Some IPLCs have started self-reporting on their participation in NBSAPs through a questionnaire distributed by Forest Peoples Programme to members of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) (see Table). To date out of seven reports, two of them, from Antigua and Barbuda and from Namibia, reported that the NBSAP had been updated and revised with the effective participation of IPLCs and with a good prospect of their future participation in implementation. Responses from Ecuador and Uruguay reported that NBSAP revision and updating is in progress, with good participation of IPLCs. Responses from Aotearoa/New Zealand reported that some participation took place, although indigenous organisations active in CBD processes were not included. However, those from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka reported that whilst the process is in progress, there is very limited or no participation of IPLCs. Other information gathered from local organisations also provided mixed and variable responses. In the Philippines, the NBSAP was reviewed with the participation of IPLCs; in Suriname the input of IPLCs was reflected in the NBSAP but IPLCs are not provided with sufficient opportunities or resources for implementation, while in Thailand the NBSAP was updated with no involvement of IPLCs. Table: Summary of participation of IPLCs in update / revision process for NBSAPs and national reporting, as reported by IIFB members and local organisations
Country
|
IPLC Participation* in NBSAPs
|
IPLC Participation* in national reporting
|
Antigua and Barbuda |
Yes. Effective1 |
Yes1 |
Bangladesh |
Limited / none1 |
Limited / none1 |
Ecuador |
Yes. Good1 |
Yes. Not effective1 |
Namibia |
Yes. Effective1 |
Yes.1 |
Aotearoa/New Zealand |
Limited1 / some2 |
Limited / none1 |
Philippines |
Yes2 |
Limited / none2 |
Sri Lanka |
Limited / none1 |
Limited / none1 |
Suriname |
Yes2 |
Limited / none2 |
Thailand |
Limited / none2 |
Limited / none2 |
Uruguay |
Yes. Good1 |
Yes. Good1 |
*Sources: 1 Responses to IIFB questionnaire by members; 2 Other Information from local organisations or government agencies A similar situation was observed for the national reports, where four of the seven countries for which a response to the questionnaire was collected indicated that some degree of participation took place and materials provided by IPLCs were taken into account. However only in two cases was it felt that IPLCs’ perspectives had been reflected in the national reports.