1.You have seen the definition of Indigenous Peoples from the ILO Convention. If
ID: 69729 • Letter: 1
Question
1.You have seen the definition of Indigenous Peoples from the ILO Convention. If you were to write a definition, how would it differ? What unique rights would you give to indigenous peoples who are currently living on land that you would like to have protected status?
2.What countries are proposing to change the listing of the African elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II? What is their basis for this proposal?
3.Why has the United States not ratified UNCLOS? What advantages might there be if we were to ratify it?
4.Agriculture accounts for 70% of water use around the world. Yet with an ever increasing population, we need to continually produce more food. If you were czar – in other words, everyone had to do as you say – what would you change about how we use water and how we produce food and fiber?
Explanation / Answer
1) There does not seem to be one definitive definition of indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different—often unique—cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state.
2) Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Mali and Tanzania
Botswana and Namibia propose replacing the current annotation governing trade for
the four African Elephant populations currently included in Appendix II (i.e. Botswana, Namibia, South
Africa and Zimbabwe). The new text would establish annual commercial trade quotas for raw ivory in
compliance with the procedures outlined in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12), subject to certain other
conditions. Aside from raw ivory, trade in other elephant products is not specifically mentioned in the
proposed annotation, whereas the current version does include trade options for other elephant products.
Consequently, the intention of the proposal remains confused and fails to address the guidelines in
Resolution Conf. 11.21 (Rev. CoP13) which state: “for species transferred from Appendix I to II subject to
an annotation that specifies the types of specimen included in the Appendix, specimens that are not
specifically included in the annotation shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix
I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly”. It needs to be resolved whether other elephant
specimens—including those currently eligible for trade—are deemed specimens of species included in
Appendix I. If not, it appears the proponents would be expanding the scope of their tabled proposal if they
move to include provision for trade in other elephant products. Consequently, this proposal is likely to
become engulfed in a procedural debate.
(CoP14 Prop. 5) Botswana proposes changing the annotation governing the inclusion of its
elephant population in Appendix II by expanding the scope of trade in leather goods and live animals to
allow transactions for commercial purposes; introducing annual quotas for raw ivory pursuant to the
requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) and certain other conditions; and providing for
another one-off conditional sale of not more than 40 t of raw ivory. This last-mentioned would be from
government-owned stocks and only exported to CITES Secretariat-certified trading partners whose
national legislation would preclude exportation of the ivory, and whose domestic trade controls demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12). The conditional one-off sale of raw ivory approved for Botswana, Namibia and South Africa at CoP12 in 2002 has not yet occurred (see section 9). Botswana has Africa’s largest elephant population, up to 175 000 animals, and since 2002 a considerable volume of ivory has accumulated from natural and management-related mortalities. Botswana aims to sell this ivory to help meet the costs of elephant conservation, including support to rural communities negatively affected by living close to large elephant populations. (CoP14 Prop. 6) Kenya and Mali propose amending the annotations of all elephant populations in Appendix II to impose a 20-year moratorium on trade in ivory, with two exceptions: the one-off sale of registered stocks approved at CoP12 (see section 9), and Botswana, Namibia and South Africa—but not Zimbabwe—would be allowed to export raw ivory “as hunting trophies for non- commercial purposes” (see CoP14 Prop. 4). This proposal is similar to one submitted by Kenya at CoP13.
(CoP14 Prop. 7)Tanzania proposed transferring its elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II, but has subsequently withdrawn the proposal.
3) US argue that UNCLOS is unnecessary sincecustomary international law and other agreements already provide the legal bases for international maritime law.
Critics also argue that the US should not bind itself to international bureaucracies, such as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) created by UNCLOS to regulate mining activities on the deep seabed beyond the jurisdiction of any country.
Advantages : United States was the principal force behind the negotiation of UNCLOS, it contains everything the U.S. military wants, and nothing that it fears.
4) Resource availability and the use of agricultural improvements will impact our future supply chains. By informing consumers and helping us understand the need for efficient water use to produce our food and fiber retailers help us understand the issue and help us understand and support farming practices that produce more per drop of water! Knowing how much water it takes to produce our food and fiber may also encourage us all to decrease food waste and secure a more secure and abundant future food supply for us all.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.