Previous 129 / 149 Next

Protocolo Autónomo–Mandato- del Pueblo Arhuaco- de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta para el relacionamiento con el mundo externo incluyendo la consulta y el Consentimiento previo, libre e informado - Los asesores y quienes acompañen el proceso entregaran informes periódicos a la Directiva General y a nuestras autoridades tradicionales – MamuC. ASESORIAS Y ACOMPAÑAMIENTOS - El proceso de consulta con el Pueblo Arhuaco contará con el acompañamiento y asesoría de técnicos o de personal experto que les permita conocer y comprender a profundidad las dimensiones, alcances y efectos de la medida o proyecto a implementar. Esta asesoría y acompañamiento se dará por solicitud de las autoridades tradicionales y político – organizativas quienes además podrán definir qué personas podrán cumplir con este papel. - Los delegados de la CIT que la Directiva General escoja o solicite a otras instancias de participación política y organizativa como pueblos indígenas, apoyarán desde el punto de vista político y organizativo el proceso de consentimiento y consulta; aportarán en la búsqueda y consolidación de las alianzas con las organizaciones ambientales de derechos humanos o profesionales a nivel regional, nacional e internacional. Podrán asumir, en los casos en los que se les delegue expresamente, la vocería del proceso. - Los asesores y quienes acompañen el proceso entregaran informes periódicos a las autoridades tradicionales y político – organizativa. 129

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

PROTOCOLO AUTONOMO PUEBLO ARHUACO

Protocol

Geolocation

Latitude: 10.8292621

Longitude: -73.7010991

: Geolocation

Date: Jun 1, 2017

Source: http://www.hchr.org.co/files/eventos/2017/PROTOCOLO-AUTONOMO-PUEBLO-ARHUACO.pdf

Indigenous people(s)

Arhuaco

Country

South America: Colombia

Context and purpose

a) Pending development projects: Mining, Oil/Gas/ Agribusiness / Hydroelectric Dam or experience with past projects
b) Land demarcation (recognized / partially recognized / pending / no recognition)
c) A component of a broader strategy of governance assertion
d) Historical context (are there general statements that reflect this history and perspective)
e) Addressing inter/intra-community/people divisions or formalizing modalities of cooperation
f) Does the protocol have unique features that reflect the particular communities experience
h) Does the protocol address processes for updating its contents

Community governance

a) Life plans (self-determined development)
b) Territorial plans and boundaries
c) Community resolutions
d) Community governance statutes
e) Community history

Preconditions

b) Formal recognition of indigenous’ rights and governance structures
d) Timing of decisions
e) Assertion of rights in relation to natural resources
f) Concepts defined in the protocol (e.g. integral territory, culture, knowledge, sacred sites…)

Term definitions

Consent
Free
Good faith
Informed
Prior

Non-negotiables

a) Affirmations that relocation is unacceptable
b) Rejection certain types of activities / impacts that are critical
c) Affirmation of the right to decide (language used, yes/no, veto and supporting rationale)
d) Agreement to the protocol as basis for consultations
e) Rejection of development project as exchange for recognition of land rights

Core principles

a) Respect for land rights and indigenous governance
b) Good faith with elaboration of its implications
c) Criteria in relation to timeframes and processes
d) Criteria in relation to indigenous knowledge
e) Basis for right to decide and give or withhold consent
f) Negotiation in certain (or all contexts)
g) Intercultural dialogue

Protocol scope

a) A statement of principles
b) Establishes a process for negotiation of consultation procedures
c) Does it seek to define the entire consultation process
d) Does it address particular activities or is it all encompassing (projects, administrative or legislative measures etc and are these addressed separately?)

Legal frameworks invoked

a) International or regional instruments/jurisprudence
b) National laws/policies/jurisprudence
e) Reference to indigenous justice

Interfaces with external institutions and organizations

a) Municipal government
b) Specific ministries
c) NHRIs / Ombudsman
d) International oversight

Internal groups or other peoples

a) Other indigenous communities or peoples
e) Broader society

Scope of consultation

a) Single or multiple communities (of one people, or multiple peoples)

When to consult

a) Triggers for consultation
c) Reference to ESIAs

Roles in decision-making process

a) Role of representatives
b) Role of community members
c) The role of General Assemblies and other structures
e) The process of decision-making, discussion, consensus, voting.
f) What is done in the absence of consensus
g) Participation of outsiders

Conditions for consultation

a) Location of meetings
b) Dates that coincides with community activities/calendar
c) Language of consultations and choice of translators
f) Who will coordinate the meetings
g) Freedom to invite third parties, including trusted specialists
h) Actor how pasts costs for participation

Nature and sequencing of consultation phases

a) Involvement in strategic planning
b) Initial approach
d) Information meetings (content, where, with whom and partner participation)
e) Internal meetings (actors involved, decision-making processes)
f) Follow up meetings (for additional information)
h) Does it establish fixed timeframes

Language, naming and style

b) as well as the language of the State
c) are there any statements or terms in native language in the dominant language version
d) Is it referred to as a “protocol” ?
g) Is the style western legalistic
h) Is it a hybrid of customary law and western law

Who to consult

a) Elders
c) Leaders
g) Organizations

Outcomes

b) Conditions for agreements
c) Content of agreements
d) Agreement oversight and enforcement mechanisms

Issued by

Arhuaco

Primary Documents

PROTOCOLO-AUTONOMO-PUEBLO-ARHUACO.pdf
Spanish
Download View