Manufacturing Standard Setting Committee: 4th Principle: Preservation of Culture and Heritage of Local Communities – Part 1
This is an ongoing documentation of a series of dialogs between members of our Manufacturing Group, charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. Follow this link, https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee for full review of past discussions. The entire principles and standards document can be found here: Fair Trade Jewelry Manufacturing Principles and Standards – Working Draft
This is the first part of a discussion over a principle related to the preservation of the culture and heritage of local communities. Much of the discussion focuses on how the issue should be framed around Indigenous People. But then, in the second part of the discussion, which is ongoing even as we post this, the group considers whether or not Indigenous People should be named specifically within this standard, or whether “culture and heritage” is a sufficient umbrella. ~ Marc Choyt, Publisher
Marc Choyt Wrote:
Since there have been no suggested modification for “Worker Safety,” let us move to the 4th Standard: Indigenous People.
Please see the principal, introduction comment and standard below.
Thank you for your ongoing participation.
Indigenous People
Introductory Comments:
We recognize that craft often takes place in traditional settings which have their own yearly cultural traditions and rhythms. At the same time, the running of a jewelry production factory that exports to western countries must run on deadlines. Finding a fair balance between these two factors is critical in any fairly made jewelry product.
Principle:
Employers will respect and work to preserve the culture and heritage of local communities, including indigenous peoples.
Standard:
Employers will respect and work to preserve the culture and heritage of local communities, including indigenous peoples.
Minimum Requirements:
4.1: Within reasonable limits, fair made manufacturing companies must give allowance for family traditions and cultural events.
4.2 Manufacturers create an annual time line of cultural events in order to plan production schedules so as not to disrupt operations.
Progressive Requirements:
4.3p: The company takes an active role in supporting the rights and culture of indigenous people.
4.4p: The company takes an active approach in incorporating traditional culture and elements into the manufacturing process.
Patrick Schein wrote:
The proposed standard is OK for me. I would nevertheless refer to the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” which was adopted by 143 countries and rejected only by 4 (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States!). We could say as min requirement that all interested parties recognize, adhere and promote in their respective countries this declaration.
Main Content of the declaration fits perfectly to the objectives of our standards.
The Declaration is a long and complex document with a preamble and 46 articles.
The text recognizes the wide range of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. Among these are the right to unrestricted self-determination, an inalienable collective right to the ownership, use and control of lands, territories and other natural resources, their rights in terms of maintaining and developing their own political, religious, cultural and educational institutions along with the protection of their cultural and intellectual property.
The Declaration highlights the requirement for prior and informed consultation, participation and consent in activities of any kind that impact on indigenous peoples, their property or territories. It also establishes the requirement for fair and adequate compensation for violation of the rights recognized in the Declaration and establishes guarantees against ethnocide and genocide.
You can see all the details on it at: www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp
Marc Choyt wrote:
I believe when we developed this principle in the spring of 2008, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People had not yet been ratified. I have previously reviewed the document, and being reminded of it now from your email, it expresses exactly what we are trying to convey.
I suggest this Declaration with its broad over-arching principles should be given a brief description in the Introductory Comments, perhaps using your descriptive text below as a basis for that. Also, I propose that we referenced the Declaration in our Principle section to read as follows:
Revision to the 4th Principle:
Employers, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, respect and work to preserve the culture and heritage of local communities.
Do you believe this is adequate and do you see a need to alter some of the standards as well?
Patrick Schein Wrote:
Not all companies face Indigenous people issues. Also, I think that the commitment of employers should be stronger. Therefore I propose the following wording for the Principle:
“Employers will respect and work to preserve the culture and heritage of local communities. In areas occupied by indigenous people, Employers will adhere to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the standard for partnership and mutual respect.”
Marc Choyt Wrote:
In many cases, the distinction between who could be classified as “indigenous” and those who occupy “local communities” can be blurred. I think your revision is solid and covers all possibilities and conveys the spirit of what we are wishing to establish with this principle. I am comfortable amending the document to utilize this wording.
So, the entire Principal would read like this:
“Employers will respect and work to preserve the culture and heritage of local communities. In areas occupied by indigenous people, Employers will adhere to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the standard for partnership and mutual respect.”
Rachel Lichte wrote:
My colleagues and I agree with the revisions proposed and made.
Before we wrap this up, we do have a concern about the word “preserve.” While cultures have long standing values and deeply embedded histories and traditions, culture is not static as it is an ongoing and constantly evolving process.
When it comes to both indigenous rights and local communities, isn’t our role more about ensuring that employer practices and policies do not interfere with local people having the agency to make their own decisions about their own culture? The act of an employer “preserving” makes it sound as though it is the employer’s role to keep it the way that it is, which doesn’t seem entirely aligned with the idea of respect or freedom to make decisions.
This comes into play most specifically in the Principal and the Standard. We want to ensure that this language reflects the desire to celebrate and support tradition, rather than to box it in or to get in the way of a local population changing in a way that it sees fit.
A few options for the Principal and Standard:
Could the word be “support” so it reads “Employers will respect and work to support the culture and heritage of local communities”?
Or should it just be “Employers will respect the culture and heritage of local communities”?
Ben Morice Wrote:
Coming from Bali where the indigenous culture is coming under attack from all areas, I am totally comfortable with this wording, well put!
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
No objections from Mexico
Greg Valerio Wrote (responding to Rachel)
You make a very important and distinct point.
Given the fragility of many what we term indigenous cultures, I would like to propose that companies ensure that the space is given for communities to ‘in our political language’ have the right to self determination.
Greg Valerio Wrote (responding to Patrick)
Although I understand what you are trying to get at, the way you have written this is too prescriptive and top down in my opinion.
Indigenous cultures and local communities blur and are not fixed.
It would seem that the one voice missing from this particular discussion is the indigenous voice.
Is there any way we can include this voice in our discussion, does the group have any suggestions,
Patrick Schein Wrote (responding to Greg)
You are absolutely right, but from what I see there is no Indigenous voice in the manufacturing list so I proposed that the appropriate way was to adhere to a declaration that included their voice (the UN one).
Also, this is a reason why I was preaching for the elaboration of a standards committee that we could not do because lack of budget. This way, we would have made sure to include all aspects and interested parties in the loop exactly as we have done in ARM for the Standard Zero for Gold.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
In Mexico indigenous refers to one of the many native-language speaking cultures however, in the context of persons from outside the country, indigenous signifies a person whose grandparents were born in the village where he or she is residing.
Marc Choyt wrote:
In some respects, this 4th principle is already implicit in two other principles: Community Consent and Human and Worker Rights. It ended up in our document in part because, when we were originally working on drafting the principles, we looked at a mining document as a model, and it specifically mentioned indigenous people. Probably, this principle would more often be relevant in a context to mining than manufacturing.
Yet I also feel it is important that it is here in our document, though defining Indigenous People is as tricky as defining white European people. When can one claim, after how many generations, or under what context, can one claim to be indigenous? I live in a part of the US which the Spanish settled over 400 years ago. They certainly consider themselves indigenous to this land, but are they less indigenous than the pueblo people who were here 600 years before them?
I continue to agree with Patrick’s view that placing the UN Declaration as central in our document puts us on solid ground. Rachel raised a good point and made two suggestions. I prefer the sentence: “Employers will respect the culture and heritage of local communities.” I feel that the word, “support” in her alternative sentence puts an ambiguous level of expectation and possibly even burden that is beyond the scope of the employer.
I think what we’re trying to get at here is that we want our commerce to be regenerative to culture and people committed over many generations to their land. By regenerative, I mean that we use the powerful economy of the jewelry sector to rebuild vitality and resilience in human and natural communities, which to me is what fair trade jewelry, is all about.
Unless I’m missing something, the principle, as follows, seems to accomplish what we want to convey.
“Employers will respect the culture and heritage of local communities, In areas occupied by indigenous people, Employers will adhere to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the standard for partnership and mutual respect.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Greg Valerio wrote:
Marc, I like it and agree.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
” …the issue of appropriation of indigenous designs…”
Yes the Mexican TV-watchers are bombarded with commercials of armed police breaking down the door of some shmuck who owns a stock of Hollywood movies. Yet not only is Mexico’s traditional music expropriated without any consideration, Taxco as a source of models to have made in the Orient is quite well established.
