|
Articles 1, 26 and 27:
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname
NGO Report
30 January 2002
Contents
I Executive
Summary
II. The
Forest Peoples Programme
III. Indigenous
Peoples and Maroons in Suriname – Basic Information
IV. Human Rights Situation of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons
in Suriname – General Overview
V. Articles 1 and 27 – Indigenous and Maroon land,
resource and subsistence rights and the right to enjoy culture and
use their language
A. The Jurisprudence
of the Committee under Article 27
B. Article 1
C. The Situation in Suriname – Land and Resource
Rights
D. Linguistic Rights
VI. Article
26 – Non-Discrimination
VII. Article
2 – Implementation of the Covenant
VIII. Concluding
Remarks and Suggested Questions
_____________________________________
Annex
A - Buskondre Dey
Protocol of April 1, 2000
Annex B - Petition
to the Suriname Government Concerning
the Situation in Adjoemakondre
Annex C - Raiding
the Rain Forest. Philadelphia Inquirer Article
Executive Summary
1.
This NGO report has been prepared to provide the Human Rights Committee
with information concerning the rights of Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Suriname, primarily under Articles 1, 26 and 27 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is intended to assist
the Committee to formulate questions to the State with regard to
its compliance with the Covenant. A number of specific questions
have been proposed herein in relation to the rights of Indigenous
and Tribal peoples guaranteed under the Covenant (see Section VIII,
below). These questions and a summary of the main points raised
in this report are also repeated here:
a.
The rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples to practice, enjoy and
maintain their cultures, to be secure in their means of subsistence,
to freely dispose of their natural wealth and to participate in
decisions affecting them, as provided for in articles 1 and 27,
are neither recognized nor respected at present in Suriname. This
is especially true when it comes to land and resource rights. Indigenous
and Maroon culture and identity are fundamentally tied to their
relationship with their ancestral lands, territories and resources.
Without strong, effective and enforceable rights to these lands,
territories and resources, their cultural integrity is seriously
undermined and denied.
Suggested Question 1: What has the government of Suriname
done to give effect to the rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples
as defined by articles 1 and 27?In particular, what legislative,
administrative or other measure have been taken to identify, demarcate
and title Indigenous and Maroon lands and territories traditionally
occupied and used?
Suggested Question 2: Given that land and resource rights
are fundamentally related to the right of Indigenous and Maroon
peoples to enjoy their culture, to be secure in their means of subsistence
and to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, what
measures exist or are planned to address this issue?
b.
The expansion of resource exploitation operations in the interior
has seriously threatened and undermined Indigenous peoples and Maroons’
resource base, on which they depend for their basic subsistence
needs. Their right to a healthy environment is also routinely violated.
Suggested Question 3: Given the increase in logging and
mining activities in the interior of Suriname in recent years, can
you explain what the Government has done to ensure that these activities
do not compromise the rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples to
exercise and enjoy their rights under articles 1 and 27?
Suggested Question 4: How does the Government propose to
address the rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples to a healthy
environment in which they can enjoy their culture and other rights?
c.
There is no mechanism in Surinamese law to provide for the informed
participation and consent of Indigenous peoples in decisions that
affect them. This is especially the case concerning decisions about
their lands and resources and whether concessions are issued thereon
or nearby.
Suggested Question 5: What mechanisms, legal or otherwise,
exist to incorporate Indigenous and Maroon participation in decision
making, and if there are none, what measures does the Government
intend to take to ensure that indigenous peoples and Maroons can
participate in and consent to measures that may affect them? Will
the Government ensure that measures are taken to ensure that Indigenous
peoples and Maroons participate in decision making concerning the
granting of concessions on or near their lands and territories?
d.
Neither bi-lingual or bi-cultural education are available for Indigenous
children in Suriname. This places these children at a substantial
disadvantage to their non-Indigenous peers and has the effect of
substantially undermining Indigenous cultural identity and continuity.
Suggested Question 6: What measures has the Government taken
or intends to take to ensure that Indigenous and Maroon children
can receive bi-lingual and bi-cultural education? Is there any provision
at the legal or policy level to account for these issues?
e.
Indigenous and Maroon peoples suffer from discrimination that is
particularly pervasive in connection with land rights, education
and health. Disparities between the quantity and quality of health
and education services in the interior vis-à-vis the coast cannot
be justified nor can this disparity be explained by incremental
implementation considerations. Simply stated Indigenous and Maroon
peoples receive less and worse services than their coastal counterparts
without valid reason. In some cases, Indigenous and Maroon children
receive no services at all.
Suggested Question 7: Please explain the disparity
between the level of health and education services on the coast
and in the interior? What measures are in effect or planned to remedy
this disparity?
II. The
Forest Peoples Programme
2.
The Forest Peoples Programme is an international NGO, founded in
1990 and registered as a Stichting in the Netherlands with
its main office in the United Kingdom, which supports the rights
of forests peoples. The organisation provides policy advice and
training to indigenous peoples and other forest peoples at local,
national and international levels for them to secure and sustainably
manage their forests, lands and livelihoods. It exists to support
the response of forest peoples to the global forest crisis. It aims
to secure the rights of peoples, who live in the forests and depend
on them for their livelihoods, to control their lands and destinies.
The Programme has five main goals:
·
to support an effective global movement of forest peoples.
·
to promote coordinated action on forests by NGOs of North and South
in line with forest peoples' visions and concerns.
·
to promote the rights and interests of forest peoples in international
forest policy and human rights fora.
·
to support genuine, community-based, sustainable forest management.
·
to counter top-down planning and official solutions to the deforestation
crisis, which deny local people a decisive voice about resources
use in their areas.
3.
The Programme has had an extensive field programme in Suriname since
1996 and presently employs two persons to support Indigenous and
Tribal peoples in that country, one of whom is of Maroon descent
and based in-country on a full-time basis. The Programme has produced
numerous publications relating to the situation in Suriname, the
most comprehensive of which is entitled ‘The Rights of Indigenous
Peoples and Maroons in Suriname’ published by the International
Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Doc. No. 96. (1999).
III. Indigenous
Peoples and Maroons in Suriname – Basic Information
4.
Indigenous peoples comprise approximately 3-5 percent of the Surinamese
population – approximately 25,000 persons - organized as four distinct
peoples: Kalina (Caribs), Lokono (Arawaks), Trio and Wayana. In
total there are around 35 Indigenous villages in Suriname, some
of them on the coast and some deep in the interior of the country.
Suriname’s rainforests, savannahs and coastal forests have sustained
them since time immemorial and for the most part remain their most
important source of subsistence resources.
5.
Suriname is also home to non-indigenous Tribal peoples known as
Maroons. They are organized as six peoples: Saramaka, N’djuka (or
Aucaner), Matawai, Kwinti, Aluku, and Paramaka comprising approximately
60,000 persons (around 15 percent of the total population). Maroons
are the descendants of escaped slaves who fought themselves free
from slavery and established viable, autonomous communities along
the major rivers of Suriname’s rainforest interior in the 17th
and 18th centuries and have maintained a distinct culture
based primarily upon an amalgamation of African and Amerindian traditions.
Their freedom from slavery and rights to lands and territory and
the autonomous administration thereof were recognized in treaties
concluded with the Dutch colonial government in the 1760s and reaffirmed
in further treaties in the 1830s.
6.
Maroons consider themselves
and are perceived to be culturally distinct from other sectors of
Surinamese society and regulate themselves according to their own
laws and customs. As such, they qualify as Tribal peoples according
to international definitional criteria and for the most part enjoy
the same rights as Indigenous peoples under international law. Maroons also constitute minorities
for the purposes of article 27 of the Covenant and peoples under
article 1.
IV. Human
Rights Situation of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname –
General Overview
7.
Indigenous peoples and Maroons, especially women and children, fall
at the bottom of all economic indices and are the most disadvantaged
and impoverished sectors of Surinamese society. Indigenous peoples
and Maroons receive fewer services than non-Indigenous and Maroon
persons, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
8.
In the past 10 years the state has authorized numerous resource
exploitation operations in Indigenous and Maroon territories, both
small-scale and large, both foreign and domestic, that have had
and continue to have a substantially negative impact upon the environment,
health, resource base and quality of life of Indigenous peoples
and Maroons. These operations are not monitored or controlled in
any meaningful way and concessions are routinely granted without
informing, consulting with or seeking their agreement. Indigenous
and Maroon women and children disproportionately suffer the negative
effects of these activities.
9.
Indigenous peoples’ and Maroons’ rights, pursuant to articles 1
and 27, are not recognized in anyway under Surinamese law. This
is especially the case for land and resource rights, which are directly
and inextricably linked to the right to enjoy culture guaranteed
under article 27 as well as the rights guaranteed under article
1.
10.
Surinamese law also does not provide any mechanism nor recognise
any right of Indigenous peoples and Maroons to be consulted about
and participate in decisions that may affect them. Concessions for
mining and logging are routinely issued without informing communities
even if they are in the middle of concessions. Suriname has no environmental
laws that regulate or control the environmental impact of mining,
logging or other resource exploitation activities. Logging concessions
presently encompass around 40 percent of the country and include
some 60 percent of Indigenous and Maroon communities; mining concessions
encompass approximately 30 percent of the country and affect anywhere
up to 40 percent of the communities. This only accounts for legal
activities.
11.
There are an estimated 15-40,000 Brazilian small-scale miners operating
in Suriname under license from the Government and many thousands
of local small-scale miners. It was estimated that for the years
1998 and 1999 some 40 tonnes of mercury were released into the environment,
much of it inhabited by Indigenous peoples and Maroons. Many communities
report that their rivers and other water sources are unfit for human
consumption – some communities even have to import water from the
capital city – and that they catch fish with tumors and soapy white
eyes. Fish is a prime source of protein for the communities. Use
of water causes vomiting, diarrhea and skin rashes. According to
the World Health Organisation, poor water quality has lead to an
increase in mortality rates due to diarrhoeal diseases. The State’s
only response to-date has been to issue a health advisory warning
pregnant women not to consume fish caught in the rivers.
12.
Malaria has reached epidemic proportions in many parts of the interior.
Some 25 percent of the 10,000 diagnosed cases of malaria identified
in the interior in 1999, were in children under the age of 5, the
vast majority of whom were Indigenous and Maroon children. Malaria
has a debilitating effect on the agricultural cycle, leaving many,
especially the young, without adequate food. This is also makes
them more susceptible to further infections and lengthens recovery
periods.
13.
The effects of this activity and the failure of the Government to
recognise and respect Indigenous and Maroon land rights are substantially
negative. Indigenous subsistence activities are substantially threatened
in some areas, in others they are no longer possible. Agricultural
areas are damaged and destroyed by small-scale and multinational
operators alike with impunity. For example, on 20 May 2001, the
Philadelphia Inquirer, a US newspaper, published an article
on the activities of logging companies in Suriname with particular
reference to the situation of Saramaka Maroons (see Annex C for
the full article). This report states in pertinent part that:
This was all too clear [environmental degradation] walking through
the Jin Lin concession. The company had plowed large, muddy roads
about 45 feet wide into the forest, churned up huge piles of earth,
and created fetid pools of green and brown water. Upended and
broken trees were everywhere and what were once plots of sweet
potatoes, peanuts, ginger, cassava, palm and banana crops - planted
in the forest by Maroon villagers - were muddy pits.
14.
Malnutrition among once self-sufficient communities is common. The
children, especially the very young, suffer the most and it is highly
probable that in some areas their normal physical, intellectual
and emotional development is affected. Mercury contamination, which
has never been assessed and is not controlled in anyway, is a major
health hazard.
15.
Indigenous and Maroon cultures are based in large part on a detailed
and extensive relationship with the total environment of their lands.
In many areas of Suriname they can no longer enjoy this relationship.
An integral part of their children’s education and socialization
is based upon experiencing the natural world and learning agriculture
and other subsistence practices from their parents. If the parents
are unable to hunt, fish, gather and farm, the children cannot learn
how to sustain themselves, lose an integral part of their cultural
heritage and eventually become dependent on outside foodstuffs.
V. Articles
1 and 27 – Indigenous and Maroon land, resource and subsistence
rights and the right to enjoy culture and use their language.
A. The Jurisprudence
of the Committee under Article 27
16.
The jurisprudence of the Committee on the rights of Indigenous peoples
under article 27 is considerable. Article 27 protects linguistic,
cultural and religious rights and, in the case of Indigenous peoples,
includes, among others, land and resource, subsistence and participation
rights.
17.
The Committee has interpreted article 27 to include the “rights
of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and
social activities which are part of the culture of the community
to which they belong.” In reaching this conclusion, it recognized
that Indigenous peoples’ subsistence and other traditional economic
activities are an integral part of their culture, and substantial
interference with those activities can be detrimental to their cultural
integrity and survival. By necessity, the land, resource base and
the environment thereof also require protection if subsistence activities
are to be safeguarded.
18.
Many of the cases brought
by Indigenous peoples under article 27 challenge state- or corporate-directed
resource exploitation. In this context, the Committee has observed
that a state’s freedom to encourage economic development
is limited by the obligations it has assumed under article 27. An
activity that amounts to a denial of the right to enjoy culture,
for Indigenous peoples this includes land, subsistence and other
rights, is prohibited under article 27. Such activities include
forcible relocation, severe environmental degradation and denial
of access to subsistence areas and areas of cultural and religious
significance. In its 1999 Concluding Observations on Chile, for
instance, the HRC stated that
The Committee takes note of the various legislative and administrative
measures taken to respect and ensure the rights of persons belonging
to indigenous communities in Chile to enjoy their own culture.
Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned by hydroelectric and
other development projects that might affect the way of life and
the rights of persons belonging to the Mapuche and other indigenous
communities. Relocation and compensation may not be appropriate
in order to comply with article 27 of the Covenant. Therefore:
When planning actions that
affect members of indigenous communities, the State party must
pay primary attention to the sustainability of the indigenous
culture and way of life and to the participation of members of
indigenous communities in decisions that affect them. (emphasis added)
19.
In a 1994 General Comment (No.23), the Committee further elaborated
upon the scope of, and state obligations under, article 27 by stating
that
one or other aspects of the rights of individuals protected [under
Art. 27] - for example to enjoy a particular culture - may consist
in a way of life which is closely associated with a territory
and its use of resources. This may particularly be true of members
of indigenous communities constituting a minority . . . . With
regard to the exercise of the cultural rights protected under
Article 27, the committee observes that culture manifests itself
in many forms, including a particular way of life associated with
the use of land resources, specifically in the case of indigenous
peoples. That right may include such traditional activities as
fishing or hunting and the right to live in reserves protected
by law. The enjoyment of those rights may require positive legal
measures of protection and measures to ensure the effective participation
of members of minority communities in decisions which affect them
. . . . The Committee concludes that article 27 relates to rights
whose protection imposes specific obligations on States parties.
The protection of these rights is directed to ensure the survival
and continued development of the cultural, religious and social
identity of the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric
of society as a whole….
20.
Further, in July 2000, the Committee added that article 27 requires
that “necessary steps should
be taken to restore and protect the titles and interests of indigenous
persons in their native lands …” and that “securing continuation
and sustainability of traditional forms of economy of indigenous
minorities (hunting, fishing and gathering), and protection of sites
of religious or cultural significance for such minorities … must
be protected under article 27….”
B. Article
1
21.
The Committee has confirmed on a number of occasions that Indigenous
peoples’ rights are protected under article 1 of the Covenant and
that states are obligated to respect those rights. In its Concluding Observations on Canada’s
Fourth Periodic report, for instance, the it stated that
With reference to the conclusion by the [Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples] that without a greater share of lands and
resources institutions of aboriginal self-government will fail,
the Committee emphasizes that the right to self-determination
requires, inter alia, that all peoples must be able to freely
dispose of their natural wealth and resources and that they may
not be deprived of their own means of subsistence (article 1(2)).
The Committee recommends that decisive and urgent action be taken
towards the full implementation of the RCAP recommendations on
land and resource allocation. The Committee also recommends that
the practice of extinguishing inherent aboriginal rights be abandoned
as incompatible with article 1 of the Covenant.
22.
The Committee reached similar conclusions – that the State implement
and respect the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination,
particularly in connection with their traditional lands – in its
Concluding Observations on the reports of Mexico and Norway issued
in 1999 and Australia in 2000. In its complaints-based jurisprudence,
the Committee has also related the right to self-determination to
the right of Indigenous people to enjoy their culture under article
27. The Committee’s 1984 General Recommendation
on self-determination also illustrates that article 1 applies to
peoples within existing states. Therein the Committee stated that
Article 1(3) “imposes specific
obligations on States parties, not only in relation to their own
peoples but vis-à-vis
all peoples which have not been able to exercise or have been deprived
of the possibility of exercising their right to self-determination”
(emphasis added).
C. The
Situation in Suriname – Land and Resource Rights
23.
Under Surinamese law, Indigenous and Maroon rights to own, use and
peacefully enjoy their lands are not recognized in law nor respected
in practice. That this is the case is confirmed by the statement
of the Surinamese delegation during the hearing of the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1995:
Land rights represented a major problem, which was currently
under discussion. The people who lived in the interior had always
claimed rights over the land where they lived, but those claims
had had no formal basis in law. The Government had, however, recognized,
and was implementing, such claims as part of the peace process.
A report would shortly be issued containing an inventory of the
land in question and detailing the claims that had been made.
The report referred
to here was never completed and, over 10 years after it was concluded,
the Peace Accord’s provisions pertaining to land rights have not
been implemented (see below). That said there are many Indigenous peoples
and Maroons who consider the Peace Accord’s provisions on land rights
inadequate and contrary to their rights and cultural traditions.
They would prefer that it not be implemented at all.
24.
Article 41 of Suriname’s 1987 Constitution declares that the state
owns all natural resources and has the inalienable to right to exploit
or authorize others to exploit those resources. Article 1 of the
1982 Decree Principles of Land Policy, Suriname’s primary land legislation,
provides that, “all land to which others have not proven ownership
rights, belongs to the domain of the State.” In Suriname, ‘ownership
rights’ belong only to those who can show a title issued by the
state. Article 4 adds that
1.
In allocating domainland, the entitlements of the tribal
Bushnegroes [Maroons] and Indians to their villages, settlements
and forest plots will be respected, provided that this is not contrary
to the general interest;
2.
General interests includes the execution of any project within the
framework of an approved development plan.
This exception
related to the general interest is so broad that Indigenous and
Maroon rights, described as entitlements, will always be superceded
by any action that the State deems in the public interest or any
project included in a development plan. The effect is to substantially
limit the rights of Indigenous peoples and Maroon to the point that
they become essentially meaningless. This is particularly evident
when these rights conflict with logging, mining and other resource
exploitation activities as these are all done pursuant to general
objectives set out in the State’s development plan. Additionally,
according to the Explanatory Note issued with the 1982 Decree, “Of
course, this principle [respecting the rights of hinterland dwellers]
will have to be applied during a - possibly long - transitional
period in which the forest population will be gradually incorporated
into the total socio-economic life….”
25.
In sum:
·
Surinamese law provides that the state is the owner of all land
and all resources on and under the land. The only exception applies
to those who can show valid title issued by the state;
·
In Suriname, state ownership is interpreted to mean that the state
is private, rather than public owner, which is why the only form
of title presently available is a up-to 40 year lease of land (grondhuur),
with the state as landlord;
·
Indigenous peoples and Maroons have certain entitlements to their
villages and current agricultural plots, provided there is
no conflict with the general interest;
·
‘General interest’ means any plan or project that the government
includes in a development plan and certainly includes all of the
resource extraction operations presently taking place;
·
Also, Indigenous and Maroon entitlements are only valid during a
‘transitional period’ during which they will be assimilated in “the
total socio-economic life….
26.
In 1992, at the conclusion of the Interior War, the Government and
the leaders of Indigenous and Maroon concluded an agreement known
as the Peace Accord of Lelydorp. Article 10 of the Accord reads:
1.
The government shall endeavor that legal mechanisms be created,
under which citizens who live and reside in a tribal setting will
be able to secure a real title to land requested by them in their
areas of residence [woongebieden].
2.
The demarcation and size of the respective residential areas, referred
to in the first paragraph, shall be determined on the basis of a
study carried out with respect thereto by the Council for the Development
of the Interior.
3.
The traditional authorities of the citizens living in tribes or
a body appointed thereto by them, will indicate a procedure on the
basis of which individual members of a community can be considered
for real title to a plot of land in the area referred to in paragraph
2.
4.
Around the area mentioned in paragraph 2, the Government will establish
an economic zone where the communities and citizens living in tribes
can perform economic activities, including forestry, small-scale
mining, hunting and fishing.
27.
Article 11 of the Accord states that the Government will commence
a national discussion on ILO 169 and the desirability of ratification.
28.
Since 1992 neither article has been implemented. Moreover, the underlying
principles contained in article 10 are contrary to international
human rights standards, which recoginse, at a minimum, that Indigenous
peoples have the right to own the lands that they occupy and to
guaranteed and unhindered use of other lands used for subsistence
and other purposes. Article 10 merely proposes that Indigenous peoples
will receive leases of state lands with areas demarcated around
them for subsistence purposes. Additionally, the leased and use
lands remain subject to the overriding power of the national or
general interest and state ownership of all natural resources as
set out in article 41 of the Constitution and legislation..
29.
On April 1, 2000, the Government and some Indigenous and Maroons
leaders concluded an agreement, known as the Buskondre Dey
Protocol. Characterized as a Framework Orientation
Agreement, the Protocol contains three primary principles: 1) the
collective rights of Indigenous peoples and Maroons are recognized
– the scope and nature of these rights is not elaborated upon; 2)
these rights are subject to national development initiatives and
the general interest and will always be defer thereto, and; 3) a
fund shall be created in which certain funds derived from resource
exploitation will be lodged to finance development activities in
the interior.
30.
The two largest Maroon peoples rejected the Protocol as have many
Indigenous leaders. Indeed, there was no consultation with the majority
of Indigenous and Tribal people on the content of the Protocol,
only certain leaders were invited to attend the discussions. As
with the Lelydorp Accord, this Protocol does not comply with international
human rights standards, particularly given the extreme and arbitrary
power of the state to override Indigenous and Maroon rights at will
in the name of the national interest. There is also no provision
made for the participation of Indigenous and Maroon peoples in decision-making
in general, as related to determining what is in the national interest
or more specifically as related to granting concessions for resource
exploitation.
31.
The Protocol was enacted as a Presidential Decree in 2001, but has
yet to be further developed by the present government. Moreover,
Presidential Decrees are hierarchically inferior to statutes and
Constitutional provisions thereby rendering much of the substance
of the Decree null and void insofar as it conflicts (which it does)
with higher law.
32.
At present, and consistent with Surinamese law as set out above,
not one Indigenous or Maroon community or people hold title to their
lands traditionally occupied and used. Concessions for logging and
mining are issued without reference to the Indigenous and Maroons
communities located in the area, without regard for their rights
under articles 1 and 27, without notification or consultation (or
any semblance of due process), without compensation and without
any environmental guarantees. The same is also true for the establishment
of nature reserves, which have expropriated large areas of Indigenous
and Maroon lands.
33.
No provision has been made in Surinamese law to guarantee the subsistence
rights of Indigenous peoples and Maroons nor to ensure that they
may freely dispose of their natural wealth. These rights are routinely
violated in practice, especially in connection with resource exploitation.
34.
Additionally, the Maroon community of Nieuw Koffiekamp is facing
forcible relocation for the second time on 40 years to make way
for a large-scale gold mine operated by a Canadian company. The Indigenous communities of Apura and
Washabo in West Suriname have also been informed that they will
be relocated due to plans to expand bauxite mining to their lands.
As many as four other Indigenous communities may face the same due
to bauxite mining. The prior experience of N’djuka Maroon communities
with bauxite mining in East Suriname demonstrates that the Indigenous
communities noted above will suffer serious and negative consequences
(see, Annex B).
35.
Saramaka Maroon have sought the assistance of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to address the failure of the state to
recognize and guarantee their land and resource rights and active
violation of those rights caused by state grants of logging and
mining concessions within their territory. This case, filed in October
2000, is presently pending a decision on admissibility. Thus far the state has not responded in
any way to the allegations made therein despite repeated requests
from the Inter-American Commission. Nor has the state responded
to a petition filed with the Inter-American Commission by the relatives
of more than 50 N’djuka Maroons massacred by the Suriname Army in
1986. This case was declared admissible by the Commission in 2000.
D. Linguistic
Rights
36.
Education in Suriname is entirely conducted in Dutch and based upon
a standardized curriculum. This places Indigenous children at a
substantial disadvantage to non-Indigenous children as they are
forced to attend school conducted in a language they do not know
and to use materials that are far removed from everyday life and
bear little resemblance to their cultural traditions and cosmologies.
This bias towards Dutch and coastal culture is substantially contributing
to cultural alienation and the loss of Indigenous languages in Suriname.
There are also schools in some Indigenous and Maroon villages run
by missionaries, who denigrate Indigenous and Maroon cultures and
ways of life and force children to reject their cultural heritage.
37.
The preceding is not only contrary to article 27 but also raises
issues under articles 1 and 26 of the Covenant, as does the emphasis
that Surinamese law and policy places on assimilating Indigenous
peoples and Maroons.
VI. Article
26 – Non-Discrimination
38.
Some of the forms of discrimination faced by Indigenous peoples
and Maroons have been noted above. In particular, discrimination
based on the failure to recognise Indigenous and Maroon forms of
land tenure as property rights and the failure to establish bilingual
and bi-cultural education in Indigenous and Maroon areas, when bi-cultural
education is a reality for many other Surinamese.
39.
There are a number of Indigenous villages without schools – the
Wayana community of Kawemhakan, for instance, sends its children
to school in French Guiana as they have no school in the village
and have not had one for a number of years. Despite repeated requests
to the government, they still do not have a school. Almost every
school in the interior receives less materials than schools on the
coast. Salaries, training and qualifications for teachers to work
in the interior are substantially lower for interior schools in
comparison to coastal schools.
40.
These differences are clearly reflected in drop out, graduation
and attendance rates for interior versus coastal schools. For instance,
passage of entrance exams for secondary school is 18.5% less for
interior students and the average number of students repeating a
year in the interior (1996/7) was 44% and 61% for first year students
compared to 23% for coastal students.
41.
Most of the schools in the Interior are run by the Roman Catholic
and Moravian churches. The State pays the teachers’ salaries and
an allowance of Sf 26.50 (or US$ 0.05) per student per year for
maintenance of the buildings and school materials. The poor financial
situation of the churches has slowed reconstruction of the schools
destroyed during the Interior war and the level of education provided
is of an extremely poor quality that would be unacceptable on the
coast and in violation of national standards for coastal schools.
42.
The interior schools not only lack adequate materials, but are mostly
understaffed with under qualified teachers. To teach in the Interior,
only a special ‘Bushland Diploma’ is required; candidates do not
need a secondary school diploma and only a few months of training
is required. These lower requirements are partly aimed to attract
more teachers to the Interior. Because of the lack of facilities
(including adequate schooling for their own children) and low salaries,
few teachers in Paramaribo are willing to move to the Interior.
43.
There are no entrance or school fees, but Catholic and Moravian
schools require parents to pay an annual contribution per child.
Since 1997, this contribution has been raised from Sf125 to Sf3500
(from approximately US$0.30 - 8.75) per child and in 1998, to Sf5000(US$ 12.50)
per child. By contrast, in 1996, State-run schools require only
a registration fee of Sf 500 (US$ 1). For people in the Interior
who do not have regular incomes, these fees present a substantial
obstacle, especially as families in the interior are in general
larger than in the city. This stands in stark contrast to the State’s
duty to guarantee free primary education in conformity with article
39 of the 1987 Constitution and clearly discriminates against Indigenous
and Maroon children.
44.
On other issues, continuing education after primary school is completely
absent from Indigenous and Maroon areas. In order to obtain secondary
and higher education, Indigenous and Maroon children (at the age
of eleven years) must leave their families and communities, the
only places in Suriname where they can practice and enjoy their
cultures, to stay in boarding houses in Paramaribo. Many are unable
to adjust and drop out. Another reason is that their parent cannot
cope with the financial burden which is Sf30.000 (US$30) per child
per month excluding personal needs and school materials. Many of
these youngsters are unable to re-adjust to village life once they
leave these boarding houses and remain in the city. There are secondary
schools throughout the non-Indigenous areas of Suriname, yet there
is only one in the interior. Indigenous and Maroon children are
therefore forced to choose between receiving an education and leaving
their families and cultures to stay in an alien environment.
45.
Indigenous and Maroon peoples also suffer discrimination with regard
to the provision of health services. Many communities do not have
functioning health care facilities. Those that do exist have few,
or in some cases no, supplies and are rarely visited by a qualified
doctor. While the situation on the coast is far from ideal, the
level of health services enjoyed there is far higher than in the
interior. Moreover, little has been done to ameliorate the substantial
impact on health caused by mining and logging activities in the
interior.
VII. Article
2 – Implementation of the Covenant
46.
The failure of the Government of Suriname to enact and implement
legislation and other measures to recognise and give effect to the
right of Indigenous and Maroon peoples to maintain, practice and
enjoy their culture, especially as culture relates to land and resource
rights, contravenes article 2 of the Covenant. This article obliges
states parties to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant
through legislative, administrative and other measures. The absence
of such legislation denies Indigenous peoples and Maroons access
to domestic remedies required to enforce their rights in contravention
of other rights set forth in the Covenant. This is itself a serious
human rights issue as the rule of law and access to judicial and
other remedies are keystones of human rights.
VIII. Concluding Remarks and Suggested Questions
47.
The rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples in Suriname to practice,
enjoy and maintain their cultures, to be secure in their means of
subsistence, to freely dispose of their natural wealth and to participate
in decisions affecting them, as provided for in articles 1 and 27,
are neither recognized nor respected at present in Suriname. This
is especially true when it comes to land and resource rights. Indigenous
and Maroon culture and identity are fundamentally tied to their
relationship with their ancestral lands, territories and resources.
Without strong, effective and enforceable rights to these lands,
territories and resources, their cultural integrity is seriously
undermined and denied.
Suggested Question 1: What has the government
of Suriname done to give effect to the rights of Indigenous and
Maroon peoples as defined by articles 1 and 27?In particular,
what legislative, administrative or other measure have been taken
to identify, demarcate and title Indigenous and Maroon lands and
territories traditionally occupied and used?
Suggested Question 2: Given that land and resource
rights are fundamentally related to the right of Indigenous and
Maroon peoples to enjoy their culture, to be secure in their means
of subsistence and to freely dispose of their natural wealth and
resources, what measures exist or are planned to address this
issue?
48.
The expansion of resource exploitation operations in the interior
has seriously threatened and undermined Indigenous peoples and Maroons’
resource base, on which they depend for their basic subsistence
needs. Their right to a healthy environment is also routinely violated.
Suggested Question 3: Given the increase in
logging and mining activities in the interior of Suriname in recent
years, can you explain what the Government has done to ensure
that these activities do not compromise the rights of Indigenous
and Maroon peoples to exercise and enjoy their rights under articles
1 and 27?
Suggested Question 4: How does the Government
propose to address the rights of Indigenous and Maroon peoples
to a healthy environment in which they can enjoy their culture
and other rights?
49.
There is no mechanism in Surinamese law to provide for the informed
participation and consent of Indigenous peoples in decisions that
affect them. This is especially the case concerning decisions about
their lands and resources and whether concessions are issued thereon
or nearby.
Suggested Question 5: What mechanisms, legal
or otherwise, exist to incorporate Indigenous and Maroon participation
in decision making, and if there are none, what measures does
the Government intend to take to ensure that indigenous peoples
and Maroons can participate in and consent to measures that may
affect them? Will the Government ensure that measures are taken
to ensure that Indigenous peoples and Maroons participate in decision
making concerning the granting of concessions on or near their
lands and territories?
50.
Neither bi-lingual or bi-cultural education are available for Indigenous
amd Maroon children in Suriname. This places these children at a
substantial disadvantage to their non-Indigenous peers and has the
effect of substantially undermining Indigenous cultural identity
and continuity.
Suggested Question 6: What measures has the
Government taken or intends to take to ensure that Indigenous
children can receive bi-lingual and bi-cultural education? Is
there any provision at the legal or policy level to account for
these issues?
51.
Indigenous and Maroon peoples suffer from discrimination
that is particularly pervasive in connection with land rights, education
and health. Disparities between the quantity and quality of health
and education services in the interior vis-à-vis the coast cannot
be justified nor can this disparity be explained by incremental
implementation considerations. Simply stated Indigenous and Maroon
peoples receive less and worse services than their coastal counterparts
without valid reason. In some cases, Indigenous and Maroon children
receive no services at all.
Suggested Question 7: Please explain the disparity
between the level of health and education services on the coast
and in the interior? What measures are in effect or planned to
remedy this disparity?
_____________________________________
Annex A
- Buskondre Dey Protocol of April 1, 2000
(Original in Dutch)
Protocol of Conclusions of the Deliberations which
took place as part of the Buskondre Dey [Bushland Day], which commenced
on 18 February 2000, was continued on 19 February 2000, 31 March
2000 And which was concluded on 1 April 2000, between the Government
of The Republic of Suriname and The Traditional Leaders of the Maroons
and Indigenous Peoples in The Interior of Suriname.
Paramaribo, 18 and 19 February, 31 March and 1 April
2000
Meeting the desire of the Wijdenbosch-Government
to finally bring a solution to the problem concerning land rights
in the so-called Interior of the Republic of Suriname [which has
been dragging on for years], delegations of the Government of the
Republic of Suriname and of the traditional authorities of the Maroons
and the Indigenous peoples of the interior of Suriname, have held
meetings on 18 and 19 February, 31 March and 1 April 2000 in Paramaribo,
with the aim of finding a workable solution for the insecure status
concerning land rights in the interior and have declared themselves
willing to conclude a basic orientation agreement, which focuses
on pragmatic and effective co-operation between Government, governmental
institutions and aforementioned traditional leadership.
The delegation of the Government is composed
as follows:
1.
Drs. J.A. Wijdenbosch, President of the Republic of Suriname;
2.
Drs. E. Alibux, Minister of Natural Resources and Finance;
3.
Drs. S. Moestadja, Minister of Social Affairs, Public Health and
Labour;
4.
Mrs. Y. Ravales-Resida, Minister of Regional Development and Justice
and Police;
5.
Mr. R. Mangal, Minister of Public Works and Education;
6.
Mr. E. Snijders, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defense;
7.
Ir. S. Redjosentono, Minister of Agriculture, Husbandry and Fishery;
8.
Mr. D. de Bie, Minister of Transport, Telecommunication and Tourism
and PLOS [Planning]
The original delegation of the traditional
leadership of the Maroons and Indigenous peoples of the interior
of Suriname was composed of Granmans, Head Captains, Captains and
Basias and was led by: Matodja Gazon, Granman of the Aucaners, Jan
Levi, Granman, Ashongo Alalaparoe, Granman, Tawajapane Anapaike,
Head Captain, Lafanti Oscar, Granman, Doea Marius, Head Captain,
Asiware Pishede, Head Captain, Anakai Matari, Captain, Aboikoni
Songo, Granman, Ricardo Pane, Captain, Ramses Kajoeramari, Captain,
Frans Pierre, Captain, Armand Karwafodi, Captain, Ferdinand Mande,
Captain, Ronald Karwafodi, Captain, Janapaloe, Captain (for Head
Captain Nowahe)
The meetings took place in a very constructive
atmosphere of mutual understanding and the conviction of mutual
responsibility for finding a harmonious solution. Key issue was
the national interest in general with special reference to the specific
interest of the hinterland population in particular.
During the meetings, both delegations arrived
at the following conclusions:
The Government of the Republic of Suriname
and the traditional leadership of the Maroons and Indigenous peoples
will put together a policy agreement which will be referred to as
a Framework Agreement, which will constitute the basis for a coherent
whole of guidelines to which:
1.
The Government will have to adhere in the execution of its constitutional
and legal powers, which are derived from its governmental responsibility
to safeguard the general interest of the Republic of Suriname;
2.
The traditional authority in the interior of Suriname will have
to adhere to the use of the land that meets the national interest
as provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Suriname.
Framework
The framework in which the common decisions
between both delegations have to be placed include the following:
1.
The [staatkundige] situation with regard to the territory
of Suriname has been changed at different moments in history as
a result of [staatkundige] changes;
2.
Since the Independence of Suriname in 1975, the [staatkundige]
status of Suriname has been laid down permanently. Since 25 November
1975, Suriname is no longer part of the territory of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, but has obtained the status of an independent
Republic. This has had effects for:
a.
the relationship Suriname--Netherlands;
b.
the Surinamese citizens and their nationality;
c.
the position of Suriname with regard to international organisations,
regional and other blocks;
d.
the status of the original language;
e.
the structure of the territory of the Republic of Suriname.
These are the elements that often also undergo
changes with a change in the [staatkundige] status of a country.
3.
Since the [staatkundige] independence, Suriname is a unitary
state (eenheidsstaat) and indivisible;
4.
The Government is responsible for the whole territory of Suriname,
which follows from the Constitution of Suriname and has to adhere
to all legal provisions that flow from it;
5.
The Government recognises as a starting point the principle of the
natural boundaries for the different hinterland areas, as put forward
by the spokesman of the Maroons, Mr. Albert Aboikoni, during the
meetings and therefore agrees with this point of view.
I. It is agreed:
a.
that the Government of the Republic of Suriname recognises the collective
rights of the Maroons and Indigenous peoples;
b.
that the Maroons and Indigenous peoples may freely use an established
area, based on the principle of natural boundaries, to be defined
later;
c.
that whenever the national economic interest so demands that part
of the territory, including the area mentioned under (b) must be
used for the national economic development, the Government, using
its authority based on its constitutional and legal responsibilities
and duties, will issue a decision for such use after consultation
with the traditional leadership of the Maroons and Indigenous peoples;
d.
that a fund will be established, whereby a specified percentage
of the income of said hinterland economic activities (percentage
to be determined later), will flow back to the respective areas
or villages or groups of the villages;
e.
that if the general interest demands that an area in the hinterland
must be used for the economic development and the procedures for
consultation have taken place, it must be considered to what extent
possible damages, suffered by individuals or collectivities in the
villages in the interior, must be compensated. Compensation must
take place before the start of the economic activities. This applies
to activities carried out by the Government (possibly in Joint Venture
with Multinationals) or by private parties;
f.
that it will be prevented that the people of the interior will be
restricted or hindered in any way in their daily lives. Safeguards
will have to be provided by the Government.
II. This agreement will be [established]
by Presidential Resolution.
[Made in duplicate] and signed in Paramaribo
on 1 April 2000.
For the Government
of the Republic of Suriname
Drs.
J.A. Wijdenbosch
For the delegation
of the traditional leaders of the Maroons and Indigenous peoples
of the interior of the Republic of Suriname: [signed by: Jan Levi,
Ashongo Alalaparoe, Tawajapane Anapaike, Lafanti Oscar, Anakai Matarie,
Aboikoni Songo, Ricardo Pane, Ramses Kajoeramari, Japanaloe, Henry
Zaalman]
Witnesses:
Drs. W.H. Werner Vreedzaam
Mr.
H.R.M. Libretto
_______________________________________________________
Annex B
(Original in Dutch)
Petition to the Suriname Government Concerning
|