• Acknowledgements
• About the Authors
• Introduction
• Dimensions of Diversity
• Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and the Convention on Biodiversity
• From Policy to Implementation?
• Executive Summary of COP5 Decisions
• Executive Summary of COP6 DecisionsReferences

The International Level

A Shift in Focus?
Financial Mechanism
Preparation
Specialisation
Continuity
The Question of Experts
Co-ordination
The Problem of Coherence

Recognition of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity as an advisory body under the Convention during COP5 represents a major triumph for indigenous peoples. In seeking to appreciate the significance of this breakthrough under Decision V/16 on Article 8(j) and related provisions, it is important to recall that Article 8(j) and its related provisions are cross-cutting themes which span the entire Convention. As such the work of the Forum and its advice is relevant to the work of the entire Convention. This is reflected in the growing calls from the Secretariat for the nomination of indigenous and local community experts and to the growing openness of the Parties to interventions from the Forum in CBD processes.

A Shift in Focus?

These developments also imply an important shift in emphasis in the work of the Forum and indigenous peoples and local community participants in CBD processes. As we have seen above, initially the work of the Forum focused on demanding recognition of the right of indigenous peoples and local communities to participate in the debates taking place under the Convention from the local to the international level. As rights-holders indigenous peoples have argued that the fundamental precondition for participation in implementation of the Convention is recognition and respect for their rights. Much remains to be done in this vital area. However, the available evidence suggests that the first of these battles, the battle for the right to participate, has in many respects been won. The emphasis will now logically shift to the practice of participation in order to secure recognition of indigenous peoples rights as the precondition for the participation of indigenous peoples in the implementation of the Convention.

This shift in emphasis is also likely to present a series of important challenges on two main levels:

• The continued credibility of the Forum over the longer term is likely to depend upon the quality of the recommendations which the Forum as an advisory body to the Parties is able to put forward. This implies the need for adequate preparation and also for a coordinated approach to interventions from the Forum and its participants in CBD processes
• The ever widening provisions of the Convention which recognise and encourage the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities presents a very significant challenge for the future. Specifically, indigenous peoples and local communities are now confronted by increasing invitations to participate in a wide variety of processes under the Convention including, inter alia :
• Liaison Groups
• Coordinating Mechanisms
• Workshops
• Expert Groups
• Panels of Experts
• Working Groups
• SBSTTA
• The Conference of Parties

In seeking to find practical solutions to these challenges the following issues may deserve further discussion.

Financial Mechanism

One of the key challenges confronting the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity is the absence of some form of financial mechanism through which to ensure the participation of indigenous delegates in CBD processes

To date, indigenous participants who have participated in Forum processes have either been self-funded or have secured support, frequently at the last minute, through the network of indigenous and non-indigenous organisations that seeks to guarantee the continued work of the Forum through requests to governments. Similarly, administrative arrangements for the functioning of the Forum, notably office facilities for the Forum secretariat, meeting rooms and, critically, translation facilities are also essential requirements for the full functioning of the Forum. Experience demonstrates that this is an extremely time consuming process which cannot keep pace with the ever widening opportunities for the participation of indigenous delegates within the processes of the Convention.

This suggests that:

• There is a clear need to establish a financial mechanism through which to guarantee the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples within the Convention and, possibly, related processes.

Useful examples of potential models for such mechanisms are provided by indigenous peoples experiences in the United Nations Human Rights processes. These experiences, and any lessons learned, could be applied in the development of proposals for the establishment of some form of financial mechanism for the Convention and possibly related processes.

It is for indigenous peoples delegates themselves to determine the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) for securing participation within the Convention. However, it is clear that:

• The potential of the Forum as an advisory body and the work of indigenous delegates throughout wider Convention processes will not be fully realised until such time that appropriate financial arrangements are in place.

Preparation

A key factor in the future work of the Forum as an advisory body under the Convention will be preparation. As we have seen, the Convention is large and it is complex. Furthermore, the work of the Convention is driven by a large number of texts. Thus, COP5 took decisions in 26 major areas each of which was accompanied by a main negotiating text and by background information (INF) documents. Preparing positions and contributions in each of these areas was a very considerable challenge. In the context of the ever-expanding number of Convention meetings in which indigenous peoples and local community delegates are invited to participate, this is likely to become an even greater challenge in future.

The issue of preparation suggests:

• A need to consider the creation of an international division of labour in which one or more indigenous and non-indigenous specialists take responsibility for leading the development of briefing papers on individual subjects as the basis for preparing draft position-papers (pre-drafts).

The potential adoption of an ecosystem approach and the identification of indigenous specialists in thematic areas could play an important role in servicing the Forum and indigenous participants with preparatory materials as the basis for defining positions. In addition, it is worth noting that NGOs and partner organisations frequently prepare materials which may be of value and relevance to the Forum. Where appropriate, these materials may contribute to developing mutually supporting positions. A useful example of such experiences has been the collaboration between indigenous peoples organisations and NGOs under the Global Forest Coalition, which includes participants in the Forum, in influencing the development of the new programme of work on forest biodiversity in 2001. [1]

Specialisation

The demands of participation also suggest the need to consider the possibility of growing specialisation among participants within the Forum in engaging with Convention processes. At COP5 the work of the Forum was effectively divided between small teams who took the leading role in ensuring that the Forum was represented in debates on issues such as forests, tourism, agriculture, impact assessment, the ecosystem approach, education etc. This division of labour was the major factor behind the progress made in a wide variety of areas within COP5 decisions.

This suggests that:

• There may be a growing need for specialisation in the future in which indigenous delegates assume responsibility, and form teams, to prepare positions for discussion by the Forum and then take the lead in interventions within the thematic debates.

The potential adoption of an ecosystem approach raised earlier, and recognition of the different disciplines and skills of Forum participants, could play an important role here. For example, indigenous delegates and specialists in drylands might logically take the lead in work on the drylands programme, indigenous delegates and specialists on forests might take the lead on the forest programme etc. In the case of the sensitive issues surrounding intellectual property rights instruments and access and benefit sharing, the skills of the legal specialists within the Forum would be a clear asset. Finally, to give one last example, it should also be noted that there is also very significant expertise in the field of education among regular Forum participants. This has made a significant input into the development of the new programme of work on education and public awareness that will be considered at COP6.

In practice, this is precisely how governments function within large and complex meetings and there is an unspoken understanding that the Forum functions in a similar way. Nevertheless, the issue of the need for specialisation is raised here for further possible discussion for three reasons:

• Forum participants and a number of friendly governments have commented that Forum members are sometimes absent from important discussions, such as contact groups, as a result of a tendency toward over-concentration of forces in debates on other themes. In practice, this reduces the options for influencing decisions at key moments.
• In formal negotiations opportunities for interventions in debates are limited. Therefore, all participants from the Forum who are present at a session are unlikely to be allowed the space to intervene by the Chairperson for the session. Government delegations generally intervene through one lead negotiator and are supported in preparing interventions by other members of the delegation. This system of one, or maybe two, main spokespersons in a negotiating session is well understood by governments and prevents confusion in setting out positions.
• The Forum itself regularly adopts a similar approach. Having achieved a consensus on a particular position, that position is then put forward and negotiated by one or two nominated Forum delegates in the sessions. The delegates who lead the interventions are supported by other Forum members in drafting additional interventions based on the consensus position. Experience suggests that this is when the Forum is at its most effective. Refining this approach may be worth further discussion. In particular, as this helps to make clear, two or three delegates from the Forum can make as much difference to the debate as the presence of ten or twenty in an individual session. We might therefore conclude that in perhaps the majority of cases, the quality of participation is as important as the quantity of participation.
• Indigenous peoples and local communities are confronted by an ever-increasing number of policy processes which, to varying degrees, recognise their right to participate. Many indigenous participants in the Forum also participate in one or more of these 'related processes'. This provides an important pool of experience to the Forum through which to navigate negotiations on a particular issue under the CBD and to use gains to influence related processes.

Continuity

An important emerging challenge under the Convention and related processes is the problem of continuity in participation. This issue is linked both to funding and the issue of specialisation.

For those who are new to the negotiations which take place under the Convention it is tempting to try and gain an overview of the issues under discussion through attendance at sessions on different themes. This is entirely logical. At first, participation within Convention debates can be deeply confusing.

However, one of the lessons that has emerged from the work of the Forum is the importance of continuity of participation both within a particular event and in following up that event. In particular, there is a significant danger that:

• Gains made at one event will be lost in the future if there is no continuity and consistency in participation to secure implementation of these gains and make further advances.

It is worth noting here that governments' generally recognise this need for consistency in participation. A significant number of government delegates follow a particular issue under the Convention for a number of years. This provides important opportunities for indigenous and local community delegates to get to know, and attempt to develop mutual understanding, with some of the government delegates.

In other cases government delegates may be completely new to the process. The Forum's experience with the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing amply demonstrated that:

• Many government delegates may in fact be unfamiliar with existing decisions under the Convention which relate to the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

This can result in significant problems when governments reopen debates on issues that have already been decided, or make recommendations that contradict existing decisions. In the case of the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, a number of Forum participants who had consistently participated in Convention processes were able to highlight existing decisions and point out potential contradictions to the Parties. Nevertheless, the Forum also experienced problems with continuity because indigenous lawyers who specialise in issues surrounding Access and Benefit Sharing were not able to participate.

We have seen in the discussion of the ecosystem approach that one way to address this problem over the longer term may be for increased specialisation. Experience demonstrates that those indigenous delegates who have participated in Convention debates over a period of many years have a vital role to play in assisting delegates who are new to the process. That is, with the analysis and discussion of texts, drafting interventions, how to intervene, when to intervene, approaching chairpersons and lobbying official delegations. This suggests that the formation of teams consisting of experienced delegates and those who are new, or relatively new, to the process, could provide a way of generating expertise and creating a pool of delegates who can maintain continuity in participation over time.

Finally, it is also important to recall that Convention meetings are made up of human beings. The positions adopted by government delegates are frequently distasteful and conflict with the rights of indigenous peoples. However. it is worth recognising that many government delegates welcome discussions with indigenous delegates from their home countries and elsewhere. Experience demonstrates that these contacts have an important role to play in generating mutual understanding and support for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The Question of Experts

One of the main issues that emerges from the discussion of the need for specialisation and continuity of participation over time is the question of expertise. In fact the issue of experts can be a rather sensitive matter. The foundation of this sensitivity appears to be a fear that experts, be they indigenous or non-indigenous, will seek to assume a superior status and to impose their opinions at the expense of discussion and respect for wider consensus.

In considering this difficulty it may be worth recalling that the ever-increasing range of issues addressed under the Convention suggests that there is an increasing need for specialisation in engagement with the Convention and for specialist knowledge and experience. The scale of the Convention is such that, as this guide perhaps amply illustrates, no-one can be an expert on the whole Convention. It is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of recognising that a number of people are specialists in particular areas and all participants have a diversity of skills, knowledge and experience that can be brought to bear in promoting respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The diversity of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity can in fact be seen as its strength. The Forum brings together experienced grass-roots activists, activists with experience in a variety of different processes, indigenous professionals who are pursuing academic or related careers, and finally, elders from a variety of different countries who play an important role in the work of the Forum and in maintaining morale when negotiations are going badly.

The issue of diversity is raised here for possible discussion as a prelude to consideration of one of the most significant advances made by the Forum during COP5. That is, the promotion of the inclusion of experts from indigenous peoples and local communities in the work of the Convention.

The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity has long argued for the need for the Convention to recognise the expertise of indigenous peoples and local communities. During COP5 this was recognised in two important decisions.

• Under decision V/16 on Article 8(j) and related provisions, Principle 2 of the General Principles for the programme of work specifies that, "Traditional knowledge should be valued, given the same respect and considered as useful and necessary as other forms of knowledge."
• Under decision V/20 on the Operations of the Convention paragraph 25 " Recognizes that there is a need to improve the quality of the scientific, technical and technological advice provided to the Conference of the Parties, and to undertake sound scientific and technical assessments, including in-depth assessments of the state of knowledge on issues critical for the implementation of the Convention"
• Elsewhere in decision V/20 paragraph 31. " Encourages Parties, other Governments and relevant bodies when nominating their experts for inclusion in the roster to consider:
• (a) Gender balance;
• (b) Involvement of indigenous people and members of local communities;
• (c) Range of relevant disciplines and expertise, including, inter alia, biological, legal, social and economic sciences, and traditional knowledge;"

In considering the provisions of these decisions it is worth noting that this represents a very significant triumph for indigenous peoples and local communities.

Unlike many other international environmental agreements the Convention on Biodiversity is strongly driven by science and research. Thus, the majority of the experts who presently appear within the rosters of experts are either scientists or lawyers . [2]

Western science has classically refused to recognise the status of traditional knowledge and to take such knowledge seriously. It is now recognised that this dismissive attitude is seriously misplaced. It is a mark of the, at times ground-breaking, nature of this Convention that traditional knowledge is now recognised as having equal status with western scientific knowledge.

Experience since COP5 demonstrates that this is an issue that the Secretariat and the Parties are taking seriously and it is here that a number of difficulties that require discussion begin to emerge.

In the past, when seeking the participation of an indigenous expert, the Secretariat of the Convention has adopted the approach of directly selecting an expert based on contacts made during previous meetings. The key problem that the Forum has highlighted with this approach is not so much the quality of the expertise that may be provided, but transparency in the selection of experts.

In considering this issue it is worth noting that this appears to be a problem that confronts the Convention in general and is recognised by the Parties. For example, in paragraph 21 of decision V/20 the COP decided that SBSTTA could establish technical expert groups. However, the decision also specified that in selecting experts SBSTTA "shall seek ways to ensure transparency in the choice of experts.."

Perhaps in recognition of this issue, and ongoing complaints from indigenous delegates and NGO's, in the year 2001 following SBSTTA7, the Secretariat of the Convention increasingly attempted to consult with participants in the Forum and the International Communications Committee regarding the selection of indigenous and local community experts. In the process a number of problems have emerged.

The Forum has consistently argued that indigenous peoples should nominate the experts for inclusion in technical expert groups, panels of experts, SBSTTA etc. However, no mechanism or procedure has been agreed by the Forum through which such nominations might take place in a transparent manner.

The nature of this problem is reflected in informal comments to Forum participants in SBSTTA7 from the Secretariat to their requests for a consultation process in the selection of experts. In response to these requests the Secretariat informally responded that two problems had emerged:

• A lack of a timely response to calls for nominations from the Secretariat
• Frequent problems of last minute cancellations by indigenous delegates.

On this basis the Secretariat made its own nominations in order to secure participation.

However, following SBSTTA7 the Secretariat has increasingly contacted the communications committee with calls for nominations for experts to participate in a variety of meetings, notably on Climate Change, forest biodiversity and the UNFF, marine and coastal biodiversity, agricultural biodiversity, and sustainable use. This more open approach has been welcome but has revealed a number of problems.

• Organisations within the communications committee rarely receive more than two weeks, or in some cases, a few days notice for nominations.
• Requests for nominations are not presented as formal notifications and at times it is unclear to what meeting the request from the Secretariat refers.
• It is unclear to whom the call for nominations should be sent; to the International Coordinating Committee, the entire Forum communications list, or to individuals who are known to possess expertise in a particular area?
• It is unclear who should make the final decision on the name(s) to be put forward for the specific meeting.

As this makes clear, this has placed the organisations serving on the communications committee in a difficult and rather unpleasant position. In particular, it is extremely difficult to ensure a transparent and open process with only a few days notice. In response to this the working procedure that has been developed to ensure at least a degree of transparency has been:

• To send out the call to organisations who participate within the International Coordinating Committee of the Forum with a request for nominations in the specific area.
• To request more than one nomination to address the apparent problem of late cancellations.
• To present a list of delegates based on nominations received. Given that the Secretariat generally requests the names of one, or two, candidates, the lists are divided between principle candidates and alternate candidates in order to address the apparent problem of late cancellations.

In some cases this working procedure has functioned reasonably well. However, the organisations within the communications committee are now receiving an increasing number of multiple requests for nominations from the Secretariat at very short notice. In these circumstances it is difficult to consult and ensure any degree of transparency. Furthermore, it has become clear that the nomination process represents an enormous amount of time and effort for which no financial or staff support exists. This work may properly be a function of the CBD Secretariat.

During informal communications with the Secretariat on this issue. The following issues have also emerged.

• The Secretariat understood that at COP5 the Forum decided that it would establish its own roster of experts based on regional lists. In fact the Forum only decided that it would nominate the members of the liaison group with the Secretariat. This has not yet taken place.
• The Secretariat has stated that the majority of the meetings are held purely in English and is therefore requesting English speakers. This therefore excludes non-English speaking delegates who are a vital part of the Forum.
• The Secretariat is requesting nominations for delegates who are knowledgeable about the theme and will actively participate.

In formal correspondence with the Secretariat, the International Alliance has stated that securing a transparent nomination process for indigenous and local community experts should be seen as part of a process of engagement. This process has revealed a number of difficulties that may require discussion between the Forum, the Secretariat, and possibly the Parties.

In considering this issue a number of points stand out for discussion:

• It is vital that indigenous and local community delegates participate in the various workshops, expert groups, panels of experts etc. as a basis for securing respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and to improve the range and quality of advice available to the Parties in reaching decisions at higher levels.
• Delegates should be indigenous or local community delegates who possess knowledge and experience of the particular issue under discussion.
• A range of regions should be represented wherever possible and relative to the theme. This suggests the possible need for an ecosystem approach .
• Different languages must be represented and respected.
• The process for the selection of indigenous and local community experts should be transparent in accordance with the position of the Forum and trends in existing COP decisions.

A key challenge will be how to create a transparent, efficient and cost-effective solution for the nomination of experts. The following options are offered for discussion:

• A roster of experts is established for indigenous peoples. A separate roster of experts is established for local communities and NGOs to prevent confusion.
• In the case of the indigenous peoples roster of experts, criteria similar to those developed by the regions for the Permanent Forum are adopted as the basis for nominations and submissions to the roster. To assist this discussion the following draft criteria may be worthy of consideration.

'Indigenous peoples organisations nominate specialists for inclusion in the indigenous peoples roster of experts on the following basis:

• Specialists must be indigenous.
• Specialists are nominated by their organisations
• Specialists are listed by organisation, country and region
• Specialists must possess some familiarity with CBD processes which will be listed in the submission to the roster (i.e. national, regional, international level)
• Specialists may possess formal or informal training and experience. Lack of formal educational qualifications should not be grounds to exclude specialists.
• An ecosystem approach is adopted which sets out the area of speciality i.e. forests, drylands, marine and coastal biodiversity, inland waters etc.
• Other areas of expertise, i.e. education, law, human rights, traditional knowledge etc are listed as a basis for selection for cross-cutting themes.
• Experience in other biodiversity related processes (i.e. Climate Change, UNFF, CSD, WIPO, WTO etc.) are listed in the roster.
• The principle of gender balance is respected in submissions to the roster and in selecting specialists.
• The principle of regional balance and linguistic balance is respected.'

These draft criteria may provide a useful basis for discussion of the establishment of a roster of indigenous peoples experts. A series of other questions may also be worthy of discussion.

• Should the Secretariat be responsible for setting up the framework for the roster on the CBD website in a similar way to the existing rosters? Would this reduce the work and costs to the Forum and comply with the desire to avoid turning the Forum into an institution?
• Should the Secretariat send out formal notifications through the communications committee and others to ensure transparency and avoid an exclusionary approach?
• Should indigenous specialists who participate in expert meetings be formally requested to submit brief reports to the Forum through the communications committee in order to ensure transparency and information flow?
• Should the functioning of the roster periodically be reviewed by indigenous specialists and a report submitted to the Forum and the Parties at the Working Group on Article 8(j) on its status and functioning?

It is for indigenous delegates themselves to decide what process and form the selection of indigenous specialists should take for participation in the work of the CBD. In closing this discussion one final point is worth considering.

• COP decisions that promote the participation of indigenous and local communities stretch far beyond narrow issues of intellectual property rights instruments and access and benefit sharing and extend into all areas of the Convention. Any effort to restrict the participation of indigenous specialists should be resisted on the basis of the diversity of recent COP decisions that promote the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Co-ordination

The Forum has established an open-ended International Coordination Committee made up entirely of indigenous delegates based on regional focal points to enhance cooperation and coordination. This has also been accompanied by the creation of an open ended Communications Committee which consists of indigenous organisations and non-indigenous support organisations.

It is important to emphasise once again that the Forum is a process and that the development of the Forum is entirely a matter for indigenous peoples to decide. Thus, at the sixth meeting of the Forum in 2001 the structure of the Forum was reviewed. It was decided that the open-ended International Coordinating Committee would be maintained, but that a smaller Steering Group would be created to facilitate preparations for meetings and other issues that may appear. Further development of the Forum will be discussed at the seventh meeting of the Forum in early 2002 prior to the Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions.

With respect to communications, strong efforts have been made to maintain and strengthen communications with indigenous peoples organisations around the world on biodiversity and related issues. It appears that this has been a positive and remarkably consistent process.

However, there is room for much further work on the national, regional and international level in strengthening communications. In this respect the work programme on Article 8(j) may present a major opportunity for indigenous peoples organisations to develop proposals to strengthen communications from the local to the international level that should not be missed. Such projects could make a major contribution to strengthening communications on the Biodiversity Convention and the ever increasing number of biodiversity related processes to which we now turn.

The Problem of Coherence

The Convention on Biological Diversity touches on every aspect of the fabric of life on this planet. As a result it is becoming increasingly clear that the Biodiversity Convention lies at the core of the Conventions and agreements that emerged from the 1992 Earth Summit.

The problem that this produces, both for governments and for indigenous peoples and local communities, is one of coherence in positions, decision-making, policy, and action relative to other related processes. There is a significant danger that decisions made by Parties under the Convention may conflict with, or contradict, decisions under a large number of international processes. In response to this the Biodiversity Convention is increasingly promoting collaborative relationships, joint work programmes and the harmonisation of reporting with a range of other international processes and institutions.

Among these we might mention:

• The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar)
• The Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCCD)
• The Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC)
• The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) [3]
• The Convention on Migratory Species (UNCMS)
• The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)
• The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources under the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
• The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
• The United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
• The United Nations Convention Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
• The World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)
• The World Trade Organisation (WTO) through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)
• The World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation (WIPO)
• The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (emerging)
• The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (emerging)

The importance of this expanding list is that the relationship between the Biodiversity Convention and these related processes and institutions presents important challenges and opportunities for indigenous peoples in advancing respect for their rights.

For example, a number of these processes and institutions have adopted policies or guidelines towards indigenous peoples and local communities. In some cases these are strong while in others they are extremely weak. In other cases there is a strong emphasis on the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, while in others efforts are being made to block or severely limit such participation (i.e. UNFF and UNFCCC).

Progress made under one process, such as the CBD, can be used to try and make progress under other processes such as the Climate Change Convention or the UNFF. On a similar basis, the efforts of the Forum to involve the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and 'related bodies' may assist indigenous peoples delegates and local communities with strengthening recognition of their rights and counterbalancing the influence of institutions such as WIPO.

Many indigenous delegates possess experience in working within these related processes in order to advance respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. This provides an important opportunity to exploit these synergies and to support the work of indigenous forums, caucuses and delegations in related processes. This suggests that:

• There is an increasing need for coordination between the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and indigenous peoples organisations, forums and caucuses involved in other international processes in order to ensure that the gains in recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and their concerns are appropriately incorporated within the growing number of processes in which indigenous peoples are now involved.

Finally, in July of 2000 indigenous peoples made a major advance in securing recognition of their rights with the decision of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to create the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Eight indigenous experts have now been nominated to the Forum, primarily drawn from regional consultation processes, and the first meeting of the Permanent Forum will take place in May 2002.

The indigenous experts who have been nominated to the Permanent Forum will face many challenges. However, it is important to note that a number of the indigenous experts have been active participants in the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity for a number of years.

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that the Secretariat of the CBD will form part of an Inter-Agency Support Group to the Permanent Forum in assisting the Forum with meeting its wide-ranging mandate. Two issues emerge here for further discussion:

• What opportunities might exist for establishing some form of reporting relationship between the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and the Permanent Forum in order to report on progress and problem areas?
• How might the existence of the Permanent Forum contribute to strengthening respect for the rights of indigenous peoples under the Convention and improving the overall effectiveness of the Convention?