Item 8, Future work of the PF_TK_Science_29apr2015

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Intervention Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, Two Feathers International (Aotearoa, New Zealand), Te Paepae Arahi Trust, Ka Lahui Hawaii, Ku Kanaka Maoli Re: Scientific Research & DevelopmentCheck against delivery

14th SESSION

New York 20 April-1 May 2015ITEM 8:Future Work of the Permanent Forum: Study on traditional knowledge in the framework of the post-2015 development agenda) Delivered by:Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn (catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz) ___________________________________________________________________________

Tena ra koutou ki nga iwi taketake o te Ao me nga karangaranga maha e; mauria mai nga whakaaro pai o nga matua tupuna e paa ana ki enei kaupapa whakahirahira e - tena ra koutou, tena ra koutou, tena ra koutou katoa.

(Greetings to you, the indigenous peoples of the World (here present), esteemed dignitaries and other participants (to this Permanent Forum); bring to bear the wisdom and constructive thoughts of the ancestors aligned with these important matters greetings, greetings, thrice greetings).MADAM CHAIR,We recommend:

1. That UNESCO, in close collaboration with indigenous peoples, related experts and states, develop comprehensive ethical standards and guidelines for the scientific and technological community, business and industry concerning scientific research, development, application and use; and 2. That the Permanent Forum, or the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other mandate holders, undertake a study into the current and potential implications of scientific research, development, application and use as relates to:a. climate change solution-building moving forward; andb. the protection and promotion of environmental wellbeing and human rights (especially indigenous peoples human rights, particularly as relates to the use of and effect on indigenous peoples traditional knowledge, culture, traditional territories and natural resources).MADAM CHAIR,

3. This agenda item is of great importance to my Maori peoples of Te Rarawa in Aotearoa as we are one of six original Maori peoples who lodged the WAI 262 claim with the Waitangi Tribunal (a Commission of Inquiry in New Zealand that makes findings and recommendations to the New Zealand Government on Maori grievances against the Crown). Known as the Flora and Fauna claim, the WAI 262 claim concerns among other things the protection of traditional knowledge, practices, and native species.

4. Madam Chair, the Study on the Treatment of Traditional Knowledge (the subject of this Agenda Item) emphasizes the urgent need to give Indigenous Peoples traditional knowledge due recognition across a range of mechanisms and actions responding to the many challenges of our time:At paragraph 17, the Study mentions that Biodiversity and indigenous peoples are part of the ecosystem and the management and administration of its genetic resources, and are feeling first-hand the effects of climate change. This understanding of the issues is in line with [Sustainable Development] goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems in order to halt biodiversity loss. (our emphasis).And at paragraph 18, the Study goes on to say that With respect to goal 13 on climate change, it should be underlined that traditional knowledge is a potential resource for the development of sustainability based on the experience of indigenous peoples. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 may be useful in designing joint action under the post-2015 development agenda, taking into account the contribution of indigenous peoples traditional knowledge, based on respect for collective rights, free, prior and informed consent, and respect for traditional knowledge.5. With increasing pressures on water, food, social, environmental, energy, human health and other securities due to climate change, science has already and will continue to propose many technological fixes (e.g. genetic manipulation or modification of human DNA to withstand new viruses, bacteria and diseases; modifying human fertility capability in response to over-population, and others). Many, if not all, will come with ethical dilemmas to some nature and degree, and it is our contention that science and indeed the world will be in dire need of the kind of ethical insight and moral compass that only indigenous peoples can provide. WHAT IS GEOENGINEERING?6. Of particular and immediate concern is geoengineering, a technological response to climate change. Also known as climate engineering, geoengineering is the "deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earths climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming." Another way to think of this is as a meteorological equivalent of the highly controversial Genetically Modified Organisms technology. According to various accounts (both official and speculative), many Governments have conducted geoengineering activity in different parts of the world for decades, often without their citizens' knowledge or permission.

7. Geoengineering has two categories of technologies - carbon dioxide removal/ reduction,andsolar radiation management (SRM). SRM activity includes releasing (or "Aerosol Spraying") particles (often chemicals of varying toxicity) into the atmosphere to increase cloud cover or otherwise reflect the suns radiation back out into the upper atmosphere and away from Earth's surface. In recent years, concurrent with growing media attention and public concerns, this has also become known as "Chemtrailing".8. Geoengineering has also been linked to the highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (or HAARP). HAARP involves an "Ionospheric Research Instrument: a high power transmitter facility operating in the High Frequency range used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study".

RISKS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMANS

9. Geoengineering has been debated for many years. And with increasing pressure to find climate change solutions, geoengineering schemes such as Aerosol Spraying are being touted as "the safest, cheapest and easiest scheme to implement". However, the 'science' (such as it is) is largely theoretical with the environmental and human impacts either still under research, or completely unknown. Hence, a growing community of experts is calling for extreme caution and even a moratorium on any and all geoengineering activity, speculating that the effects of meddling with natural systems and forces could potentially be catastrophic. For example:

a. The tenth UN Conference of Parties meeting to the CBD (held 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan) called for the parties to: "Ensure, in line and consistent withdecision IX/16C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activitiesthat may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts" (our emphasis).

b. A report by New Zealands Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment deals with potential challenges in sustaining our environment and adapting to environmental change. In this report, the Ministry recognizes the role of geoengineering in regards to "sustaining New Zealands environment, economy and society in a world with a changing climate", and submits that the Government should:

"Conduct research to better understand the potential consequences of geoengineering (the intentional modification of the global climate system) for the New Zealand environment and agricultural productivity, and to underpin New Zealands international policy position on geoengineering."

DISTRACTION FROM REAL CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS

10. The science of geoengineering can be quite dazzling and attractive as a 'quick fix' solution to our climate change problems. However, while the benefits are being promoted, Indigenous Peoples are well aware of two important points being glossed over. Firstly, that there are unknown and high-risk consequences for messing around with our weather and other complicated, dynamic systems of nature. Secondly, that there are real and much safer, natural solutions to the stabilization of Earth temperatures. One obvious example is urgently transitioning to a renewable energy based society rather than propping up the out-dated and dangerous fossil fuel-based society. Our domestic and world leaders continue to support ideas which, on the face of it, enable peoples' lives on the ground to continue "business as usual" without interruption. However, what is really required is for society to realize that our lifestyles and beliefs will need to change drastically if we are to experience a commensurate change "out there" in the real world. This will require some sacrifice and inconvenience on our part, at least in the transition period. However, indigenous peoples value systems and our particular brand of science offer very useful and practical guidance as we grapple with these serious environmental challenges. But while solutions like geoengineering are offered as the easy and convenient "Plan B", there is little motivation for Governments to ask the hard questions and boldly implement truly effective strategies necessary to save humanity.Thank you Madam Chair. For example see HYPERLINK "http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/call-for-advice-revision-of-unesco-recommendation-on-the-status-of-scientific-researchers/" \t "_blank"http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/call-for-advice-revision-of-unesco-recommendation-on-the-status-of-scientific-researchers/.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering.

For example, see "RAF Rainmakers 'caused 1952 flood'" (HYPERLINK "http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian"The Guardian,Thursday 30 August 2001), available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences.

See "Implications Of Geo-Engineering Schemes for New Zealand" (29 March 2011), available at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1103/S00281/implications-of-geo-engineering-schemes-for-new-zealand.htm.

"Chemtrails blaze path for conspiracy theorists" (NZH, 8 December 2011), at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10771790. According to this and many other confirmed sources, HAARP has existed for at least "half a century" (see also "Time to revisit small stories posing big questions" (NZH, 11 November 2011) at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10765291.

"Implications Of Geo-Engineering Schemes for New Zealand" (Scoop, 29 March 2011), at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1103/S00281/implications-of-geo-engineering-schemes-for-new-zealand.htm. This article covers a Geoengineering conference that was held in Wellington 8 March 2011.

See the documentaries "Chemtrails: What in the World are they Spraying?" downloadable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C5TFTkblKQ; "Look UP" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjUGUi7Uxys; "Geoengineering and the Collapse of the Earth 2014" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0Pwz4_c.

Convention on Biological Diversity.

This isparagraph 8 (w) of "Decision X/33" of the COP, downloadable in full at: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, "National Science Challenges: Potential Challenges for Consideration by Peak Panel" (February 2013). Full report downloadable from: http://www.msi.govt.nz/assets/MSI/Update-me/National-science-challenges/key-documents/Potential-challenges-peak-panel-Sustaining-environment-dealing-with-changing-environment.pdf.

See "Theme 2: Develop greenhouse gas emissions reduction technologies to mitigate the impacts of climate change globally and to ensure that New Zealand plays its role in climate change mitigation", p57.

For a wider discussion, see Naomi Klein, "Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers", (The Guardian, 10 September 2013), at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/10/naomi-klein-green-groups-climate-deniers.

PAGE 1