160 Million Outcasts in India

An interesting article form the Weekly Blitz giving an overview of the Caste System in India commenting on possible British influence on the system and recent DNA studies.

WIPO Members To Work Toward Treaty On Folklore, Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources

From Intellectual Property Watch

6 May 2011

WIPO Members To Work Toward Treaty On Folklore, Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources

By Catherine Saez

Building on recent momentum that has produced negotiating texts towards an international instrument to protect folklore, traditional knowledge and genetic resources, delegates to the World Intellectual Property Organization next week will try to clean the texts that still bear signs of division.

The 18th session of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) is taking place from 9-13 May.

On Monday, WIPO is organising a panel on “Indigenous Peoples’ Collective Rights and Intellectual Property” [pdf] which will host James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as keynote speaker. The event will also feature Estebancio Castro Diaz, executive secretary, International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, Panamá; Repeta Puna, policy advisor, Office of the Prime Minister, Cook Islands; and Eliamani Isaya Laltaika, coordinator, Tanzania Intellectual Property Rights Network.

Continued at Intellectual Property Watch

Selected Recent Articles

Steven James Anaya--International human rights and indigenous peoples
Ronald Kakungulu-Mayambala
Malawi Law Journal, Volume 4, Number 1, 2010, p.151

SYMPOSIUM: ON THE PROSPECTS FOR THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Pace Environmental Law Review, Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2010

"Minimum Standards:" The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Nicholas A. Robinson
Pace Environmental Law Review, Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2010, p.346

Cultural and Economic Self-Determination for Tribal Peoples in the United States, Supported by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Angelique Eagle Woman (Wambdi A. Wastewin)
Pace Environmental Law Review, Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2010, p.357

Book Review: L. May: Genocide: A Normative Account New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xi, 283 pp. $85.00. ISBN 978-0-521-12296-2
Ross Kleinstuber
International Criminal Justice Review, Volume 21, Number 1, March 2011, p.85-86

Science, Colonialism, and Indigenous Peoples: The Cultural Polities of Law and Knowledge.
Reviewed by Glen Medves
Canadian Law Library Review, Volume 35, Numbers 3 & 4, 2010, p.141

Broken Landscape: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution— Frank Pommersheim
Reviewed by Angela R. Riley
Journal of Legal Education, Volume 60, Number 3, February 2011, p.569

Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Regarding Indigenous Peoples: Retrospect and Prospects
Koivurova, Timo
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Volume 18, Number 1, 2011, p.1-37

Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia: At Risk of Disappearing as Distinct Peoples in the Rush for Biofuel?
Colbran, Nicola
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Volume 18, Number 1, 2011, p.63-92


Ko Ngā Take Tare Māori: What a Difference a 'Drip' Makes: The Implications of Officially Endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Kiri Rangi Toki
Auckland University Law Review, Volume 16, 2010, p.243

CLJC search: INDIGENE*

'AN ESSENTIAL GHOST': INDIGENEITY WITHIN THE LEGAL ARCHIVE
Kathleen Birrell
Australian Feminist Law Journal, Volume 33, December 2010, p.81


III. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA: THE PRAGMATIC REVOLUTION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
Jérémie Gilbert
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 60, Number 1, January 2011, p.245-270


Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach
Damien Short
International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 14, Number 6, November 2010, p.833-848

Indigenous Peoples as International Lawmakers
Lillian Aponte Miranda
University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Volume 32, Number 1, Fall 2010, p.203


Recognising Indigenous Peoples
Environmental Policy and Law, Volume 40, Number 5, 2010, p.217

Statutory interpretation and indigenous property rights
Sean Brennan
Public Law Review, Volume 21, Number 4, December 2010, p.239

Shadow War Scholarship, Indigenous Legal Tradition, and Modern Law in Indian Country
Christine Zuni Cruz
Tribal Law Journal, Volume 9, 2008-2009

The Right of Ethnic Minorities to Free Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings under International Law: With Special Reference to China
Lijiang Zhu
Journal of East Asia and International Law, Volume 3, Number 2, Autumn 2010

Book Review: P. Gaeta(Ed.) The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. viii, 590 pp. $150.00. ISBN 978-0-19-957021-8
Mark A. Winton
International Criminal Justice Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2010, p.453-454

Review Essay—The Arc of Triumph and the Agony of Defeat: Mexican Americans and the Law
Reviewed by Michael A. Olivas
Journal of Legal Education, Volume 60, Number 2, November 2010, p.354


'IN LAND WE TRUST': THE ENDOROIS' COMMUNICATION AND THE QUEST FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' RIGHTS IN AFRICA
Korir Sing' Oei A. & Jared Shepherd
Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, Volume 16, 2010, p.57

Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation
Heike Schroeder
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Volume 10, Number 4, December 2010, p.317-332

SPIRIT FOOD AND SOVEREIGNTY: PATHWAYS FOR PROTECTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' SUBSISTENCE RIGHTS
Allison M. Dussias
Cleveland State Law Review, Volume 58, Number 2, 2010, p.273

CLJC search: INDIGENE*

Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity. By J. Kēhaulani Kauanui
Nicholas Buchanan
Law & Society Review, Volume 44, Numbers 3-4, September/December 2010, p.879-881


The Protection of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in International Law: A Comparative Temporal Analysis
Castellino, Joshua
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Volume 17, Number 3, 2010, p.393-422

Ralph Wilde, International Territorial Administration: How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-199-27432-1, 640 pp.
reviewed by Bernhard Knoll
Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional Law, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2010, p.147


A GLOBALLY SUSTAINABLE RIGHT TO LAND: UTILIZING REAL PROPERTY TO PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Jennifer Lynn Zweig
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 38, Number 3, Spring 2010, p.769

Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage, by James Cuno
Reviewed by Phaedra Livingstone
Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, Volume 40, Number 3, July-September 2010, p.238


Sovereign States and Self-Determining Peoples: Carving Out a Place for Transnational Indigenous Peoples in a World of Sovereign States
Koivurova, Timo
International Community Law Review, Volume 12, Number 2, May 2010, p.191-212

CLJC search: INDIGENE*

No search results found

CLJC search: "ETHNIC MINORIT*"

Economic Conditions and Minority Violence: An introduction to “Violent Victimization among Males and Economic Conditions: The Vulnerability of Race and Ethnic Minorities”
Alfred Blumstein
Criminology & Public Policy, Volume 9, Issue 4, September 2010, p.659-663

Violent victimization among males and economic conditions: The vulnerability of race and ethnic minorities
Janet L. Lauritsen and Karen Heimer
Criminology & Public Policy, Volume 9, Issue 4, September 2010, p.665-692

Book Review: The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's Law and Constitution
Carwyn Jones
New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, Volume 7, Number 2, 2009, p.367


Bridging the Divide between Genomic Science and Indigenous Peoples
Bette Jacobs, Jason Roffenbender, Jeff Collmann, Kate Cherry, LeManuel Lee Bitsói, Kim Bassett and Charles H. Evans Jr.
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Volume 38, Number 3, Fall 2010, p.684-696

CLJC search: INDIGENE*

No search results found

CLJC search: "ETHNIC MINORIT*"

John Wrench, Diversity Management and Discrimination. Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in the EU (Ashgate Publishing, 2007), ISBN 978-0754648901 (hardback)
Tim Dertwinkel
European Yearbook of Minority Issues, Volume 7, 2007/2008, p.769

INDIGENOUS CHILDREN'S RIGHTS - INTERNATIONAL LAW, SELF-DETERMINATION AND INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION IN GUATEMALA
Sarah Sargent
Contemporary Issues in Law, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2008/2009, p.1

Getting over the Hump: Establishing a Right to Environmental Protection for Indigenous Peoples in the Inter-American Human Rights System
Travis Thompson
Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Volume 19, Number 1, Fall 2009, p.179


Third Party Petitions as a Means of Protecting Voluntarily Isolated Indigenous Peoples
Nickolas M. Boecher
Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Volume 10, Number 1, Fall 2009, p.58

International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance (Balakrishnan Rajagopal)
Reviewed by John Reynolds
Palestine Yearbook of International Law, Volume 15, 2009, p.435


Human Genetic Biobanks in Asia: Politics of Trust and Scientific Advancement By Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner (Editor)
Reviewed by Don Chalmers
SCRIPTed: a Journal of Law, Technology & Society, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2010, p.216-220

Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-Determination, Culture and Land By Alexandra Xanthaki
Reviewed by Marcus Goffe
SCRIPTed: a Journal of Law, Technology & Society, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2010, p.221-225

LAW AT ITS MARGINS: QUESTIONS OF IDENTITY, RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ANCESTRAL DOMAINS AND THE DIFFUSION OF LAW
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Philippine Law Journal, Volume 83, Number 4, June 2009, p.787

Human Rights Litigation and Restrictive State Implementation of Strasbourg Court Judgments: The Case of Ethnic Minorities from Southeast Europe
Dia Anagnostou and Yonko Grozev
European Public Law, Volume 16, Number 3, September 2010, p.401

The Abbot's New House: Thinking about How Religion Works among Buddhists and Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China
Thomas Borchert
Journal of Church and State, Volume 52, Number 1, Winter 2010, p.112

Book Review: Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights By Roland Burke, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 264 pp. $55 (Cloth), ISBN 081224219X
Frederick Cowell
Law, Culture and the Humanities, Volume 6, Number 3, October 2010, p.455-457

Book Review: Sovereignty, Knowledge, Law By Panu Minkkinen, Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. 186 + x pp. $120.00 (Cloth). ISBN: 978-0-415-47241-8
Ben Golder
Law, Culture and the Humanities, Volume 6, Number 3, October 2010, p.457-458


Burying Indigeneity: The Spatial Construction of Reality and Aboriginal Australia
Rowland Atkinson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Maggie Walter
Social & Legal Studies, Volume 19, Number 3, September 2010, p.311-330

Policing Indigenous Peoples on Two Colonial Frontiers: Australia's Mounted Police and Canada's North-West Mounted Police
Amanda Nettelbeck and Russell Smandych
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Volume 43, Number 2, August 2010, p.356

Reparations for Indigenous Peoples: International and Comparative Perspectives (Federico Lenzerini ed.)
Raymond Steenkamp Fonseca
Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 32, Number 3, August 2010, p.768

The International Labour Organization and the Quest for Social Justice, 1 919-2009, Gerry Rodgers, Eddy Lee, Lee Sweptson and Jasmien Van Daele
reviewed by James Gross
Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, Volume 31, Number 4, Summer 2010, p.851

Federico Lenzerini (ed.), Reparations for Indigenous Peoples: International and Comparative Perspectives
Jérémie Gilbert
Human Rights Law Review, Volume 10, Number 3, 2010, p.586-589

There are no such things as universal human rights-on the predicament of indigenous peoples, for example
Ulf Johansson Dahre
International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 14, Number 5, September 2010, p.641-657


Inconvenient marriages, or what happens when ethnic minorities marry trans-jurisdictionally
Prakash Shah
Utrecht Law Review, Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2010, p.17-32

Book Review - Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World — Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus
Firth, Alison
European Intellectual Property Review, Volume 32, Issue 4, 2010, p.184-368

After Genocide: Bringing the Devil to Justice, by Adam M. Smith and Building the International Criminal Court, by Benjamin N. Schiff
reviewed by Rosa Aloisi
Judicature, Volume 93, Number 5, March-April 2010

Keynote Address: Indigenous Peoples and Global Climate Change: Intercultural Models of Climate Equity
Rebecca Tsosie
Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, Volume 25, Number 1, 2010, p.7

CLJC search: INDIGENE*

Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity by J. Kehaulani Kauanui
Katharine Bjork
PoLar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, Volume 33, Number 1, May 2010, p.170-172

Indigeneity in the Courtroom: Law, Culture, and the Production of Difference in North American Courts by Jennifer A. Hamilton
Larry Nesper
PoLar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, Volume 32, Number 2, November 2009, p.349-352

Book Review: YLVA HERNLUND AND BETTINA SHELL-DUNCAN (eds), Transcultural Bodies: Female Genital Cutting in Global Context. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007, lix + 373 pp., ISBN 0813540259, £67.50 (hbk)
J. Steven Svoboda
Social & Legal Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, June 2010, p.258-260

Speech by Zoni Weisz to the German Budestag

Remembrance of the Victims of National Socialism


On 27 January, the German Bundestag held a Ceremony of Remembrance for the victims of National Socialism. Parliament has held a ceremony each year since 1996 on this date, on which the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated in 1945. The guest speaker this year was Mr Zoni Weisz, a Holocaust survivor from the Netherlands and representative of the Sinti. A video of the speech is on the Budestag home page.

In 2005, January 27 was been declared International Holocaust Remembrance Day by the United Nations. This year the Remembrance speech to the German Bundestag was give by Zoni Weisz, a member of the Sinti, a part of the Roma minority. Along with six million Jews and millions of others, 500,000 Roma were murdered in the Holocaust. The Roma continue to be a persecuted minority within Europe, see the webpage of the European Roma Rights Centre.

US announces Support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples

I. Introduction

In his Presidential Proclamation last month honoring National Native American Heritage Month, President Obama recommitted ―to supporting tribal self-determination, security and prosperity for all Native Americans.‖ He recognized that ―[w]hile we cannot erase the scourges or broken promises of our past, we will move ahead together in writing a new, brighter chapter in our joint history.‖

It is in this spirit that the United States today proudly lends its support to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration). In September 2007, at the United Nations, 143 countries voted in favor of the Declaration. The United States did not. Today, in response to the many calls from Native Americans throughout this country and in order to further U.S. policy on indigenous issues, President Obama announced that the United States has changed its position. The United States supports the Declaration, which—while not legally binding or a statement of current international law—has both moral and political force. It expresses both the aspirations of indigenous peoples around the world and those of States in seeking to improve their relations with indigenous peoples. Most importantly, it expresses aspirations of the United States, aspirations that this country seeks to achieve within the structure of the U.S. Constitution, laws, and international obligations, while also seeking, where appropriate, to improve our laws and policies.

U.S. support for the Declaration goes hand in hand with the U.S. commitment to address the consequences of a history in which, as President Obama recognized, ―few have been more marginalized and ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans—our First Americans.‖ That commitment is reflected in the many policies and programs that are being implemented by U.S. agencies in response to concerns raised by Native Americans, including poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, health care gaps, violent crime, and discrimination.

II. The Review of the U.S. Position on the Declaration

The decision to review the U.S. position on the Declaration came in response to calls from many tribes, individual Native Americans, civil society, and others in the United States, who believed that U.S. support for the Declaration would make an important contribution to U.S. policy and practice with respect to Native American issues. The decision by the United States to support the Declaration was the result of a thorough review of the Declaration by the relevant federal agencies.

1

In conducting its review of the Declaration, U.S. agencies consulted extensively with tribal leaders during three rounds of consultations, one in Rapid City, South Dakota, and two in Washington, D.C. In addition, the agencies conducted outreach to indigenous organizations, civil society, and other interested individuals. Tribal leaders and others contributed to the review through their attendance at the consultation and outreach sessions, participation in those sessions by means of conference calls, and written submissions. In total, over 3,000 written comments were received and reviewed.

Tribes, groups, and individuals who participated in the review of the U.S. position on the Declaration presented a wide range of views on the meaning and importance of the Declaration. While they could not all be directly reflected in the U.S. position on the Declaration, they were all considered in the process.

III. The Declaration and U.S. Initiatives on Native American Issues

The United States is home to over two million Native Americans, 565 federally recognized Indian tribes, and other indigenous communities. U.S. support for the Declaration reflects the U.S. commitment to work with those tribes, individuals, and communities to address the many challenges they face. The United States aspires to improve relations with indigenous peoples by looking to the principles embodied in the Declaration in its dealings with federally recognized tribes, while also working, as appropriate, with all indigenous individuals and communities in the United States.

Moreover, the United States is committed to serving as a model in the international community in promoting and protecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples as well as the human rights of all individuals. The United States underlines its support for the Declaration’s recognition in the preamble that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess certain additional, collective rights. The United States reads all of the provisions of the Declaration in light of this understanding of human rights and collective rights.

U.S. agencies are currently engaged in numerous initiatives to address the concerns raised by Native American leaders and issues addressed in the Declaration. Many involve the continuation of activities highlighted in the White House Tribal Nations Conference Progress Report released in June 2010. Additional efforts to strengthen the government-to-government relationship, protect lands and the environment and provide redress, address health care gaps, promote sustainable economic development, and protect Native American cultures are addressed below.

III. 1 Strengthening the Government-to-Government Relationship

As President Obama noted: ―Washington can’t – and shouldn’t – dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country. Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions.‖ The record over the forty years since the United States adopted its policy of greater tribal autonomy is clear

2

– tribal self-determination has enabled tribal governments to establish, develop, and enhance tribal institutions and infrastructure ranging from those addressing the health, education, and welfare of their communities to those such as tribal courts, fire protection, and law enforcement. The clear lesson is that empowering tribes to deal with the challenges they face and that taking advantage of the available opportunities will result in tribal communities that thrive.

The United States is therefore pleased to support the Declaration’s call to promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous peoples. The Declaration’s call is to promote the development of a concept of self-determination for indigenous peoples that is different from the existing right of self-determination in international law. The purpose of the Declaration was not to change or define the existing right of self-determination under international law. Further, as explained in Article 46, the Declaration does not imply any right to take any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. For the United States, the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers of self-governance. This recognition is the basis for the special legal and political relationship, including the government-to-government relationship, established between the United States and federally recognized tribes, pursuant to which the United States supports, protects, and promotes tribal governmental authority over a broad range of internal and territorial affairs, including membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, social welfare, community and public safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resource management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous governmental functions.

Federal agencies are engaged in a wide range of activities to enhance tribal self-determination in areas crucial to the well-being of tribal members.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), for example, is deeply committed to strengthening tribal police and judicial systems. Accordingly, the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request provides $321 million to DOJ for tribal public safety initiatives, an increase of 42% over FY 2010. This includes $255.6 million for grants to Indian tribes for tribal law enforcement efforts. The FY 2011 Budget Request also sustains FY 2010 appropriations increases of over 21% for Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded public safety and law enforcement efforts and includes an additional $19 million to support 81 new FBI positions (45 agents) to investigate violent crimes in Indian Country. These increases build on over $250 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act) funds made available to tribes in FY 2009 to address criminal justice needs.

In addition, on July 29, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). This comprehensive bill is aimed at improving public safety on tribal lands. The statute gives tribes greater authority to prosecute crimes and increases federal accountability for public safety in tribal communities. In conformity with the TLOA, the Attorney General established the Office of Tribal Justice as a separate component within the organizational structure of the Department of Justice. The Office has played, and will continue to play, a key role in DOJ’s ongoing initiative to improve public safety in Indian Country, and it serves as the

3

primary channel for tribes to communicate their concerns to the Department, helps coordinate policy on Indian affairs both within DOJ and with other federal agencies, and seeks to ensure that DOJ and its components work with tribes on a government-to-government basis. The Departments of the Interior, Justice, and Health and Human Services are engaged in an unprecedented effort to consult with tribes to develop policy and implement this new law.

In response to tribal input, DOJ has also streamlined its grant-making process. The Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) combines ten different grant programs into a single solicitation. In September 2010, hundreds of American Indian and Alaska Native communities received the first grants under CTAS – almost $127 million to enhance law enforcement, bolster justice systems, prevent youth substance abuse, serve sexual assault and elder abuse victims, and support other tribal efforts to combat crime.

During consultation sessions conducted by the Department of Education with over 350 tribal leaders in 2010, those leaders stressed the importance of greater tribal control over the education of Indian students. The Administration agrees. Therefore, the Department of Education has proposed changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to enhance the role of tribes in Indian education and allow greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds to meet the unique needs of Native American students.

Sixteen different tribes, from Maine to Alaska, participated this summer in the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Training Program. The Training Program is taught by instructors from several Department of the Interior bureaus. The program strengthens tribal governments and prepares them to manage their own natural resources with qualified tribal government employees who have the necessary expertise to help alleviate the shortage of technical expertise on Indian reservations.

Other agency programs that enhance tribal self-determination are discussed in subsequent sections.

In addition to enhancing the self-determination of federally recognized tribes, the Obama Administration has supported the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which provides a process for forming a Native Hawaiian governing entity that would be recognized by, and have a government-to-government relationship with, the United States. Congress has also enacted many more narrowly focused statutes for Native Hawaiians similar to those for other native people, such as the National Historic Preservation Act, which provides protections to properties with religious and cultural importance to Native American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians; the Native Hawaiian Education Act, which establishes programs to facilitate the education of Native Hawaiians; the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, which provides housing assistance in the form of grants and loans; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which protects Native American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian gravesites.

U.S. Government efforts to strengthen the government-to-government relationship with tribes cannot be limited to enhancing tribal self-determination. It is also crucial that U.S. agencies have the necessary input from tribal leaders before those agencies themselves take

4

actions that have a significant impact on the tribes. It is for this reason that President Obama signed the Presidential Memorandum on the implementation of Executive Order 13175, ―Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,‖ and directed all federal agencies to develop detailed plans of action to implement the Executive Order. In this regard, the United States recognizes the significance of the Declaration’s provisions on free, prior and informed consent, which the United States understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken.

The United States intends to continue to consult and cooperate in good faith with federally recognized tribes and, as applicable, Native Hawaiians, on policies that directly and substantially affect them and to improve our cooperation and consultation processes, in accordance with federal law and President Obama’s call for better implementation of Executive Order 13175. The United States does so with the firm policy objective, where possible, of obtaining the agreement of those tribes consistent with our democratic system and laws. At the same time, the United States intends to improve our engagement with other indigenous individuals and groups. The United States will also continue to implement the many U.S. laws that require the agreement of federally recognized tribes or indigenous groups before certain actions can be taken or that require redress for takings of property.

U.S. Government efforts in this area are numerous. Federal agencies have submitted the consultation plans required by the Presidential Memorandum and are currently implementing them. A number of agencies have created new offices to ensure proper implementation of their consultation policies. Examples are the Office of Tribal Government Relations in the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will be established in 2011, and the Office of Tribal Relations in the Department of Agriculture. Other agencies, like the Department of Energy, found it appropriate to establish a Tribal Steering Committee to analyze the agencies’ consultation practices. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services established a Secretary-level Tribal Advisory Committee to create a coordinated, department-wide strategy to improve consultations with Indian tribes. In addition, some agencies have experimented with ―webinars‖ and other online technology to permit tribal leaders to participate in consultations without incurring the costs and time commitments of in-person sessions. These innovations show the seriousness with which federal agencies are taking consultations.

In addition, the Administration is continuing its multi-agency collaborations with tribal governments to develop comprehensive policy for Indian Country. Several agencies are working together on policy priorities and are coordinating on consultation sessions. For example, the Departments of the Interior and Education have been working closely to combine and coordinate their resources, and to maximize their efforts to impact Indian education. As part of the United States review of its position on the Declaration, fourteen federal agencies participated in tribal consultations, which included sessions held in Indian Country and at the State Department.

Federal agencies have put their consultation plans to work over the past year in a wide variety of contexts, and the valuable input received from tribal leaders is reflected throughout U.S. policies and programs in Indian Country.

5

III. 2 Protection of Native American Lands and the Environment, and Redress

The United States recognizes that some of the most grievous acts committed by the United States and many other States against indigenous peoples were with regard to their lands, territories, and natural resources. For this reason, the United States has taken many steps to ensure the protection of Native American lands and natural resources, and to provide redress where appropriate. It is also for this reason that the United States stresses the importance of the lands, territories, resources and redress provisions of the Declaration in calling on all States to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, and natural resources. Consistent with its understanding of the intention of the States that negotiated and adopted the Declaration, the United States understands these provisions to call for the existence of national laws and mechanisms for the full legal recognition of the lands, territories, and natural resources indigenous peoples currently possess by reason of traditional ownership, occupation, or use as well as those that they have otherwise acquired. The Declaration further calls upon States to recognize, as appropriate, additional interests of indigenous peoples in traditional lands, territories, and natural resources. Consistent with that understanding, the United States intends to continue to work so that the laws and mechanisms it has put in place to recognize existing, and accommodate the acquisition of additional, land, territory, and natural resource rights under U.S. law function properly and to facilitate, as appropriate, access by indigenous peoples to the traditional lands, territories and natural resources in which they have an interest.

U.S. agency initiatives in this area are numerous.

Perhaps most significantly, the Obama Administration has acquired over 34,000 acres of land in trust on behalf of Indian tribes, which is a 225 percent increase since 2006. Lands held in trust for tribes are used for housing, economic development, government services, cultural and natural resource protection, and other critical purposes. Recovering and protecting the tribes’ land base is a hallmark objective of this Administration. After the recent Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, Congress introduced, and the Administration has fully supported, legislation to reaffirm the authority of the United States to take land into trust on behalf of all federally recognized Indian tribes.

In addition, the United States intervened in a federal suit, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and United States v. Granholm, and worked to facilitate a settlement that recognizes the tribe’s entire reservation to be Indian Country, resolving over a century of disputes over the boundaries and existence of the reservation. The court approved that settlement on November 23, 2010. This settlement, which involves the tribe, the United States, the State of Michigan, and local governments, will promote greater intergovernmental cooperation and provide the clarity necessary for effective law enforcement and civil regulation on the reservation. The United States has also sought to protect tribal lands, and tribal jurisdiction over those lands, in several other court cases, including the City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, Cayuga Nation v. Gould, and Water Wheel v. LaRance.

Other agency initiatives include the release by the Forest Service of $37.3 million in Recovery Act funds directly to tribes for wild land fire management and the improvement of

6

habitat and watersheds. Of the total Forest Service funding received under the Recovery Act, $213 million was provided to benefit tribes and tribal lands.

The Obama Administration has also made extensive efforts to resolve longstanding Native American legal claims against the United States and private entities related to lands, natural resources, and other issues.

In 2009, the United States reached an agreement for over $1.79 billion to address contamination at over 80 sites in 19 states pursuant to resolution of the American Smelting and Refining Company, LLC (ASARCO) bankruptcy. The settlement includes approximately $194 million for the recovery of wildlife, habitat, and other natural resources managed by the federal, state, and tribal governments at more than a dozen sites. The settlement is part of the largest environmental damage bankruptcy case in U.S. history, and resolves ASARCO’s environmental liabilities from mining and smelting operations that contaminated land, water, and wildlife resources on federal, state, tribal, and private land.

In late October 2010, the Administration reached a $760 million settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers, in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, a case alleging discrimination by the Department of Agriculture in loan programs. Under the agreement, the Department of Agriculture will pay $680 million in damages and forgive $80 million of outstanding farm loan debt. The federal government also agreed to create a 15-member Native American Farmer and Rancher Council to advise the Department, appoint a Department ombudsman, provide more technical assistance to Native American borrowers, and conduct a systematic review of farm loan program rules.

On December 9, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act, which includes the Cobell v. Salazar settlement agreement. In 1996, Elouise Cobell charged the Department of the Interior with failing to account for billions of dollars that it was supposed to collect on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Native Americans. After fourteen years of litigation, enactment of the Claims Resolution Act finally closes an unfortunate chapter in our history. The Act creates a fund of $1.5 billion dollars to address historic accounting and trust management issues, and it also allocates up to $1.9 billion dollars to convert some of the most highly fractionated individual Indian lands into land that can be managed for the broader benefit of the respective tribe. As part of the $1.9 billion, a trust fund of up to $60 million dollars is being created for a scholarship fund for Native Americans.

In addition, this law includes an unprecedented package of four water settlements benefitting seven tribes in Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico. This law finally gives the Crow, White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Pueblos of Taos, Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso permanent access to secure water supplies year round.

As noted by Secretary of the Interior Salazar, ―Congress’ approval of the Cobell settlement and the four Indian water rights settlements is nothing short of historic for Indian nations.‖ He explained that the settlements ―represent a major step forward in President Obama’s agenda to empower tribal governments, fulfill our trust responsibilities to tribal members and help tribal leaders build safer, stronger, healthier and more prosperous

7

communities.‖ They demonstrate not only that the United States has a well-developed court system that provides a means of redress for many wrongs suffered by U.S. citizens, residents and others – including federally recognized tribes and indigenous individuals and groups -- but also that redress is available from the U.S. Congress under appropriate circumstances. The United States will interpret the redress provisions of the Declaration to be consistent with the existing system for legal redress in the United States, while working to ensure that appropriate redress is in fact provided under U.S. law.

The Administration is likewise committed to protecting the environment, and recognizes that many indigenous peoples depend upon a healthy environment for subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering. The Administration therefore acknowledges the importance of the provisions of the Declaration that address environmental issues. While there is far more that needs to be done, the United States is taking many steps to address environmental challenges in Indian Country and beyond.

In July 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, drafted with substantial input from tribes, which established a Governance Coordination Committee with three tribal representatives, as well as tribal engagement in developing priority action areas. Of special interest are the priority areas of the Arctic and developing coastal and marine spatial plans.

In 2010, the Department of the Interior (DOI) provided grants worth more than $7 million through the Tribal Wildlife Grants Program for 42 Native American tribes to fund a wide range of conservation projects in sixteen states. The Tribal Wildlife Grants program has provided more than $50 million in the past eight years for 400 conservation projects administered by 162 federally-recognized tribes. The grants provide technical and financial assistance for the development and implementation of projects that benefit fish and wildlife resources and their habitat, including non-game species.

DOI has also engaged in numerous cooperative resource protection efforts with tribes, including a water quality and biologic condition assessments agreement with the Sac and Fox on the Iowa River, restoration of the Klamath River though possible dam removal and in partnership with the Klamath River Basin tribes, and assistance to the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to assess the impact of land use and climate change on wetlands.

Over the past year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded targeted grants to tribes for specific preventative tasks to address environmental degradation, including $150,000 to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council to establish a Brownfields Tribal Response Program that will promote environmental health for several Pueblos and tribes in New Mexico and West Texas. Two additional grants were made for projects run by tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a part of President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a $475 million program that represents the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The grants are to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to develop a sustainable hazardous waste collection program to serve tribal and non-tribal community members, and help prevent toxic contaminants from entering Lake Superior, and to the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa

8

to improve habitat and water quality in the Bear River Watershed, which directly affects waters flowing into Little Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan.

The Department of Agriculture also invested $84.8 million dollars in water and environmental projects benefitting tribal communities in the lower 48 U.S. states during FY 2010 and an additional $66.2 million dollars for similar projects benefitting tribal communities in Alaska through the Rural Alaska Village Grants program. A further $120.8 million was invested in essential community facilities benefitting tribal communities.

The Department of Energy (DOE) provides grants to many Indian communities to allow them to develop renewable energy resources and energy efficiency measures in their communities in ways that benefit not only those communities, but the whole planet, while serving as models for other U.S. communities. With DOE assistance, tribes are developing a wide-range of renewable energy resources and conservation measures, including geothermal, solar energy, wind and biomass technologies and comprehensive recycling programs. These programs reduce the carbon footprint of tribal communities, while creating jobs and reducing costs.

DOE has also worked closely with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to clean up contamination from Cold War storage of hazardous waste at the Idaho National Laboratory, the tribes’ ancestral home. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have the technical capabilities and qualifications, funded by a DOE-Idaho Cooperative Agreement, to assist the Department and the regulators in reviewing the effectiveness of the cleanup work and assuring that the environment, and particularly the Snake River Plain Aquifer, are not contaminated or threatened.

The Fisheries and the Northwest Protected Resources Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also consults formally and informally with the Northwest treaty tribes when considering the designation of critical habitat for endangered species, including salmon, to ensure the agency is informed of relevant tribal science and any potential impacts to the tribe that may arise from a designation of tribal lands as critical habitat. Documented information from these consultations with NOAA has ensured the protection of listed species and minimized any impact to tribal trust resources. Additionally, NOAA Fisheries and NOAA General Counsel for the Northwest consult with four tribes with ocean treaty fishing rights for groundfish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council process. An example of the success of this practice is that, in 2010, NOAA Fisheries adopted a tribal whiting allocation that was agreed to by all affected tribes and the State of Washington.

III. 3 Addressing Health Care Gaps

The Obama Administration understands the priority tribal leaders place on improving the delivery of health care services in their communities, as well as the significance of related provisions in the Declaration. The Administration has responded, as evidenced by the 13% increase in funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS) in FY 2010 and the 9% additional increase for IHS proposed in the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request. These increases are on top of $500 million provided to the IHS under the Recovery Act.

9

After President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in March, making permanent the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHS initiated consultations with tribal leaders to implement the Act and determine their priorities. Tribes identified long-term care, behavior health, and diabetes/dialysis as their primary concerns. IHS held a meeting on Long Term Care in Indian Country on November 1-2, 2010 to begin the conversation about implementation priorities with tribes. IHS is also continuing the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, a Congressionally-approved grant program now in its thirteenth year, which has resulted in increased control of diabetes in indigenous communities and decreasing rates of end stage renal disease. Related demonstration projects have also shown significant promise.

Tribes also stressed the need to improve the collaboration and coordination of services for veterans eligible for both the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and IHS services. The IHS Director met with VA Secretary Shinseki in May 2010, and they agreed to update the 2003 VA-IHS MOU governing their agencies’ cooperation. The updated MOU was signed in October 2010 and a letter to tribal leaders initiating a consultation on the implementation of the MOU was released in November 2010.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Interior are working together to combat the problem of suicide in Indian Country. The two Departments launched a series of listening sessions between November 2010 and February 2011 to obtain the input of tribal leaders on how the agencies can effectively work within their communities to prevent suicide. The information gathered will inform a major Suicide Prevention Summit to be held in Spring 2011.

III. 4 Promoting Sustainable Economic Development

The Obama Administration has also taken numerous steps, consistent with the Declaration, to promote the economic wellbeing of indigenous peoples in the United States.

A priority for the Administration has been to combat unemployment in Indian Country as evidenced by the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request, which includes $55 million, representing a 4% increase over FY 2010 funding, for the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration’s Indian and Native American Program, which grants funding to tribes and Native American non-profits to provide employment and training services to unemployed and low-income Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Additionally, the Recovery Act allocated over $17 million for the Native American Supplemental Youth Service Program to support summer employment and training opportunities for disconnected youths.

In addition, this summer, the Department of Labor awarded approximately $53 million to 178 grantees to provide quality employment and training services specifically for Native American adults who are unemployed, underemployed and low-income individuals. It awarded an additional $13.8 million in grants to 78 tribes, tribal consortiums, and tribal non-profit organizations to offer summer employment and training activities for American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian youth between the ages of 14 and 21, residing on or near Indian

10

reservations or Alaska Native villages. The youth program targets high school dropouts and youth in need of basic skills training and provides an array of employment and training services, including job placement assistance, work experience, and occupational skills training. In addition, the Recovery Act included $17.8 million in grant funding for Native American youth activities, including summer employment and training opportunities.

The Department of Labor has also been working to address the needs of Native Americans with disabilities. It has collaborated with tribal colleges and universities through the Workforce Recruitment Program to provide internship opportunities for students with federal employers. The Department, tribal colleges and universities, and the National Indian Health Board have worked together to develop a training curriculum for tribal members with disabilities that will provide the opportunity for them to become Community Health Aides. In addition, Add Us In, a new initiative sponsored by the Department, is designed to identify and develop strategies to increase employment opportunities within the small business community for individuals with disabilities. This initiative includes targeted Native American owned and operated small businesses.

In addition, the Treasury Department has a program to strengthen the economic health of Native American communities generally. The Native American Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Assistance Program, or NACA Program, now includes 57 certified Native CDFIs. CDFIs are non-government financial entities whose primary mission is to promote community development, principally by serving and being accountable to a low-income community, and by providing development services. Native participation in NACA increased significantly in 2009 and 2010, and on April 30, 2010, the CDFI Fund announced awards totaling $10.3 million to be used for small business/venture capital, affordable housing, and consumer loans.

Tribal leaders regularly identify the lack of adequate housing as a major impediment to economic development in their communities. To assist with addressing housing needs, the Recovery Act allocated $510 million to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Native American Housing Block Grant program for new housing construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and infrastructure development. By December 1, 2010, tribal recipients had already expended almost two-thirds of those funds for new construction, rehabilitations, energy-efficient improvements, and infrastructure development in Indian Country.

In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a number of other housing initiatives.

On October 12, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity Act. The Act amends the definition of ―income‖ for HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant program so that the determination of a family’s income excludes amounts received from the Department of Veterans Affairs for a service-related disability, dependency, or indemnity compensation. The new law will benefit disabled Native American veterans and their families who might otherwise be ineligible for low-income housing assistance under HUD’s program.

11

In 2011 and 2012, HUD will conduct a comprehensive, national Native American Housing Needs Assessment Study. Before field research begins, the Office of Native American Programs is sponsoring a series of seven regional outreach meetings with tribal housing stakeholders, including tribal leaders; federal agencies; and private sector, non-profit, and state entities to discuss the upcoming study and to lay the groundwork for maximum participation. These outreach meetings will provide a forum for discussing the community and economic impact housing has on tribal communities as well as identifying the needs for creating sustainable reservation communities and economies. These meetings will continue the ongoing dialogue between HUD and tribal leaders in Indian Country.

The Administration is also committed to supporting Native Americans’ success in K-12 and higher education. The Recovery Act invested $170.5 million in Indian education at the Department of Education and $277 million in Indian school construction at the Department of the Interior. The President’s FY 2011 Budget Request provides $31.7 million in funding for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Department of Education, a 5% increase over FY 2010. The Budget Request includes $127 million for postsecondary education for Native Americans under the Department of the Interior.

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act increases the maximum Pell Grant award by the Consumer Price Index, which is estimated to raise the award from $5,550 to $5,975, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, the law provides $300 million for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, $50 million for Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions, and $150 million for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions over the next ten years. These investments will be made in order to renew, reform, and expand programming so that students at these institutions are given every chance to reach their full potentials. These efforts respond to the concerns of Native American leaders as well as priorities identified in the Declaration.

In addition, President Obama appointed members to the Department of Education’s National Advisory Council on Indian Education (Council), as authorized by the ESEA, who met for the first time on November 3, 2010. The current Council consists of fourteen members who are Native Americans. The Council is required to advise the Secretary of Education concerning the funding and administration of Department programs that include or may benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, make recommendations to the Secretary of Education for filling the position of Director of Indian Education, and submit a report to Congress on any recommendations that the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of federal education programs that include or may benefit Native Americans.

The Department of Education is also working to combat discrimination against Native Americans in education. In March 2011, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights will provide technical assistance on civil rights issues that affect Native American communities in California, with particular focus on national origin and race discrimination, harassment, and bullying, to an audience of parents, activists, tribal leaders, teachers, and school leaders. Together with the Department of Health and Human Services, it will also provide in Fall 2011 technical assistance to parents and students, as well as social outreach service providers for the Native American

12

communities, on civil rights issues that affect Native American communities in Minnesota and North Dakota.

The Administration is also working with tribal leaders to bring their communities into the 21st Century by equipping them with high speed access to the Internet. Both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce have programs to do so.

The Department of Agriculture recently awarded $32 million to bring high speed, affordable broadband to the Navajo Nation. The Department of Agriculture also received Recovery Act funds to expand broadband access. It provided grants and loans totaling over $158 million to expand broadband access in tribal communities through the Broadband Initiatives Program. This included ten infrastructure investments directly to tribes and tribally-owned businesses and eleven technical assistance awards to tribes to assist with regional broadband plans to promote economic development.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce awarded almost 30 percent of the $4.7 billion that the Department received from the Recovery Act to Indian tribes and recipients that indicated that their projects will benefit tribal areas. This funding will be used to increase access to broadband services in underserved areas of the country.

Similarly, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development office made $216.3 million in Recovery Act investments benefiting American Indian and Alaska Native populations, including $36.3 million for community water and wastewater infrastructure, $97.5 million for community facilities, and $81.1 million for single family housing (691 home loans). In addition, the Recovery Act allocated $310 million to the Department of Transportation for the Indian Reservation Roads Program and over $142 million to the Department of the Interior for roads maintenance.

III. 5 Protecting Native American Cultures

As President Obama has recognized, the indigenous peoples of North America have ―invaluable cultural knowledge and rich traditions, which continue to thrive in Native American communities across our country.‖ The many facets of Native American cultures – including their religions, languages, traditions and arts – need to be protected, as reflected in multiple provisions of the Declaration.

Because of the breadth and depth of Native American cultures, they affect and are affected by the activities of many U.S. agencies. Some of those agencies’ efforts are noted in this section.

In July, President Obama signed into law the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act to strengthen the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which makes it illegal to sell, offer, or display for sale any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian-produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian tribe. The new act empowers all federal law enforcement

13

officers to enforce this prohibition and differentiates among penalties based on the price of the goods involved in the offense. The total market for American Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts in the United States is estimated at a billion dollars, with an unknown but substantial amount of those sales going to misrepresented, non-authentic works.

The Secretary of Agriculture, in a letter of July 2, 2010, directed the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Tribal Relations and the Forest Service to begin a process of review of all Forest Service policies and to consult with interested tribes about how the Department and the Forest Service can do a better job addressing sacred site issues while simultaneously balancing pursuit of the agency’s mission to deliver forest goods and services for current and future generations. He emphasized the need to examine the effectiveness of existing laws and regulations in ensuring a consistent level of sacred site protection that is more acceptable to the tribes.

On July 30, 2010, the United Nations inscribed the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as the first mixed (natural and cultural) World Heritage Site in the United States. The Department of the Interior played a leading role in coordinating the development of the nomination dossier and successful inscription by the World Heritage Committee. Papahānaumokuākea’s inscription as a World Heritage Site is important to Native Hawaiians because it recognizes and incorporates the richness of the habitat and wildlife with the living, indigenous, cultural connections to the sea – where modern Hawaiian wayfinders (non-instrument navigators) still voyage for navigational training on traditional double-hulled sailing canoes; an aspect of inscription unique to Papahānaumokuākea. Additionally, World Heritage status places this traditional skill, which was used to navigate across the world’s largest ocean – one of the greatest feats of human kind – onto the world stage.

Since April 2010 the Department of Education has held six regional consultations with tribal officials regarding reauthorization of the ESEA. Among the statements heard time and time again were those on the importance of preserving Native languages. In response, the Administration has proposed changes to the ESEA that support, among other things, flexibility in the use of federal education funds to allow funding for Native language immersion and Native language restoration programs.

Due to joint efforts of federal agencies and tribes, 152 notices of decisions to repatriate human remains and cultural items were published in the Federal Register in 2010. Each of these notices is a direct consequence of museums and federal agencies consulting with tribes concerning the repatriation of human remains and cultural items previously held in collections. These notices account for 1,628 human remains and 9,062 associated funerary objects, an additional 2,052 funerary objects not associated with an individual, 11 sacred objects, 10 objects of cultural patrimony, and an additional 388 items that are both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. In addition, the Forest Service is exercising its authority to assist tribes over the next several years in reburial of over 3,000 sets of human remains and their associated cultural items that had been removed from National Forests.

The Department of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, has also begun efforts with tribes to facilitate eagle feather possession for cultural and traditional uses and to

14

promote coordination in wildlife investigations and enforcement efforts to protect golden and bald eagles.

Moreover, the Department of the Interior awarded over $8 million to support historic preservation programs and projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian organizations. $7,250,000 was awarded to 100 Tribal Historic Preservation Officer programs, and $899,316 to 26 communities for a broad range of cultural heritage projects.

IV. Conclusion

The United States has made great strides in improving its relationship with Native Americans and indigenous peoples around the world. However, much remains to be done. U.S. agencies look forward to continuing to work with tribal leaders, and all interested stakeholders, so that the United States can be a better model for the international community in protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples.

15

Un Press Release: World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014

General Assembly Will Hold ‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ in 2014,
Under Terms of Resolution Recommended by Third Committee [A/C.3/65/L.22/Rev.1]

Also Approves Five Other Texts on Extrajudicial Executions, Leprosy, United Nations Refugee High Commissioner, Practices Fueling Racism, Globalization

Concerned about the extreme social and economic disadvantages that indigenous peoples have faced, the Third Committee approved a draft resolution today that would have the General Assembly organize a high-level plenary meeting in 2014 — to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014 -- to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of indigenous peoples’ rights.

Approved without a vote, the document would invite the President of the General Assembly to determine the modalities for the high-level meeting, including indigenous peoples’ participation at the Conference, through open-ended consultations with Member States, indigenous people’s representatives in the framework of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.

The Assembly would also expand the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, so that it could assist representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities to participate in sessions of the Human Rights Council and human rights treaty bodies.

UN Third Committee agenda documents for 65 Session

There are a number of documents submitted to the Third Committee to accompany the 65th Session Agenda of interest to the issues of indigenous peoples. The full list is at this URL: http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/65/documentslist.shtml. Some selected ones are listed below:

♦ ITEM 65: Indigenous issues:

(a) Indigenous issues

* A/65/163 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Note by the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations

* A/65/264 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people

(b) Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People

* A/65/166 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
♦ ITEM 66: Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance:

(a) Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

* A/65/292 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination

* A/65/312 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Secretary-General on the financial situation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

* A/64/18 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on its seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth sessions

* A/65/18(Supp) [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on its seventy-sixth and seventy-seven sessions

* A/65/323 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance


(b) Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

* A/65/377 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Secretary-General on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

* A/65/295 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance


♦ ITEM 67: Right of peoples to self-determination

* A/65/286 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Report of the Secretary-General on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination

* A/65/325 [F] [S] [A] [C] [R]
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination

Canada Endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Ref. #2-3429

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, November 12, 2010 – The Government of Canada today formally endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a manner fully consistent with Canada's Constitution and laws. Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John McNee, met with the President of the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Joseph Deiss, to advise him of Canada's official endorsement of the United Nations Declaration.

"We understand and respect the importance of this United Nations Declaration to Indigenous peoples in Canada and worldwide," said the Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians. "Canada has endorsed the Declaration to further reconcile and strengthen our relationship with Aboriginal peoples in Canada."

"Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples," said the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs. "Canada's active involvement abroad, coupled with its productive partnership with Aboriginal Canadians, is having a real impact in advancing indigenous rights at home and abroad."

Continues at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/s-d2010/23429-eng.asp

National American Indian Heritage Month

National American Indian Heritage Month

Overview

National American Indian Heritage Month celebrates and recognizes the accomplishments of the peoples who were the original inhabitants, explorers and settlers of the United States.

“National American Indian Heritage Month” had its origins in 1986 when Congress passed Pub. L. 99-471 (PDF, 93 KB) which authorized and requested the President to proclaim the week of November 23-30, 1986 as “American Indian Week.” As directed by Congress, President Reagan issued Presidential Proclamation 5577 in November 1986 proclaiming the first American Indian Week. Both law and proclamation recognized the American Indians as the first inhabitants of the lands that now constitute the United States as well as making mention of their contributions to American society:

Many of the foods we eat and the medicines and remedies we use were introduced by Indians and more than one highway follows an Indian trail. Indians make contributions in every area of endeavor and American life, and our literature and all our arts draw upon Indian themes and wisdom. Countless American Indians have served in our Armed Forces and have fought valiantly for our country.

Continued at http://www.loc.gov/law/help/commemorative-observations/american-indian.php

PLoS: Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? Three Viewpoints

In 2008, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Paul Hunt, made a report to the UN General Assembly (11 August 2008) The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health: Report of the Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt. U.N. General Assembly, 63rd Session, Agenda Item 67(b). U.N. Doc. A/63/263. See, http://www.essex.ac.uk/human_rights_cent​re/research/rth/index.aspx

In September 2010, PLoS Medicine published the following Debate on drug companies and their human rights obligations.

Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? Three Viewpoints

In September 2010, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health (2002-2008), regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.


In their accompanying editorial, the PLoS Medicine Editors argue that drug companies should be held much more accountable for their human rights responsibilities.

Editorial

Drug Companies Should Be Held More Accountable for Their Human Rights Responsibilities

PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials, PLoS Medicine:
Published 28 Sep 2010 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000344

The PLoS Medicine Debates

• Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? Moving Toward Assessment
  
  Sofia Gruskin, Zyde Raad
  
  PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials, PLoS Medicine:
  Published 28 Sep 2010 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000310
  
  
• Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? The Merck Perspective
  
  Geralyn S. Ritter
  
  PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials, PLoS Medicine:
  Published 28 Sep 2010 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000343
  
  
• Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? The Perspective of the Former United Nations Special Rapporteur (2002-2008)
  
  Paul Hunt, Rajat Khosla
  
  PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials, PLoS Medicine:
  Published 28 Sep 2010 | info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000330