WHO WE ARE

We are an emerging working group composed of video-practitioners, human rights activists, anthropologists etc, aiming at the facilitating the expression of local voices, grassroots based processes, solidarity networks and audio-visual exchanges amongst communities of the same region and even across national borders. Such exchanges are based on the selection of topics and issues dealing with biocultural diversity that are chosen and developed by the communities themselves through participatory and jointly created videos.
Overall, such exchanges promotes the sharing of experiences as a way of 1) fostering reflection and joint actions through the establishment of strategic alliances; and 2) addressing common problems regarding indigenous peoples/pastoralists rights and claims over ancestral homelands and cultural landscapes. The envisaged goal is to enable the production of jointly produced video materials that could be used to exert pressure at a national and international policy level. As of now, we have facilitated linkages between Peru and Philippines, Italian Shepherds and Tibetan Pastoralists, Italian Shepherds of Central and Northern Italy, Kyrgyz pastoralists and shepherds of the Aurunci Mountains (Central Italy). Two new linkages between the Kyrgyz communities of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as between the indigenous communities of Palawan Islands (the Philippines) and the Dusun of Malaysian Borneo, are now in the processes of being organized.
In so doing, we hope to provide a viable platform for indigenous and rural communities to express their voices and, particularly, their own critiques of state policies, development and conservation projects, etc. Hence, one of our primary tasks is to facilitate the expression of these voices and the creation of a bottom-up critique of development/conservation projects/programs through horizontal audio-visual exchanges locally and around the globe.
As opportunities for exchanges across borders, slowly develop and materialize, we hope that our Vimeo page will begin to represent an open forum for discussion for the participating IPs/farmers and pastoralists communities and their allies/facilitators, as well as for TCF grantees.
First attempts to fulfill these objectives were initially achieved in the context of two projects launched by the Center for Biocultural Diversity at the University of Kent and financed by the Christensen Fund. The first grant project “Anthropological Approaches to Advocacy and Traditional Rights: Developing Local Global Feed Back for Policy Advocacy on Biocultural Diversity “ was implemented between 2007 and 2009, while the second one “Linking Networks on Pastoralism and Mobile Production Systems” was initiated in 2009 and will end in 2011.

THE REASONS BEHIND

The idea of bringing “local voices” to international attention is not new or an “original” one. However, the real challenge is “representation”: are indigenous voices adequately represented and by whom? Who (and for what purposes) does the representation?
It is now a common practice for international financing institutions and CGIARS, to invite indigenous persons to attend meetings, conferences and workshops. In these international fora, indigenous members can hardly mobilize their own knowledge. In short, their claims and aspirations cannot be easily translated into the language in which our own discourses on ‘environment’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘identity’ are framed. As a matter of fact, these international gatherings have often shown to represent an inadequate platform for the most disadvantaged and disempowered indigenous peoples to manifest and discuss their priorities.
On the other hand, those indigenous representatives who frequently participate in international meetings have acquired international reputation and a legal personality, but the knowledge and experience they have acquired at the international level is seldom transferred to the ‘real people’, the communities we seldom see and hear from. These well-known, international indigenous representatives, often speak good English and are well educated, and that’s why the UN agencies have chosen them as their counterparts. In comparison, the voices of the 'real people' - at the community level - is seldom heard.
Even more annoying is the fact that these international funding institutions have been very keen in creating and fostering a public image of themselves as ‘defenders’ of indigenous peoples’ rights. Several of these organizations have incorporated specific “guidelines for indigenous peoples” and have actively promoted initiatives dealing with “indigenous peoples’ empowerment”, “local knowledge”, “rights-base approaches” and other high-sounding notions. However, in most cases, what these organizations profess (cosmetically) - and at a purely theoretical level - seldom matches what they are doing in the field. Indeed, it is rather difficult to find any trace of a genuine FPIC processes in the project they implement or finance. Once more, in consideration of the above, participatory IP-based video assessments of development projects could play a fundamental role in bringing up to the surface important issues as they are perceived by the people themselves.
Overall, we believe that a gap exists between international-based debates on IP’s rights and biocultural diversity and what actually happens in the field. Ironically, communities in the field are often completely unaware of what goes on at the international level and have no direct knowledge of those people representing them. In this respect, our working group “Grassroots Voices on BC Diversity” has began to ask a major question: Is there anything we can do to facilitating a debate on equal grounds not only about communities and different agencies but also horizontally between various IPs groups/levels? This question, indeed, has motivated us in carrying out and develops IP-based audio-visual exchanges.

LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND SENSE OF OWNERSHIP

The proposed exchanges require the long-term commitment of facilitators who are either ‘video-practitioners’ belonging to a specific local community or people who have spent extended periods of time with one particular group, are trusted by them and are familiar with their languages and cultural practices.
From our direct engagement in these activities, we have learned that these processes are very complex and, before starting anything, one should get a clear mandate from community leaders on their wishes to engage in this process and, of course, gain the support of motivated community members.
Developing such complex exchanges and networking processes is a huge task that goes beyond the capacity of single individuals and, thus, we are constantly calling for the contribution and collaboration of other ‘believers’ who might be willing to contribute to the expansion of our working group.