7. Experts noted the ambitious nature of the proposed objectives and underlined the importance of ongoing support from the UN system to ensure that further review of existing initiatives and refinement of workshop outcomes could be undertaken. The audience, purpose and scale (local, regional, national or global) of the indicators to be recommended by experts were discussed.
8. It was further acknowledged that several challenges to the development of indicators of indigenous peoples' well-being are closely connected to challenges involved in data collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of indigenous peoples' data, information and research. Recommendations emerging from the workshop of January 2004 organized by the Permanent Forum on Data Collection and Disaggregation for Indigenous Peoples (www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/workshops.html) were cited as a basis for addressing those related issues.
Process of Measurement
Several challenges relating to measuring indigenous peoples' well-being were noted at the outset of the discussion. These include: varying methodologies for identifying indigenous peoples, distinctions between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the need to respect indigenous peoples' intellectual property rights and the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, the need to support culturally relevant standards of measurement, and cultural prohibitions that exist among indigenous peoples pertaining to sharing of their data.
While statistical agencies that support national data collection systems within developed countries house large amounts of data, real gaps exist when it comes to data needed specifically for indigenous peoples to meet their aspirations. Experts questioned how to bridge the gap between state governments' and indigenous peoples' worldviews concerning indicators development, referred to by one expert as “jagged worldviews colliding”. It was stated that the workshop is seeking a space between statistical reporting requirements of governments and representation of indigenous peoples' perceptions and understanding of well-being. What are the indicators that intersect between these two interests? Not everything relating to indicators development undertaken by state governments is relevant to indigenous peoples and not everything that indigenous peoples perceive can be measured. However, experts agreed that the workshop could not be limited to solely measuring intersections between non-indigenous and indigenous perspectives.
Statistical departments of states should consider evolving their role from a collector of information, to one of facilitator and supporter for indigenous peoples' collection of their own information. It was further stressed that indigenous peoples must generate their own data, since data driven centrally by state policy development consistently raise issues of trust among the indigenous population.
A general limitation of the dominant research paradigm to questions/answers versus a process of teaching and learning (listening) was thought to limit the value of research outcomes for indigenous peoples. Indigenous interpretation/translation of research prior to final documentation was viewed as a critical requirement for maintaining the integrity of indigenous peoples' perceptions and understandings in the research process.
Discussion on Core Themes
There was some discussion regarding how gender perspectives should be considered within the development of indigenous peoples' indicators of well-being. It was noted that the UN Permanent Forum has identified gender and children as cross-cutting issues. However, some workshop participants expressed preference for identifying gender as a separate core theme, proposing also a specific indicator of violence against indigenous women. There was a request to broaden the designation of children as a cross-cutting issue to include the entire lifespan of indigenous peoples, highlighting the value placed on community Elders in many indigenous communities.
Experts described the need for the proposed Core Theme of indigenous peoples' political participation to go beyond measuring token processes of consultation. The full integrity of the meaning of partnership was suggested as a more meaningful standard for measuring indigenous peoples' political involvement. It was suggested that this standard would also aim to capture measurement of reciprocal, shared and/or mutual accountability between states and indigenous peoples.
The role of data in this context would be to ensure that states are meeting their constitutional and legal responsibilities towards indigenous peoples. This approach to indicators resonates with international standards and the human rights principle of progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Concern was expressed that states may focus on development of indicators, but lose their focus on interventions required for progress on targets tied to indicators. Indicators development should ultimately result in benefits to indigenous peoples by informing linkages between program outputs to outcomes.
The concept of social capital was also explored as a means of describing varying levels of political participation in which indigenous peoples can be engaged, including relationships within indigenous communities, among indigenous communities and outside of indigenous communities. However, it was also noted that the term of social capital has been viewed as not being culturally appropriate and that social capacity was preferred terminology.
Experts agreed that indicators must place significant emphasis on indigenous peoples' inherent values, traditions, languages, and traditional orders/systems, including laws, governance, lands, economies etc. This must include recognition of the value of indigenous work (e.g. “making a living” versus “having a job”). Indicators development should reflect true indigenous perspectives such as portraying approaches grounded in wholism and unique values.
It was also suggested that indicators focus on the intermarriage/interplay between indigenous and non-indigenous systems (social, political and economic, colonization, industrialization) that result in a series of impacts, such as racism and discrimination, migration to urban centres, youth suicide and disconnection to land and culture.
Indicators that demonstrate inequities and inadequacies in state funding attributed to indigenous peoples' programming and services were proposed. Fiscal data can be illuminating by linking funding levels to mandated areas of state government responsibility, assessing their accountability and projecting demand and other impacts into the future. It was admitted that some states may be reluctant to share fiscal information. It was further specified that indigenous peoples must be involved in the interpretation of fiscal data to ensure there is no negative impact on indigenous peoples' well-being.
Experts discussed aligning indigenous-specific indicators of development with the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. They also made the following, more specific observations on the initial list of Core Themes provided:
- Traditional knowledge and practices should be separated from indigenous governance;
- Free, prior and informed consent and self-determination are primary considerations;
- Identification and removal of legislative barriers in pursuit of indigenous peoples aspirations should be captured, as well as the reaffirmation of indigenous peoples' own laws and legal frameworks;
- Identity is an important aspect of indigenous peoples' well-being that is particularly difficult to measure;
- A broader view of ownership, access, use and permanent sovereignty over land, sea, and water rights, environmental management and land quality, should be in place;
- Health for communities and health for ecosystems should be highlighted;
- There should be a balance of comparative indicators to assess well-being among non-indigenous and indigenous peoples, and indigenous-specific indicators based on indigenous peoples' visions and understandings of well-being.
- Issues of scale should be addressed when proposing indicators, including at the international, regional and national levels.
Future Work
21. It was suggested that pilot projects and cases studies could highlight current data situations and explore different approaches to indigenous peoples' well-being indicators development. Varied data collection methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative, should be considered. Case studies may provide a unique means of measuring indigenous concepts that are difficult to measure through more conventional means, such as positive impacts of indigenous self-governance and self-management of lands and resources.
22. Presentations by experts revealed that the development of indigenous indicators must involve extensive dialogue with indigenous peoples and communities. As well, indicators development must be part of a broader approach to describing an indigenous view of well-being. All experts reinforced the importance of measuring the positive contributions made by self-government and self-management of lands and resources. Experts further recognized that the general approach of states to the development of indicators and measurement is a deficit model to indigenous socio-economic needs and development and, consequently, does not inform a community development or governance model.
23. Within industrialized nations, the current capacity gap between state governments and indigenous community capacity in indicators development and overall statistics, may widen as technology and research methodologies become more sophisticated and as the skills required for access to data, become more specialized. Purchasing power for data is also expected to fuel inequities.
24. Notwithstanding, experts brought forward examples of collaborative action among states and indigenous organizations. The Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research of Australia outlined a “recognition space” for indicators of indigenous well-being made up of two intersecting circles of indigenous culture and government reporting frameworks.
25. Some experts recognized the collaborative efforts undertaken by the Canadian provincial governments and indigenous peoples' organizations in developing a set of guiding principles to identify and formulate indicators as a preliminary and illustrative effort towards improving governments' transparency and accountability to indigenous peoples, i.e. towards building a “recognition space”. Key among these guiding principles are: respecting distinctions among indigenous peoples to illustrate diversity; comparability with the general Canadian population; developing culturally appropriate indicators; promoting institutional capacity; being outcomes-focused; highlighting reciprocal accountability; and, other principles relating to practical considerations. An expert presented on how First Nations of Canada specified their input into this collaborative effort, rooted in a Wholistic Policy and Planning Model with a list of health determinants and associated indicators.
26. A similar initiative was described by the Maori Statistics Unit of New Zealand, whereby, the state government is engaging Maori in identifying their needs for statistics and elaborating a framework that meets such needs. The goal of the framework is Maori wellbeing. Development is the process to reach this goal and Statistics New Zealand foresees its role as a facilitator of indigenous peoples in developing their own statistical frameworks and data. Capacity building of Maori statistical capacity through pilot community projects was seen as a key element for success. It was understood that a range of external and internal factors come into play and continue to evolve in this attempt. Government departments have their own statistical, policy and legislative frameworks which stifle progress.
27. At the international level, ongoing work of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in developing global indicators for indigenous peoples' food security and sovereignty was described. Global food security policy has three pillars: economic, social and environmental. There is a notable absence of a cultural pillar. The profound relationship between indigenous nations’ identity and traditional culture as these relate to food, lands and resources was also highlighted. The challenge of conveying this relationship in a cultural indicator that will support indigenous peoples was recognized. Extensive input has been sought by more than 165 indigenous organizations and individuals. A series of reasonable benchmarks within a global approach are proposed.2
28. Experts shared findings derived from indigenous-specific projects aimed at describing indigenous well-being. The Institute of Northern Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation Republic Sakha (Yakutia) indicated that their findings showed well-being was most closely tied to the relationship to lands and traditional practices. For this reason, measurement of the negative impact of industrialization and climate change was seen as a priority for indigenous indicators development. The concept of Te Pae Tawhiti expressing Maori aspirations of well-being was also presented and possible core themes were also suggested according to Te Pae Tawhiti. This concept is fundamental to the building of Maori capacity to participate in research and specialized services and according to Te Pae Tawhiti.
29. While there was general agreement that international and national standards of measurement could be looked to, and adapted in, the development of indicators of indigenous well-being, it was also agreed that indigenous-specific indicators must also be identified. For instance, an observation was made that the Millennium Development Goals do not reflect the relationship to the land. In recognizing that indigenous peoples exercise prominent influence in reviewing UN terminology to take into account their worldview (e.g. sustainable development versus economic development), experts agreed that there is a definite need to develop measures of those issues that indigenous peoples wish to table in public discourse to demonstrate their worldviews. Caution was also expressed that indicators tied to traditional concepts must be applied with utmost respect for the diversity of indigenous peoples.
30. There was a general appreciation of the need to present Core Themes as simply as possible with a view towards inviting UN organizations to involve indigenous peoples in the development of a more refined list of indicators and associated research initiatives.
