Indigenous delegates at the UN raise alarm on voluntary isolated peoples
At the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues — the world's largest convening of Indigenous peoples — Indigenous leaders from South America are taking the chance to spotlight threats facing isolated peoples, also known as uncontacted people.
Deforestation is closing in on some communities in the Amazon and many lack official recognition of records of their existence, say representatives at the 10-day gathering in the U.N. headquarters in New York City. They are holding multiple events in the city, including launching a book with strategies to recognize their presence and sharing solutions to protect the lands they depend on.
'There needs to be greater respect, protection and land demarcation for these peoples,' said Bushe Matis, general coordinator of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Vale do Javari. 'It's important for us Indigenous peoples who came to New York to raise our voices for them.'
The rights of isolated Indigenous peoples are guaranteed in international legislation and some national laws, such as the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. However, these are at times violated by states, companies, and invaders searching for land. In some cases, they are unprotected because states, including Venezuela and Paraguay, don't recognize them.
Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact, also known as PIACI, are threatened by the exploitation of natural resources, drug trafficking, illegal logging, and mining in their lands, say researchers. Contact with outsiders can be deadly because isolated peoples lack immunity to illnesses that are common outside. These threats can also lead to their displacement and the disappearance of the game they depend on to survive.
'The issue is of utmost importance because these peoples are the ones who also help protect Indigenous territories with their ancestral knowledge,' said Eligio Dacosta, the president of the Regional Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Amazonas, or ORPIA, in Venezuela.
The main proposals Indigenous leaders and organizations have raised at the forum are the recognition of lands vital for isolated peoples and the implementation of protective measures, such as public policies to safeguard their rights.
Jamer López, the president of ORAU, a regional organization part of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, said the primary concern of Indigenous leaders and organizations at the forum is to secure the territories their isolated brothers and sisters have ancestrally occupied.
While there has been past progress in Peru, he said the state, rather than guarantee the protection of these communities, has promoted policies of land possession, such as laws that obstruct and prevent the creation of Indigenous reserves for isolated peoples. The government is favoring the interests of big business which want to expand forestry concessions and oil fields in these areas to boost economic growth, López said.
For more than 20 years, Indigenous organizations in Peru have petitioned the government to create Yavarí Mirim, a 2.5 million-acre Indigenous reserve on the Amazon border with Brazil and Colombia that would protect hundreds of isolated and initially contacted peoples in the region. But in February this year, the country's Multi-Sector Commission postponed a meeting to determine the reserve boundaries indefinitely.
Peru's Ministry for Culture did not respond to our requests for comment by the time of publication.
Darío Silva Cubeo, a delegate of the Amazon Regional Roundtable for the Amazonas department of Colombia, told Mongabay a 'very serious concern' in Colombia is that despite having a decree to protect isolated peoples, to date, there has been little implementation and there is no public policy on the matter, such as a contingency plan in case of contact.
In Colombia and many other countries in South America, many people in isolation are threatened by organized groups, such as illegal miners and drug traffickers, who encroach on their homes and cause violence and displacement. 'They are being besieged precisely by the chains of crime,' Lena Estrada Añokazi, Colombia's minister of environment and sustainable development, and the first Indigenous person to ever hold the position, said at the forum.
'That's why it's urgent to continue to invest more in investigations to find out who these criminals are.'
Across South America, states only recognize and guarantee the rights of peoples in isolation whose presence has been officially recorded. In Venezuela, for example, although NGOs have confirmed four records of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, the state has not recognized any of them.
'[Venezuela] does not appear on the map of isolated peoples in Latin America,' said Dacosta. 'There are already mining hotspots in each [Indigenous territory] and mining is almost reaching these peoples who do not have this initial contact, who are in isolation.'
Dacosta said people in isolation have already been affected in some regions as mining gradually pushes their displacement. At the forum, ORPIA raised the issue with the national government and called for constitutional reform in Venezuela to establish rights for peoples in isolation and initial contact. Currently, they are not included in its constitution, and the country has no established protocols to recognize them in laws and supreme decrees.
Venezuela's Ministry for Indigenous Peoples did not respond to our requests for comment by the time of publication.
The International Working Group for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact launched a report at the forum that lays out a series of principles and guidelines to help governments, Indigenous organizations, and NGOs prove the existence of Indigenous peoples in isolation.
According to the report, there are 188 records of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in South America but only 60 are officially recognized by the state. 'This means that, for the state, 128 records don't exist,' states the report, adding that this lack of recognition denies the rights of these communities. Of these records, Indigenous organizations recognize 31, but they are not included in the official lists.
Delegates have also requested that states adopt a territorial corridors initiative, which aims to protect the PIACI and the well-being of neighbouring Indigenous peoples. They have called on governments to coordinate with the Indigenous organizations to implement policy actions, with a cross-border approach, to guarantee isolated peoples' rights and territories.
Last month, Colombia created an over 2.7-million-acre territory to protect the Yuri-Passé Indigenous peoples living in isolation between the Caquetá and Putumayo Rivers in the Amazon.
'In order to protect them, we must protect the territories they inhabit,' Estrada said. 'We must also protect the Indigenous peoples surrounding the territories they inhabit. If we strengthen the governance of these Indigenous peoples whose territories surround the territories of isolated peoples, we will obviously protect them as well.'
Julio Cusurichi, a Shipibo-Conibo Indigenous leader and President of the Native Federation of the River Madre de Dios and Tributaries in Peru, wrote over WhatsApp voice messages they want to see the implementation of a control and surveillance system in Peru to protect the PIACI which involves the participation of the communities surrounding these reserves.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous delegates at the UN raise alarm on voluntary isolated peoples on Apr 28, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Prominent Al Jazeera journalist among several killed in Israeli strike on Gaza press tent
AMMAN, Jordan — Israel's military targeted a tent for journalists in Gaza City late Sunday, killing seven people, including Anas al-Sharif, a reporter for Al Jazeera who drew millions of followers on social media and emerged as a top voice in the Arab world for his chronicling of the war in Gaza over the last 22 months. Killed alongside the 28-year-old al-Sharif were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and their assistant Mohammed Noufal. A seventh journalist, freelancer Mohammad al-Khaldi, who was in a nearby tent, was also killed, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In a statement, Al Jazeera, which is funded by the government of Qatar and has long had a fraught relationship with the Israeli government, described the killings as a 'targeted assassination' that was 'yet another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom.' 'The order to assassinate Anas al-Sharif, one of Gaza's bravest journalists, and his colleagues, is a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza,' the statement said, referring to the Israeli government's recently approved plans for its military to take over the enclave. 'Al Jazeera emphasizes that immunity for perpetrators and the lack of accountability embolden Israel's actions and encourage further oppression against witnesses to the truth,' the Al Jazeera statement said. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani also excoriated Israel in a statement on social media, saying in a statement on X that 'the deliberate targeting of journalists by Israel in the Gaza Strip reveals how these crimes are beyond imagination.' Israel's military confirmed it conducted the attack, issuing a statement shortly before midnight Monday saying it struck 'the terrorist Anas Al-Sharif' which it said 'posed as a journalist' but 'served as the head of a terrorist cell' in Hamas. It claimed that 'previously disclosed intelligence information' and 'many documents found in the Gaza Strip' confirmed Al-Sharif's involvement with Hamas. The documents, which the statement said included personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, among others, 'provide proof of the integration of the Hamas terrorist' within Al Jazeera. The documents were first released in October 2024 and accused six Al Jazeera journalists of involvement with Hamas or the Islamic Jihad militant group. At the time, Al Jazeera, a U.N. expert, the Committee to Project Journalists and other groups cast doubt on the veracity of the documents. The U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, denounced Israel's accusations against Al-Sharif in July as 'unfounded' and a 'blatant attempt to endanger his life and silence his reporting on the genocide in Gaza.' The Israeli military has previously made unsubstantiated claims that journalists it targeted and killed in Gaza were terrorists. In March, Israel killed Al Jazeera correspondent Hossam Shabat; in July 2024, it killed Ismail Ghoul and his cameraman Rami al-Rifi. Chief correspondent Wael al Dahdouh lost his wife, son, daughter and grandson in an Israeli airstrike in October 2023. Weeks after that, he was injured in a strike that killed Al Jazeera cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa. Israel has barred international journalists from entering Gaza even as it has targeted local reporters. Health authorities in Gaza say 237 journalists have been killed since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023. The Committee to Project Journalists says at least 186 have been killed. Sunday's drone attack came weeks after the Israeli military stepped up its attacks on Al-Sharif, with the Israeli military's Arabic-language spokesman accusing the Al Jazeera correspondent in July of spreading 'propaganda' and taking part in 'a false Hamas campaign on starvation.' Later that month, the Committee to Project Journalists said it was 'gravely worried' about Al-Sharif's safety. The group's Middle East and North Africa director, Sara Qudah, warned that the smear campaign against Al-Sharif represented 'an effort to manufacture consent to kill Al-Sharif.' In a statement on Monday, Qudah said, 'Israel is murdering the messengers.' 'If Israel can kill the most prominent Gazan journalist, then it can kill anyone. The world needs to see these deadly attacks on journalists inside Gaza, as well as its censorship of journalists in Israel and the West Bank, for what they are: a deliberate and systematic attempt to cover up Israel's actions.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was 'gravely concerned' over the repeated targeting of journalists in Gaza; Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and other groups also issued condemnations. The U.S. government did not immediately provide comment. Al-Sharif's killing drew tributes for a journalist who for many across the region came to embody Gaza's suffering. On social media people shared poignant moments from his coverage, including when he covered his father's killing in an Israeli airstrike in the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza City in December 2023; a video when he was reunited with his daughter earlier this year; or when he almost broke down on air, his voice cracking. 'Keep on going, Mr. Anas,' says an unseen passerby. 'You are our voice.' Video posted to social media showed crowds massing at the Sheikh Radwan Cemetery for the journalists' funeral. Footage depicted mourners crying and embracing each other, while others in the crowd carried Al-Sharif's shrouded corpse and chanted, 'With our soul and blood, we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Anas.' Al-Sharif is survived by his wife, daughter and son. Minutes before the strike that killed him, Al-Sharif posted on X saying there was 'intense, concentrated Israeli bombardment' on Gaza City for two hours. Al-Sharif's final message, written in April to be posted in the event of his death, read: 'If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.' He continued: 'I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification — so that Allah may bear witness against those who stayed silent, those who accepted our killing, those who choked our breath, and whose hearts were unmoved by the scattered remains of our children and women, doing nothing to stop the massacre that our people have faced for more than a year and a half.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Israel targets and kills Al Jazeera correspondent in Gaza as journalist toll grows
JERUSALEM — Israel's military targeted and killed an Al Jazeera correspondent and others with an airstrike late Sunday in Gaza, after press advocates said an Israeli 'smear campaign' stepped up when Anas al-Sharif cried on air over starvation in the territory. Both Israel and hospital officials in Gaza City confirmed the deaths of al-Sharif and colleagues, which the Committee to Protect Journalists and others described as retribution against those documenting the war in Gaza. Israel's military asserted that al-Sharif had led a Hamas cell — an allegation that Al Jazeera and al-Sharif previously dismissed as baseless. It was the first time during the 22-month war that Israel's military swiftly claimed responsibility after a journalist was killed in a strike. Observers have called this the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern times. Officials at Shifa Hospital said those killed while sheltering outside Gaza City's largest hospital complex also included Al Jazeera correspondent Mohamed Qreiqeh. The strike also killed four other journalists and two other people, hospital administrative director Rami Mohanna told The Associated Press. The strike damaged the entrance to the hospital complex's emergency building. The airstrike came less than a year after Israeli army officials first accused al-Sharif and other Al Jazeera journalists of being members of the militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In a July 24 video, Israel's army spokesperson Avichay Adraee attacked Al Jazeera and accused al-Sharif of being part of Hamas' military wing. Al Jazeera called the strike a 'targeted assassination' and accused Israeli officials of incitement, connecting al-Sharif's death to the allegations that both the network and correspondent had denied. 'Anas and his colleagues were among the last remaining voices from within Gaza, providing the world with unfiltered, on-the-ground coverage of the devastating realities endured by its people,' the Qatari network said in a statement. Apart from rare invitations to observe Israeli military operations, international media have been barred from entering Gaza for the duration of the war. Al Jazeera is among the few outlets still fielding a big team of reporters inside the besieged strip, chronicling daily life amid airstrikes, hunger and the rubble of destroyed neighborhoods. Al Jazeera is blocked in Israel and soldiers raided its offices in the occupied West Bank last year, ordering them closed. The network has suffered heavy losses during the war, including 27-year-old correspondent Ismail al-Ghoul and cameraman Rami al-Rifi, killed last summer, and freelancer Hossam Shabat, killed in an Israeli airstrike in March. Like al-Sharif, Shabat was among the six that Israel accused of being members of militant groups last October. Al-Sharif's death comes weeks after a U.N. expert and the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Israel had targeted him with a smear campaign. Irene Khan, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, on July 31 said that the killings were 'part of a deliberate strategy of Israel to suppress the truth, obstruct the documentation of international crimes and bury any possibility of future accountability.' The U.N. human rights office on Monday condemned Sunday's airstrike targeting the journalists' tent 'in grave breach of international humanitarian law.' The Committee to Protect Journalists said on Sunday that at least 186 journalists have been killed in Gaza, and Brown University's Watson Institute in April said the war was 'quite simply, the worst ever conflict for reporters.' Al-Sharif reported a nearby bombardment minutes before his death. In a social media post that Al Jazeera said was written to be posted in case of his death, he bemoaned the devastation and destruction that war had wrought and bid farewell to his wife, son and daughter. 'I never hesitated for a single day to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification,' the 28-year-old wrote. Hundreds of people, including many journalists, gathered Monday to mourn al-Sharif, Qreiqeh and their colleagues. The bodies lay wrapped in white sheets at the Shifa Hospital complex. Ahed Ferwana of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate said reporters were being deliberately targeted and urged the international community to act. Al-Sharif began reporting for Al Jazeera a few days after war broke out. He was known for reporting on Israel's bombardment in northern Gaza, and later for the starvation gripping much of the territory's population. In a July broadcast, al-Sharif cried on air as a woman behind him collapsed from hunger. 'I am talking about slow death of those people,' he said at the time. Qreiqeh, a 33-year-old Gaza City native, is survived by two children. Both journalists were separated from their families for months earlier in the war. When they managed to reunite during the ceasefire earlier this year, their children appeared unable to recognize them, according to video footage they posted at the time. The Committee to Protect Journalists said Sunday it was appalled by the airstrike. 'Israel's pattern of labeling journalists as militants without providing credible evidence raises serious questions about its intent and respect for press freedom,' Sara Qudah, the group's regional director, said in a statement. Metz and Magdy write for the Associated Press. Magdy reported from Cairo.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Governance And Fairness Questions Loom Large In U.N. Tax Talks
Right now, representatives from multiple governments are sitting at the U.N.'s New York headquarters negotiating three workstreams for the U.N.'s framework convention on international tax cooperation. The convention's intergovernmental negotiating committee has a lot of work to do in the coming months, and it must consider many perspectives. Earlier this summer, the U.N. asked stakeholders in a series of draft issues notes to offer feedback on the scope and direction of the committee's workstreams, and it received nearly 150 submissions across the three workstreams — the first addresses the framework convention, the second addresses taxation of services, and the third addresses tax dispute prevention and resolution. On Workstream I, nearly 60 stakeholders responded. A review of that feedback reveals that at least two major issues loom large: Stakeholders are generally concerned about the convention's organization and governance, and they are divided over the concept of tax fairness and how it should apply to the convention. Issues in Workstream I The first workstream is crucial because it's how U.N. member states will draft the text of the U.N. Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its accompanying commitments. According to a draft issues note, the intergovernmental negotiating committee is considering three different commitments for this workstream. The first would address the effective prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The intergovernmental negotiating committee believes this is a promising topic because of the difficulties that some developing countries face in resolving cross-border disputes. They lack large treaty networks to rely on but receive considerable cross-border trade and investments. Unsurprisingly, the committee stated in a draft note that it sees usefulness in alternative dispute resolution and prevention mechanisms, but only if they 'are fair, independent, accessible, and effective in resolving disputes in a timely manner for both taxpayers and the tax authorities involved.' This, of course, raises the question: What is fair, independent, accessible, and effective? The second commitment would address the fair allocation of taxing rights, which includes the equitable taxation of multinational enterprises. The committee landed on this topic based on various feedback from member states. There's a cohort of countries that believe the convention should ensure that jurisdictions have taxing rights over the business activities that take place within their borders, meaning that jurisdictions where users are located would have taxing rights. Other countries believe taxing rights should be based on economic substance and value creation, and some countries are unsure if third countries should receive these taxing rights. The committee wants member states to arrive at a common approach 'that recognizes that every jurisdiction where business activity takes place should share in taxing rights over the income generated.' The third commitment is to sustainable development. On this issue, the workstream document says the member states will pursue international tax cooperation that also advances economic, social, and environmental development. Stakeholder Responses A lightning rod issue mentioned by several stakeholders is 'fairness.' Several perspectives on this have come to light. The African Union stated in its submission that countries should discuss the fair allocation of taxing rights on a protocol-by-protocol basis or, in the context of various initiatives and instruments, 'each taking up its meaning from the context of its peculiarity.' Meanwhile, the South Centre cautioned against determining, in detail, when and where economic activity takes place. 'This is an unnecessary detail which can become a very complex exercise, may not have universal applicability to all business activities, can become quickly outdated in the face of evolving business models and will end up wasting precious negotiating time,' the organization said. The Republic of Korea echoed a similar point, writing that 'while we appreciate the emphasis on creating 'future-proof' rules, we caution against attempting to prescribe detailed commitments for business models that may not yet exist. The rapid pace of technological innovation and evolving global structures makes accurate forecasting difficult.' The South Centre suggested that the committee remove language about determining where business activity takes place from the commitment and address the matter in specific protocols instead. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) also advised member states to refrain from 'a broad, undefined debate on 'fairness'' because of its inherent subjectivity. And the Republic of Korea encouraged the committee to avoid negative framing, writing that while some cast the international tax framework as 'unfair,' that framework — which countries broadly rely on — is the product of many multilateral negotiations over the years. 'We are concerned that overly negative framing may undermine the cooperative spirit needed to reform the system,' the Republic of Korea said. 'A balanced tone — acknowledging both the strengths and limitations of the current system — would support broader engagement.' For Indonesia, fairness looks like a strong reaffirmation of source taxation. It told the committee that the second commitment 'should include that taxing rights must be allocated based on where real economic contribution occurs. This includes not only supply-side operations but also demand-side factors such as consumption, and user base. This is critical to ensure that such countries do not lose taxing rights over income derived from digital markets and other activities where significant economic value is created.' On the other hand, the Republic of Korea said that more conceptual clarity is needed for the concept of value creation. That's because there is no universal understanding of value creation or economic substance, and the Republic of Korea is concerned that jurisdictions could arrive at conflicting interpretations. 'We recommend that the text recognize this ambiguity and caution against prematurely operationalizing 'value creation' as a normative principle without further technical work and consensus-building,' its submission said. Prioritizing Governance Another highly mentioned topic is that of governance. Paragraph 13 of the convention's terms of reference addresses governance-related issues: 'The framework convention should also include, inter alia, the following additional substantive and procedural elements: definitions; relationship with other agreements, instruments and domestic law; review and verification; exchange of information (for implementation of the framework convention); data collection and analysis; financial resources; conference of the parties; secretariat; subsidiary bodies; dispute settlement mechanisms; and procedures for amendments to the framework convention and adoption of protocols; and final provisions.' Several stakeholders urged the committee to devote more time and resources in Workstream I to the convention's governance, because that will lay the groundwork for the convention's success. For example, how will the convention's Conference of the Parties be structured, and what tasks will they own? Also, how will the convention interface with existing international tax bodies and initiatives? How will the convention be amended? These are concerns voiced by several stakeholders, including Germany and the South Centre. A submission from professors Peter Hongler and Irma Mosquera argued that Workstream I should be devoted to building a cooperation framework rather than focusing on commitments. They raised an interesting question: Does the framework convention need commitments at all? The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has successfully incorporated commitments, but the professors are doubtful that the same construct is useful for tax cooperation. 'Commitments must be concrete; otherwise, they are merely empty words,' their submission says. 'In the UNFCCC context, precise commitments were feasible. For example, states can be concretely obliged to maintain an inventory of anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] emissions or to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions by a certain percentage. In the tax field, however, this seems impossible or at least not meaningful.' They go on to provide some examples: On the issue of tax dispute prevention and resolution, they argue that a tangible solution, like obligating countries to incorporate arbitration clauses into their tax treaties, would face opposition. They also voice doubt about the commitment toward a fair allocation of taxing rights, given the long time in which governments have debated this issue: '[It] is ultimately impossible, as there is no objectively 'fair' allocation. Also fairness has different meanings, which also constitutes an obstacle to achieve these commitments. . . . In our view, allocation rules can only approximate fairness from different perspectives and even more important, fairness is mainly achieved through fair terms of cooperation. Therefore, the focus should be on fair terms of cooperation.' On the other hand, the African Union has no such qualms about the convention's commitments and believes there's room to add more. Another governance-related issue is whether the convention should make decisions by majority or consensus. U.N. countries agreed in February to approve decisions on a simple majority basis, meaning that a two-thirds majority is required to approve protocols to the convention. In its feedback, KPMG pointed out that even though simple majority voting is the official stance, the intergovernmental negotiating committee also agreed that it would 'exhaust every effort in good faith to reach consensus on all matters of substance while taking into account the available time frame for negotiations.' KPMG says that the consensus standard should be the primary approach. 'While there will be some areas where international divergence may be preferable, global cooperation is likely to be achieved only where there is consensus,' the firm said. 'Use of the 'majoritarian back-up' is likely to lead to bifurcation of acquiescing and dissenting countries which in most cases will be sub-optimal.' KPMG believes the committee should create working advisory groups to attain consensus and should incorporate business interests into those groups. 'Ultimately it is businesses that will be impacted by most measures and thus it is critical that potential impacts and possible unintended consequences be fully explored,' the firm said. The ICC issued similar advice, urging the committee to establish a technical business advisory council. Ideally, it would host 20 business representatives, split equally among the U.N.'s five different regional groupings. In the interest of transparency, the outcomes of these advisory council consultations would be publicly released on the U.N.'s website, the ICC said. This feedback from KPMG and the ICC highlights a glaring issue: They were the only two business representatives to respond to Workstream I. This raises questions about why there has been a lack of business engagement and what can be done to bring more business taxpayers — who will be affected by the outcomes of the convention — into the discussion. What Is Cooperation? At the end of the day, international cooperation is perhaps the most important issue here. Determining the contours of that cooperation — including who can be in the deliberation rooms and when — is still being sorted out. Some stakeholders believe they should have more access to the discussions. From the outset, the U.N. secretariat has been clear that member states will lead the decision-making process. That said, the U.N. Economic and Social Council is free to grant consultative status to nongovernmental organizations through article 71 of the U.N. Charter. In this sense, ECOSOC is unique — it is the only main U.N. group that maintains a formal process for NGO participation, according to the council. And it grants that status to many organizations: Over 6,300 NGOs are in consultative status with ECOSOC. However, that does not mean they all participate in the U.N.'s work on the same basis. Generally, consultative status means that an NGO can do things like provide analyses to the U.N. and help monitor the implementation of U.N. projects. There are three kinds of consultative status: general, special, and roster. General status is typically given to large, international NGOs whose work touches on most of ECOSOC's priorities. They are allowed to send representatives to the U.N., attend and speak at ECOSOC meetings, and circulate statements. Special status is given to smaller NGOs with a special competence in topics handled by ECOSOC. They have the same sorts of privileges as general status organizations. Roster status is conferred on NGOs that have a narrower or more technical focus and periodically contribute to the work of ECOSOC or its subsidiary bodies. They are allowed to attend meetings held by ECOSOC and its subsidiaries, but they are not allowed to speak in meetings. They may circulate statements if invited to do so by the secretary-general. The convention's terms of reference address this issue in paragraph 21, which states that 'civil society and other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to contribute to the work of the intergovernmental negotiating committee in accordance with established practices.' More specifically, civil society organizations are allowed to participate as observers, according to a committee document. At the end of July, the committee, in a draft decision, approved 34 civil society and non-governmental organizations to participate in its work. It appears there's some debate over what civil society contributions should look like in the context of the tax convention. In comments, the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation told the committee that while they are committed to the process, they and other observers have not been allowed to participate in previous meetings. 'We find it deeply concerning that observers have not been invited to participate in the online meetings of the Workstreams. The fact that we have been unable to even observe the numerous meetings that Member States have already had, leaves us with a very limited understanding of the specific discussions, and significantly reduces our ability to feed into and respond to the debate,' the group said. 'We would like to stress the importance of allowing for full and effective participation of civil society and trade unions in all meetings of the committee, including the online sessions of the Workstreams.' The EU delegation to the U.N., which is also an observer organization, has voiced similar concerns because it has not been allowed to attend informal, intersessional discussion sessions for the workstreams but believes it should have received access. Sustainable Development Stakeholders have generally spent comparatively little time on the third commitment on sustainable development, which makes sense because the other two commitments raise important foundational issues that require resolution. But stakeholders who did address it, like the African Union and Germany, urged the committee to align the commitment with the outcomes from the U.N.'s recent Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. Some, like Brazil, said this would be a good location to fit the convention's capacity-building work.
