The Adoption of Convention 169: Unions and Indigenous Peoples' Involvement

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has adopted the only two international Conventions on indigenous and tribal peoples: the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107), which was revised and replaced by the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). One of the most interesting parts of the story of how these two conventions came into existence and have been applied, is the positive role of workers’ organisations in both adopting and supervising them. Why the ILO? A first point to address is why these Conventions were adopted under the auspices of the ILO at all, and not the United Nations (UN). The ILO was established in 1919 at the same time as the League of Nations. Early on it began to examine the situation of ‘native peoples’ – populations of colonised countries in Africa and Asia in particular, who had no rights and no protection in their work lives. They were often subject to forced labour and other forms of severe exploitation. The ILO had been established to adopt international Conventions to regulate working life, and soon adopted the Forced Labour Convention (No. 29) in 1930 aimed in particular at making forced labour of indigenous populations illegal. The organisation went on to adopt other conventions on such things as hours and other conditions of work to protect these colonised peoples, in a group of instruments known as the ‘native labour code’ – a real advance in international law and in protection. This was one of the first concrete steps towards decolonisation. After World War II, the ILO became the first specialised agency of the new UN system, as the only surviving part of the League of Nations. As it resumed work, one of the major work items became the situation of life and work for those groups that the ILO termed ‘indigenous and tribal peoples’ – meaning the huge numbers of those the organisation considered to be ‘primitive’ peoples, who were largely outside the formal economy or were living in an economically marginal situation. This kind of paternalistic attitude was prevalent in the international development community and in many countries for years after this, but it did result in some badly needed protections. One of the concrete results was the adoption of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107). The Convention was adopted by the ILO, at the behest of and on behalf of the entire UN system, and with their full cooperation, because at that time the UN itself had no experience in adopting conventions and the ILO had already begun working on the issue. Convention 107 was an important working tool of the ILO for many years, and guided a number of technical interventions on the ground. However, for more than 25 years after the adoption of Convention 107, the workers’ contingent played little role in its promotion or supervision, and the Convention gradually lost its relevance in the face of changing developments. Over time it became apparent that the orientation of C107 was very patronising and was intended to promote assimilation and the eventual abandonment of indigenous cultures, and there were calls for the Convention to be revised. The ILO revised the Convention in 1989, when it adopted the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Today Convention 169 remains the only international Convention that can be ratified, which deals directly with the rights and cultures of these vulnerable peoples. And this is where the contribution of workers’ organisations has become prominent. A new wind As the UN began its work on this subject the early 1970s, indigenous peoples became increasingly aware of the potential for international help. The first indigenous non-governmental organisation (NGO) – the World Council of Indigenous Peoples - was established in Canada in 1975. This set off a wave of international activism as indigenous peoples began to seek relief at the international level from persecution and loss of lands and rights. However, proponents of indigenous rights found Convention 107 to be paternalistic and oriented more toward assimilation than protection, as the longer-term solution to the ‘Indigenous problem’. And they were right. The Convention had been adopted at a time when the new UN and its component parts (including the ILO) took...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.