Article 1, ‘Indigenous-state Relations’, is based on my understanding, derived from an analy-sis done for my master’s theanaly-sis, of UN reports on the progress of the establishment of the PF.
The materials include opinions of state and indigenous representatives on the forum to be established and statements given during the discussions relating to the establishment of the Forum. Documents include the report of the first UN workshop on the possible establish-ment of a permanent forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations system (1995), the report of the second UN workshop on a permanent forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations system (1997) and the report of the open-ended inter-sessional ad hoc working group on a permanent forum (1999).6 In addition, the materials encompass meeting transcripts of the 15th session of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, where the es-tablishment of the PF was discussed, among other issues,7 as well as written statements, decla-rations and common suggestions of indigenous peoples on the establishment of the forum.8
As described earlier in this synthesis, the observations that I made when I attended an-nual sessions of the PF were crucial in my deciding to refine the scope of Articles 2, 3 and 4. I observed four sessions as a researcher, first as part of the Finnish delegation in 2004 and subsequently as a member of an academic institution in the period 2005-2007. I also attended a pre-meeting of the 2007 PF session of the Global Indigenous Caucus. A detailed treatment and analysis of the observations is found in Article 2, ‘Paradoxes of Power’. The article also draws on statements delivered by the representatives of indigenous peoples’ organisations,
6 The first two documents are available in García-Alíx (1999), pp. 30-53. The third is available at http://
www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.1999.83.En?Opendocument. (accessed 14 April 2014).
7 These were available on the UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization) website (UNPO Monitor 1997).
8 Available in García-Alíx (1999), pp. 80-111.
states and UN agencies in the PF annual sessions over the period 2002-2009. I gathered some of the statements when I attended the sessions. The statements delivered at the PF sessions are publicly available on the website of the Indigenous Peoples’ Center for Documentation, Research and Information (DoCip).9
I co-authored Article 3, ‘At the Crossroads of Autonomy and Essentialism’, with Heidi Sinevaara-Niskanen. The research critically examines the recurrence and the central role of certain ways of representing indigenous peoples in relation to nature in international politics.
My contribution to the material on which the article is based consists of statements delivered at the PF 2008 special session on climate change: 48 statements by states, indigenous and UN agency representatives that were delivered during a discussion on climate change. The arti-cle combines this material with Sinevaara-Niskanen’s material from the Arctic Council and Arctic politics. From the initial research idea to producing the text itself, our cooperation was very concrete: we had joint working days where we developed our research ideas and wrote the text. Where the aim is to identify self-evident perceptions and understandings, one needs to use diverse and extensive materials and let the materials suggest new sources of data. Our cooperation allowed us to compare materials, construct a dialogue between different research contexts (the Arctic Council and the UN), sets of materials and researchers and hence identi-fy a broader range of familiar and recurring representations. Discussing and reflecting on our respective materials in light of the findings from the other’s research context provided a way to challenge and corroborate research findings (Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskanen, 2013).
Later, as I proceeded to work on Article 4, ‘Indigenous Rights as Tactics of Neoliberal Governance’, I augmented the material for the dissertation with reports of the Special Rap-porteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This addition reflects the way in which the ar-ticles developed in response to the research needs that I identified during the course of the research. Specifically, what prompted me to study the reports was a realisation of the impor-tance of expert knowledge for governance as we see it today. The new material also allowed me to analyse the language of rights, another recurring and significant issue as regards indig-enous peoples in international politics. All in all, the material for Article 4 came to include the SRIP’s reports spanning several years. The analysed reports include six annual reports to the Human Rights Council (2007-2012), five annual reports to the Commission on Human Rights (2002-2006), seven annual reports to the General Assembly (2004-2007, 2009, 2011-2012), two country reports and three thematic reports.10
The process of gathering and analysing material was continuous and proceeded in tan-dem with theoretical work: observations in the PF were distributed over several years and in between these I analysed the material both starting from the material itself and guided by the theoretical framework. The empirical context remained the same from the beginning,
supple-9 Available at http://www.docip.org/Online-Documentation.32.0.html (accessed 14 March 2014).
10 The country reports include a report on the Sami people in Norway, Sweden and Finland, 2011, A/
HRC/18/35/Add.2; and on the situation of the Maori people in New Zealand, 2011, A/HRC/18/35/Add.4.
The three special thematic reports include a report on measures needed to secure indigenous land rights in Suriname, 2011, A/HRC/18/35/Add.7¸on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in Asia, A/
HRC/6/15/Add.3; and a study regarding best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in the annual reports of the Special Rapporteur, 2007, A/HRC/4/32/Add.4. The reports of the Special Rapporteur are available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/SRIndigenousPeoples/Pages/
SRIPeoplesIndex.aspx (accessed 28 Feb 2013).
mented by the Special Rapporteur’s reports as noted above. Throughout the research process I read the material thematically and combined these findings with the insights gained from the theoretical concepts. Towards the end of the research, the theoretical framework became increasingly important in pinpointing which materials and discussions were the most perti-nent and what kinds of questions I needed to ask of the material.
Identifying the salient questions in turn guides the selection of the research material and the kinds of texts that one wants to analyse. To study the politics that play out in the PF in practice, it was essential to be able to personally participate in the annual sessions and ob-serve the setting, as well as the day-to-day proceedings and other activity. Investigating the political agency of indigenous peoples in the PF hinged on the statements of indigenous peoples, states and UN agencies delivered at the annual sessions. Another type of text that I analysed can be seen in the reports of the Special Rapporteur. They enabled me to investigate expert accounts of indigenous issues and rights.
I conducted interviews with representatives of RAIPON (Russian Association of Indig-enous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East) in June 2007 and October 2008 in Moscow, Russia. Even though these were not used as primary material in the articles, they have been important in improving my understanding of the issue area. Significant for this understand-ing have also been the informal discussions that I have had at the PF meetunderstand-ings with state, in-digenous and UN agency representatives. However, as the focus of my research has been the UN rather than individual states or indigenous peoples’ organisations, I have used the inter-views and discussions mainly as background material. The materials chosen for analysis – my own observations, statements delivered by indigenous peoples, state and UN agency repre-sentatives and reports of the Special Rapporteur – proved sufficient in scope to capture the variety of ways in which indigeneity is perceived, understood and (re)produced in the UN.
The significance of the material lies in the importance of the UN, and the PF specifically, as political arenas in which indigenous peoples, states and other interested parties participate.
The PF attracts a wide attendance of indigenous peoples around the world and it is a product of a long history of indigenous involvement in the UN. The PF is not a single-issue forum, but rather has a broad mandate, which means that it takes up a wide range of issues pertaining to indigenous peoples. The pertinence of the SRIP’s reports as research material is also tied to the significance they have for many actors in their work; the reports represent an expert in-terpretation of indigenous rights that is relied on by various actors inside and outside the UN, indigenous or not. I acknowledge that research material is always situated in a certain time and place and can thus only give a partial account of the question under study (e.g. Wright, 2003). However, I argue that the PF is a significant arena and the SRIP an important office in terms of global awareness-raising on indigenous issues. Thus the material analysed in the course of this research has much to reveal more generally and globally, beyond the political and legal ambits proper of the PF and the SRIP.