostered by the Mexican government. The seven principles of the indigenous Mexicans are the following: Firstly, community. Priority is given to the interest of the community without denying individuality, but always consulting the collective group. Secondly, we have reciprocity. Whoever receives is compelled to return both people and the land. Thirdly, loyalty. Loyalty to the family, the community, and commitment. Fourthly, collective work. Communities are committed to work collectively so as to grapple with challenges affecting everyone. Fifthly, is honouring one's word. Commitments must be fulfilled. Sixthly, we have redistributive economy where the prestige of sharing wealth is more important than the accumulation of wealth. And the last principle is love of land and life, which closely links them to the protection of the environment and human rights. These principles are tied in with Article 23 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes their right to determine and to set their own priorities and development strategies. Mexico has sought to reflect these institutions. We made an historic reform of Article 2 of the Constitution published in September 2024. It recognizes Indigenous peoples and communities and Afro-Mexicans as subjects of public rights with a legal personality and their own heritage, and it promotes public resources for development being sent to communities directly. To give life to this constitutional mandate, Mexico is currently fostering a broad consultation and free, prior, and informed consent on a new general law on the rights of Indigenous peoples. so that they are fully involved in policies and public institutions affecting them directly. We call upon the mechanism in the conclusions to include the proposals of Indigenous Peoples and the right to development, as well as the necessary protection of Indigenous Peoples in national development policies. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mexico, and thank you for sharing the information on the new law and these seven principles of indigenous peoples in Mexico.

The floor goes to Cuba. I give the floor now to Professor Kabila, the chairperson of the Cameroon Human Rights Commission.

Madame la Présidente, Chair, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to speak frankly. 40 years on from the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, I have personally lost some illusions. First on the adoption of an ambitious, effectively applied, legally binding document, and also on the capacity to help those in countries and those of indigenous peoples on their development. I've also lost my illusions, but not my beliefs with respect to the right of development, which is key because we're also seeing unfulfilled promises. We are all indigenous in Africa. In most African countries certain situations need to be distinguished. There are three categories of indigenous peoples in Africa. First, those in the Western sense with respect to their colonization. Second, peoples established on identified land before colonization or independence, and they have specific identities, and they're particularly vulnerable. Their rights must be respected. The second category have become vulnerable through dispossession, marginalisation and other causes, and therefore African special protection corresponds to that in the West, and it remains key. Cooperation is also essential. I note the link with the land, the experience of dispossession and marginalisation, and so on. are all, as I say, indigenous in Africa, but this makes needs invisible. I like to note that legal aspects have been touched on, and the impact of AI identifying aspects of this with respect, for example, to reparations to communities. And I also note the work of the Cameroon Human Rights Commission and their work on indigenous peoples' cases. We need to ensure peace, health, food, education, water, a healthy environment, the participation and justice as well as legal identity and education, which are key for indigenous peoples. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Professor Kabila, and thank you for your recommendations. Next, we give the floor to the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development.

Thank you, moderator. and the panelists for this important discussion on the indigenous people and right to development. I am Thananathit Narapat from Manushya Foundation, speaking on behalf of Forum Asia, Manushya, and the Indigenous Women's Network of Thailand. I am delivering this statement for Katimalicha Adisu, indigenous woman, human rights defender, and Manushya board member. She could not join us because her visa application was refused. Katima became a defender after her father, a community leader, was shot dead in a land dispute in 2012. Her experience raises a fundamental question: how can Indigenous peoples determine their development when their right to their ancestral lands remain insecure? The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes their right to determine development priorities and requires free, prior, and informed consent for projects affecting their lands and resources. In Bangkroi, indigenous Karen community have faced land evictions and criminalization in the name of conservation. For defending ancestral lands in Krangchan National Park within the UNESCO-listed Krangchan Forest Complex, recognized as UNESCO World Heritage Site. They are guardians of the forest. Conservation must uphold their rights, knowledge, and way of life, not criminalize them. When defenders are silent, development loses its eyes and ears. However, there are also constructive steps to build on. Thailand's new Ethnic Way of Life Law offers an opening, but does not explicitly recognize Indigenous people and only partially reflects free, prior, and informed consent. In Omkoi, Karen communities organized and challenged a proposed coal mine. In February 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld a temporary injunction halting the project. This illustrates how community organizing and access to courts can help prevent harm. Indigenous women must have decision-making power in these processes. We ask the Expert Mechanism to share such approaches and recommend that Member States: First, legally recognize Indigenous Peoples and their collective right to land, territories, and resources, and guarantee free, prior, and informed consent in law and practice. Second, Reform conservation and development laws with Indigenous peoples' full participation, recognizing customary tenure and rotational farming. End forced evictions and criminalization for legitimately exercising their rights and provide remedies. Third, guarantee Indigenous women's equal and meaningful participation in land, forest, and development decision with resources and protection against reprisals. Katima absence must not mean the absence of Indigenous women's voices. Development must respect indigenous peoples' power to shape their own future. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your recommendations. Now we will go to Cuba. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, moderator. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples enshrined the right to development as one of its principles, which is a backbone, and recognized the need to grant broad prerogatives to indigenous people so as to define their priorities and strategies in that regard, pursuant to the right to self-determination. With that wording, We sought to avoid imposing a single model which would maximize profits and look at economic indicators and place them over the identity, culture, and the lives of Indigenous Peoples. We continue to be concerned about the same events which underpinned the Declaration in 2007. Indigenous Peoples continue to suffer the effects of injustice stemming from colonization. domination, deprivation of their rights, destruction of their social and political organization, an imposition of foreign cultural patterns, and a denial of their customs and traditions. 20 years on from the adoption of these provisions, national development programs very often do not recognize the connective rights of indigenous peoples over their lands, territories, and resources, and ignore the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. The needs of these communities continue to be put back in the global agenda. In 2025, these peoples received less than 1% of international climate funding, despite possessing approximately 22% of the surface of the global heritage and being protectors of 80% of global biodiversity. The effects of these phenomena are serious. The imposition of development models which are far removed from the needs of Indigenous Peoples has led to profound inequalities and has also led to other social problems such as family breakdown, alcoholism, and suicide amongst young people from those communities. It is the responsibility of all to put an end to that trend. We restate that the respect for knowledge, cultures, and traditional practices of Indigenous Peoples contribute to sustainable and equitable development. Cuba supports the promotion of free, meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in their own development. It is only in this way that they will be able to achieve a more sustainable growth and inclusive growth. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Cuba, for your statement.

We will go to APG 23. The floor is yours.

Mr. Chair, for decades, indigenous people have been affected by unfair dominant development models that have destroyed the environment, harmed biodiversity, and exacerbated inequalities. As an NGO working at grassroots level, we wish to draw attention to the situation of Mapuche people, the largest indigenous group in Chile. They continue to struggle to protect their ancestral lands from harmful business activities that threaten the environment. These initiatives often prioritize profit over people, disregarding the Mapuche people's right to self-determination and the right to free, prior, and informed consent. The lack of constitutional recognition of Mapuche peoples undermines their right to development and the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the ILO Convention No. 169. The right to development plays a key role in realizing indigenous rights, especially the right to self-determination. In this regard, they must have a meaningful role in designing, implementing, and monitoring development policies. Unfortunately, as we have observed in the field, this is far from the reality. Indigenous communities are considered an obstacle to development. FPIC is too often disregarded, excluding them from decisions that directly affect their lives and territories. Instead, respecting Indigenous peoples' institutions, territorial rights, cultural identities, and autonomy, in accordance with international human rights standards, is crucial in realizing the right to development and self-determination. Likewise, due diligence and FPIC processes must be more inclusive, participatory, representative, respecting Indigenous people on cultural protocols. Failure to respect such protocols for convening consultation with Indigenous communities together with linguistic barriers and the use of legal terminology undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the process. A right to development approach provides a blueprint for advancing shared decision-making while respecting Indigenous Peoples' rights and governance. It is therefore crucial to draw a new, fair paradigm based on cooperation and mutual understanding between States, corporations, and Indigenous Peoples, recognizing the latter as the right holders entitled to define their own development priorities and strategies. In the perspective of such a renewed paradigm, the right to development of Indigenous Peoples has a key role. It calls for a social institutional transformation founded on a deep cultural shift, which overcomes structural violence and injustice and ensures meaningful and active participation in the decision-making process. We also commend the proposal of the Temake study focused on Indigenous Peoples' self-determination and development. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your recommendations. Our next speaker is from Maloka International.

Thank you. Peoples are the subjects which are set forth in the United Nations Charter, whose preamble, as you know, starts out with, we, the peoples of the United Nations. The right to development of these peoples is enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development and in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cuba, through its rapporteur Alfonso Martínez, was a key player in the adoption of that statement. We hope that the voices of peoples will overcome a United Nations view which is limited to the positions of States' executive powers, and we hope that the Organization contributes to dismantling the mechanisms which enable the US to impose illegal sanctions. That is why we support the internationalist coordination of anti-imperialist social movements of the Abiyayela. This is an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, and anti-fascist organization, which is committed to building societies that are socialist, community-based, democratic, multinational, and solidarity-based. Along the same lines, it is vital to listen to the indigenous peoples from Dakota, Hawaii, and Alaska, who are claiming their independence from an authoritarian and fascist United States. We are relieved that fascism has not been victorious in Brazil, and at the same time, we remain critical of the adoption of projects for building nuclear plants in the Amazon because of the possible impacts on peoples and territories. Also, we reject the nuclear cooperation initiatives and rare mineral exploitation of the current illegitimate Colombian government with the US. The arrival of the Colombian government happened through electoral fraud, as is the case in Peru and Ecuador, where indigenous peoples are under pressure because of exploitation of mineral resources. And in the Peruvian case, as is the case in Brazil and Ecuador, they also face the risk of having nuclear energy in the Amazon.

Thank you very much indeed for your statement.

Next, we go to the Arab Council for supporting trials and human rights. The floor is yours.

I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Arab Council. I'd like to thank the organizers for Giving the floor to NGOs, Chair, members of the group, it's my privilege to say today that as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development, we need to adopt a precise definition of Indigenous Peoples a definition that would consider the characteristics of these peoples. The reality requires us to think and consider a relevant question: how can we celebrate such an occasion while we're facing attacks on indigenous peoples? who cannot enjoy their right to self-determination. Today, these peoples are not just excluded from development in economic terms, but they're also limited by occupying powers, and they are seeking to deprive these peoples of their land and their territories. They're being forced to move outside of their territories. This is a very dangerous system. We see four models then. First, historic colonialism, following the American model, which seeks to push indigenous peoples out and depriving them of their right to self-determination or depriving them of the enjoyment of their rights. Second, an occupation model. The stealing of resources like we're seeing in Palestine. The people of Palestine are being deprived of their right to self-determination and the occupying power, Israel, is expropriating indigenous peoples in Palestine by stealing their resources and water. Another model then is when we see in African states where militias are now attacking the people of Sudan and depriving them of their rights. They're pushing them to move in order to change the nature of society in Sudan. Fourth, We're seeing deprivation of indigenous peoples or prevention of those living near rivers. They are not able to enjoy their right to self-determination or the use of their resources. Chair. All of these challenges are cross-border in nature and interconnected. We need a broader approach to define the term of Indigenous Peoples and also to criminalize these demographic changes as mentioned in order to establish a context Within the UN, that's broader, we need to support these people and stakeholders, and we need to tackle those financing these groups, and we must not leave them unpunished. We must also consider these problems in the agendas of all of our meetings. and studies and reports that will be drawn up by our group. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. I'll just say with regards to a precise definition of indigenous peoples, that's been debated for many years here in the UN and amongst indigenous peoples. I think the UN has come up with a pretty good definition with indigenous peoples, part of which is self-identification. Who is next? That's it. Okay. That's the end of our speakers list. Should I give time for everybody to wrap up? So, yeah, I'd like to give all of our speakers a minute to reflect on the questions, answer any questions, and give a closing statement. So, we will start with Commissioner Peake, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone for your comments today. I think that it's been a very rich discussion, and I think it's really reinforced that there's no universal template, and that we need to take various realities into consideration when we have these discussions together. I would, though, highlight that our experience points to three broad lessons that I think that we heard coming through in a lot of the interventions today. First, development should begin with the recognition of rights, self-determination, and Indigenous leadership, not with predetermined projects or outcomes. Indigenous peoples must be able to lead development based on their own priorities, as well as participate through their own representative institutions in decisions initiated by others. with the resources and information needed to influence their decisions. Second, governments and development actors must examine their own practices. Funding, reporting, and administrative processes should change where they impede direct access to resources or Indigenous leadership. Indigenous knowledge must not be treated as information to be extracted for externally designed projects, and Indigenous peoples' ownership, control, and stewardship of their knowledge must be respected. And third, implementation requires accountability and honesty. Canada continues to hear concerns about uneven implementation and gaps between policy commitment and lived experience. Constructive scrutiny by Indigenous peoples and international human rights mechanisms can help and identify those gaps. And again, I repeat my point at the beginning that we share this with humility, recognizing that we still have a lot of lessons to learn and that we're continuing to engage with our own Indigenous peoples in Canada to improve our own practices. So I would like to thank the chair and the organizers very much, and my co-panelists, and.

Pass it back to you.

Thank you so much. Now, Professor Dr. Myrna Rivas Velarde, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to my fellow panelists. It has been such a rich day with discussions, the concepts, and the reflection that often comes with big birthdays, such as the 40th anniversary of the Convention. I would like to recall, I'm a scientist, and we are a group of scientists, and to recall our responsibility in science and our responsibility socially accountable science for development and innovation. So recalling in the statement that was brought by Professor Kabila, from the Cameroon, and talking about epistemic justice and recognizing knowledge and the generation of knowledge from all over the world as a key point for development, including technological development and scientific development that should accompany the right to development. Addressing the colonial risks are ongoing, as we hear in the accounts of many of the participants, and also this extended to the academic and to the scientific ground. We must recognize that, and not only recognize it, but address it and act to stop it. And the third, implementation of existing frameworks. We have heard that frameworks are emerging, and we need to monitor it and support its full implementation. And don't take it as a zero-sum game, and take an expanding mindset and build upon what we have built and we have gained. Also, address institutional gaps. Silos in policy making or in law have cost a lot to indigenous communities. So it is moment to address them. And also geopolitical fragmentations. We have talked about the different levels of infrastructure in the global south or north and or countries depending of their economic state. We must recognize that these The level of infrastructure development comes with power and comes also with the ability to act, and this might determine the actions and people might or might not be able to participate. And well, in behalf of the International Brain Initiative, thank you very much to the panel, and we hope to continue to contribute to the mandate and to all this.

Thank you. Next, I'll give the floor to Mr. Antin Sunde.

Thank you. First of all, I'd very much like to enthusiastically thank the organizers for taking this initiative to include the issue of indigenous peoples on the agenda. It's a great relief for us as indigenous people. It's a great relief for me to be able to speak. on behalf of my own community to this distinguished podium. It's extremely important. And I was also very proud to hear what Professor Kapila said as regards the issue of indigenous peoples in Africa. Very often, African states unanimously at each international meeting say that there are no indigenous peoples, that everyone's an indigenous person in Africa. No, that's not true. There are hidden realities that aren't being taken into account. There are people who truly undergo historic marginalization and have gone through this, and states do not want to recognize this. We also have the issue of self-determination. It's not about seeking independence. We don't want to withdraw from the states that we live in. We belong to states. It's true that there were colonial effects because these states have emerged from colonization, and we have our own way of organizing our government and our own way of living. We did have communities that existed before colonization. But just to conclude, what I want to say here is that Self-determination isn't an action where we make certain claims, but really, it's there to enable us to express our own viewpoints, our way of seeing things, and for us to be involved. We're not people that want to be excluded. We want to participate in the development of our institutions, the development of our countries. This is the only way. You know that the pole pastoralist community accounts for almost 80 million people in Africa. And the economic participation of herders is very high indeed. I take the case of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, where there are herders. But if we're not taking into account the needs of those herders, We're not targeting everyone then, and we lose a great deal as a result. But indigenous people, we believe there are changes that are going to happen in our countries. There's also the issue about peace. Most African states nowadays, where the pull population exists, regrettably, we see conflict, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Nigeria, Mali. Niger, indigenous peoples, nomadic pastoralists must be involved in the peace processes in those countries. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And now I pass the floor to Mr. Remy Orsié of DOSIP.

Well, first, thank you very much to all the examples that were given. to improve the better involvement of indigenous peoples to development initiatives. I mean, it's important. And so, yeah, just to underline that the key expression that was used by me and all the other participants is free, prior, and informed consent. It's at the center of everything, and this is what should be, i mean, at the center of any initiative. I also welcome the fact that Indigenous Peoples were represented in the panel, because we are talking about FPIC, but it's important that they speak here directly. My organization, DOSIP, is not very used to speak, because what we do is to promote the voices of Indigenous Peoples. And we will be happy if next year there's another panel to leave the seat free for any other indigenous representative that would come and speak directly to address the expert mechanism. In this view also, I would like to mention the process currently here in Geneva about enhanced participation of indigenous peoples through the works of UNHCHR that will hopefully In the end, allow indigenous peoples to be present in all the UN human rights mechanisms in their own name, not registered as NGOs or sent by states. I think it's a way also to respect their own institutions. And my last word will be to indigenous peoples directly. I mean, we are here in Geneva, but we are reachable. We have a huge database, and if we can support your work, please come to us and we will be happy to do so. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And we didn't have any funding, so that's why there's two video messages and only one person representing indigenous peoples here on the on the panel. So over the course of the last three days now, we've heard a lot. I think this is a fitting panel to sort of close out the panel discussions with. We've discussed food security and the fragility of food systems, access to water. We've examined illicit financial flows. which is draining the wealth from countries that need it most and the communities that need it most. And we've discussed the reality of conflict, which is causing untold harm around the world. And as I listened to all of these panel discussions, what really struck me was that every one of these issues really hits Indigenous peoples the hardest. So it's Indigenous peoples whose food systems are are disrupted when their lands are taken for extractive industry projects or big agriculture projects. It's indigenous peoples whose rivers are dammed, diverted, or polluted. It's often indigenous territories that minerals, timber, and other resources are being extracted from. And they rarely, if ever, see any financial benefit from that. And its indigenous peoples from the Sahel, as we just heard, to the Amazon, who are often bearing the brunt of conflicts that they had nothing to do with creating. But indigenous peoples are not only the most affected, they're also those who are best positioned to help the world find solutions to a lot of these problems. Their food systems have sustained communities for thousands of years. We heard a couple of times over the last couple of days how they are stewards of 80% of the Earth's biodiversity. They are stewards of many of the world's largest water sources, the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin, Zambezi. We heard a lot about climate change, you know, and to begin addressing the challenges presented by global climate change, we need to really cut back on our emissions. But another thing that I think is just as important is we need to protect the ecological integrity of these large biomes, these large ecosystems that help to sustain the climatic equilibrium of the planet. And the only places where we find these large ecosystems intact and healthy is where indigenous peoples have still somehow managed to maintain control of their territories. So that's why we have this panel. That's why we are now kind of reaffirming, and I thank the states and the speakers who encouraged this collaboration between the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. I think it's essential that we work together. We also would like to Start working closely with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, who for this will be 23 years now, they've been making recommendations to governments and UN agencies about development and indigenous peoples, which is very relevant to our work. And yeah, so this is kind of an interesting moment in development, and this subject of indigenous peoples and the right to development really forces us to really think about what is development. Yesterday, one of our friends from Asia was talking about, you know, we want to define development for ourselves. And so we, if we take indigenous people's rights seriously in development processes, we have to ask some fundamental questions. What is development? How is it measured? Is GDP growth or, you know, How many roads are built or hectares converted to farms? Are those the relevant indicators or there are other indicators that can be developed that look at the health of the land, the well-being of future generations, the strength of a language. You know, you can look at indigenous peoples languages around the world, and where there are healthy languages, you have healthy ecosystems. It's they're linked inextricably. And I guess the most important question is who decides? Who decides what development looks like? And with the case of Indigenous peoples, it should be decided as all of our speakers and people who spoke from the floor made clear, Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, collective ownership of their lands, territories, resources, and knowledge, and they should be the ones to decide. So I want to thank everyone on the floor who made some great recommendations and important points. All of this is the start of what we hope will be a thematic study with strong recommendations to governments on how to implement best practices regarding indigenous peoples and the right to development. And I want to thank our speakers for all of the points that they made and for taking the time to be here. And thank you very much, and I will turn it back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brian. This concludes agenda item 5B. I would like to express our deep appreciation once again to our distinguished guests for having shared with us their important perspective. We will resume this afternoon at 3:00 PM to continue item three, general debate. followed by agenda item 4, coordination meeting with other United Nations mechanisms on the right to development, and agenda item 6, conclusion of the session. I would also like to inform participants that those who were unable to take the floor during the panel discussions due to time constraints are invited to deliver their statements during the continuation of the general debate this afternoon. I would also like to draw your attention to a side event entitled The Role of State Institutions in Addressing Corruption and Illicit Financial Flows to Foster the Right to Development. The event will take place from 1:30 to 2:55 PM in this room. All are welcome to attend. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.