The Indigenous World 2021: Editorial
2020 was an unprecedented year for the world’s population who experienced a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. Indigenous Peoples – armed with knowledge and experience spanning generations from having faced contagious illnesses and other pandemics – responded to COVID-19 with traditional as well as innovative new methods for protection and prevention; all against the disproportionate discrimination and marginalisation they come up against every day.
Despite a lack of or inadequate emergency relief programmes and implementation, weak policies, and little to no social, health and economic support from governments, Indigenous Peoples proactive-ly took matters in their own hands to protect themselves and support each other. Quite simply, while Indigenous Peoples have shown reso-lute resilience during the pandemic, COVID-19 has also highlighted and exponentially amplified the profound inequalities they continue to face globally.
The pandemic had such a grave impact on the rights and wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples that the newly appointed UN Special Rapporteur for the rights of indigenous peoples, Francisco Calí Tzay, dedicated his first thematic report to COVID-19 and the particular risks and global issues this raised for Indigenous Peoples. In it he noted that Indigenous Peoples are “rarely taken into account in contingency plans” and, according to findings in his report, a majority of states have not included Indigenous Peoples in their COVID-19 recovery plans, stressing the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent in decisions that affect them.
The evidence and experiences presented in this edition of The Indigenous World are overwhelmingly clear and similar: the rights, needs and challenges of Indigenous Peoples during the pandemic were simply not taken into consideration. Across nearly every continent, in many cases, health facilities were inaccessible, health information was not disseminated or made available in Indigenous languages, personal protection equipment was not distributed, relief packages did not consider Indigenous economic markets, and remote education did not factor in the lack of electronic equipment and unavailability of internet access to Indigenous children and students.
Further, in most countries, COVID-19 data related to, for example, health and economic impacts, was not disaggregated either at all or for Indigenous Peoples in particular, meaning it has been nearly impossible to get a clear picture of how the virus affected Indigenous populations in individual countries, which could have helped authorities provide the specific help Indigenous Peoples need.
The Indigenous Navigator Initiative, on the basis of collaborative, community-led data gathering efforts and testimonies from Indigenous communities, provided some first-hand information on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the 11 countries (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Colombia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Suriname and Tanzania) where communities participated in data collection, advocacy and project implementation. In this initiative, the data and interviews identified how the pre-existing barriers to health, social security and education have been fuelling disproportionate impacts from the pan-demic on Indigenous Peoples. They also indicated a rise in food insecurity related to loss of livelihoods and lack of access to land and natural resources. Conversely, reports have shown that when Indigenous Peoples have secure land rights, they are much better suited to survive the pandemic, not worrying as much about prolonged lockdowns or being able to cultivate and access food and medicinal plants.
But the findings have also underlined the vital role played by Indig-enous communities in building the response and recovery to the global crisis.
Once again – as with other pandemics, viruses and illnesses – Indigenous Peoples had to fend for themselves through a variety of activities, including reviving traditional self-isolation and protection practices, employing traditional medical therapies to boost their immune systems or treat other diseases to avoid exposure by going to clinics or hospitals, making their own personal protection equipment, and creating their own information and awareness-raising initiatives on the virus in their own languages. Many more examples of how Indigenous Peoples addressed the situation with their own self-determined, culturally sensitive and rights-based approach can be found throughout this edition.
In addition to the struggles and mitigation efforts Indigenous Peoples faced due to the virus, they continued to fight discrimination and targeted violence, struggled against a shrinking civic space, lacked recognition of their rights as peoples, and suffered from land dispos-session, evictions and the negative impact of climate change as well as of top-down conservation efforts. Not only are Indigenous Peoples disproportionately impacted by the effects of COVID-19 and its conse-quences; they are also facing increased repression by states that are using the pandemic as a way to enact laws that further encroach on their rights. For Indigenous Peoples, the long-term consequences of the pandemic may be devastating.
COVID-19 impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ health
History has demonstrated that diseases like COVID-19 can wreak havoc on Indigenous Peoples due to a variety of factors, from poor access to infrastructure to a lack of basic health services, including vaccination.
Indigenous Peoples already face marginalisation and inadequate medical services and health information, including insufficient information in their languages, making it difficult for them to receive the proper information and care they need to either test and identify cases of infection or treat those who may become infected. Additionally, many communities often don’t have access to clean or sufficient water sources either due to improper or non-existent infrastructure, drought or pollution, meaning that one of the main measures in preventing the spread of the disease – washing one’s hands with soap – is a difficult preventative step for communities to take. And an absence of governments taking Indigenous communities into consideration in developing their prevention plans makes the situation more difficult for Indigenous Peoples.
Ultimately, COVID-19 exposed the poor national health system of many countries, not just in general, but specifically in how it responded to the immediate and varied health needs of Indigenous Peoples and their communities. Medical facilities were not near enough to Indigenous communities and lacked proper equipment, medical practitioners could not reach many communities, protection measures were not evenly implemented by governments, communications were not culturally sensitive or done in Indigenous and local languages, and Indigenous Peoples were not consulted or included in designing emergency prevention and treatment programmes, completely disregarding their traditional therapies and needs, and information material was only provided in Indigenous languages after persistent lobbying by Indigenous organisations.
Some articles in this edition have very clear numbers that show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous communities. In some states in the US, for example, the mortality rate of American Indians between the ages of 20 and 50 was 10 times higher than that of non-indigenous people; in Canada, First Nations Peoples experienced the effects of COVID-19 at a rate 40% higher than non-indigenous people, and in Chile one community – the Yagán community – had the highest infection rate in the country, almost triple the national average, affecting the community’s elderly, including one who is the last native speaker of their language.
Other articles clearly show the under-reporting of incidents of and deaths from COVID-19 in Indigenous communities in remote areas. In Suriname, for example, the mortality rate of Indigenous Peoples due to COVID-19 was disproportionate in comparison to non-indigenous people. However, despite Indigenous organisations’ reports and push back to authorities, these deaths were not reported or investigated. In Kenya, due to the remoteness of many Indigenous communities and a lack of medical equipment, COVID-19 cases were also not reported.
These factors were exacerbated by the fact that COVID-19 spread fast, meaning it tore through Indigenous communities with little built-up immunity. These communities are often very tight knit, relying on one another or living in close proximity to each other where resources and homes are shared, making the impact more severe when strategies such as social distancing aren’t as viable.
In Israel, for example, the construction of villages and dwellings of Bedouin communities made isolation nearly impossible. Due to their remote locations and a lack of paved roads, access to medical care was limited. Further, the provision of COVID-19 information in Arabic was limited by the government, not just in printed material but also with staffing hotline operators who could speak Arabic. Such was the case for Indigenous Peoples in Vietnam who live far away from medical facilities and whose access to information on the virus was low and rarely in their languages. Indigenous Peoples in Cameroon faced the same situation and experienced weak involvement from the government and a general lack of coordination amongst a variety of governmental bodies.
Indigenous Peoples in French Guiana got COVID-19 as people carried the virus over the border with them as they freely travelled into the country from Brazil, which has had lax policies in response to the pandemic. French policies were also weak as far as travel to and from French Guiana, which helped the spread of the virus. Food and personal protection equipment were only made available to Indigenous Peoples because the people themselves applied and appealed to international non-governmental organisations for help. Indigenous Peoples in Bolivia had to travel to other communities to receive medical supplies, treatment and vouchers – as those products and services were not available in their communities – where they would, in some cases, get the virus and take it back to their vulnerable communities acting as a vector.
In much the same vein, lockdowns in India left millions of migrant workers stranded; when they could return to their hometowns, many brought the virus back with them. Further, many of these Indigenous people working or studying in major cities in the Northeast, far from their homes, suffered racial discrimination, being directly accused of bringing the virus with them because of the way they look. Some were kicked out of their rented rooms, others were spat on in the streets, and some were denied access to medical facilities. There have even been reports of some being thrown off moving trains.
Food insecurity and economic impacts
As the world locked down, Indigenous Peoples were affected considerably by a severe shrinking of their economic opportunities, falling deeper into poverty and becoming dangerously food insecure. The loss of jobs, such as in the case of Vietnam and Thailand, forced some to move from urban areas and larger cities back to their native villages, which caused an additional burden on communities that were also barely surviving. In some extreme cases, people couldn’t even access their own fields to grow food for their own households.
Traditional practices, such as farming and animal raising for the purposes of selling goods in markets was virtually stripped away as markets closed, transportation was limited, and roads were blocked. In Tanzania and Burkina Faso, the market value of livestock dropped when markets re-opened and reduced the income for herders extensively. In many cases, herders had to sell more of their cattle to make ends meet.
Indigenous Peoples in a number of countries rely on tourism for the sale of goods as well as for income through working in parks. Indigenous youth in Kenya, and Batwa in Uganda, for example, who work in the field of wildlife tourism and act as pastoral guides, lost their income due to the sharp drop in tourism.
Impact on elders and education
Indigenous elders in many cultures are the bearers of traditional knowledge, history and language, and hold important positions in decision making for their communities. COVID-19 threatened the survival of these elders and the culture and tradition they carry, as in the US where many tribal elders died and with them endangered languages and traditions. In Peru, by the time the government had made a plan to deal with COVID-19 it was already too late for many Indigenous communities who lost several leaders.
Lockdowns not only shut down communities and cities, but also many services, including schools and universities that had to make the switch to fully virtual and online education. However, access to internet and electronic equipment was rarely taken into consideration when it came to addressing the circumstances of Indigenous Peoples, who were disproportionately affected as in Bangladesh where 75% of Indigenous students were not able to access classes broadcast on national TV due to a lack of electricity or having access to a television, and in French Polynesia where only half the student population has access to internet. In Malaysia, Indigenous students simply dropped out of school and those who made the attempt and had the ability to stay in school had to travel long distances to high hilltops in the hopes of finding an internet connection.
As ever, Indigenous Peoples showed their resilience in this regard and came up with solutions to these challenges. Again, in Bangladesh, where education was disproportionately affecting Indigenous students, a group of Chakma youth university students who had to return to their village due to the pandemic started a project – Pohr Sidok (Let the light shine) – when COVID-19 hit and began teaching children in their village through regular textbook teaching. The initiative in the village spread and led youth in adjacent villages to do the same.
Land grabbing and large-scale projects continue despite pandemic
As UN Special Rapporteur Calí Tzay commented in his report, Indigenous Peoples continued to experience injustice as large companies appeared to be allowed to freely continue their activities, encroaching on Indigenous lands, while restrictions on the Indigenous Peoples’ own movement and freedom to use and protect their lands was repressively enforced.
In Chile, though lockdown measures were in place, large economic projects continued while individual people couldn’t conduct their small business ventures or sell goods in markets. As economic projects continued, those that were undergoing Indigenous consultation processes went ahead online, without respecting the digital divide between Indigenous Peoples and the companies – an issue that was brought up to Calí Tzay. Moreover, the number of projects submitted for environmental impact studies in the country doubled from March to May 2020 – at the time when COVID-19 started its spread – in comparison to the same time period in 2019 and 2018.
Chile was not the only country in Latin America or elsewhere that exhibited this disturbing and deleterious behaviour. In many countries, including India, Nepal and the Philippines among others, mining activities, hydrocarbon exploitation and agribusiness were considered to be a way of keeping national economies from falling into extreme debt and were therefore exempted from the restrictions imposed by governments to prevent spread of the disease.
As part of COVID-19 recovery measures, the government of India opened up dozens of coal blocks for the purposes of commercial mining, many of which were on Indigenous lands. And even though India was hard-hit by the pandemic, security forces and armed opposition did not stop their targeting, kidnapping and killing of Indigenous people, and evictions of Indigenous people from their forests also continued unabated with over four million claims placed under the Forest Rights Act by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. In Cambodia, the government’s response focused largely on urban areas, which allowed for illegal logging and land grabbing operations to not only continue but increase. In Malaysia, despite the lockdown, the government allowed logging to continue, and in a particularly egregious case, loggers moved into a territory that was declared to have logging halted in 2019.
Meanwhile, in other countries, such as Aotearoa, pandemic emergency laws with respect to the conducting of business were drawn up and approved with loopholes that allowed for the circumvention of con-sent processes, while in Australia legislation included clauses allowing the consultation of Indigenous Peoples to be overridden.
Targeting of Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders
Alongside the dangerous threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, Indigenous Peoples faced a second dangerous problem: the targeting of Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders under cover of the disarray or scaling up of emergency measures.
Despite COVID-19 virtually halting the world, Indigenous Peoples continued to struggle to defend their human, land and environmental rights. 2020 was another deadly year for rights defenders. At least 331 Human Rights Defenders were killed in 2020 – 44 of them women. More specifically, 26% of these brave defenders were working specifically on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and 69% of those killed were working on land and environmental rights in addition to Indigenous Peoples’ rights. According to the violations reported to Front Line Defenders for the annual global analysis report, the most targeted defenders were those de-fending Indigenous Peoples’, land and environmental rights – the main rights that Indigenous Peoples fight for every day.
In response to the pandemic, some countries have introduced or increased the presence of military and police in rural areas where Indigenous Peoples live. The lack of access to communication and information further increased the risk of human rights violations, and such violations could go undetected by monitoring and protection mechanisms affected by lockdowns and other legal measures, thus leaving no one accountable.
Such was the case in Myanmar in 2020 at the start of the pandemic – before the 2021 coup – where under emergency measures 220 websites, many of them run by ethnic minorities and Indigenous Peoples, were shut down for allegedly spreading fake news about the virus. And an internet blackout that began in 2019 in eight conflict-affected townships continued during the pandemic, despite criticism from civil society, leaving these areas unable to share vital information about the virus.
The government in the Philippines took a militaristic approach to restrictions and measures. An anti-terrorism law was passed with vague definitions that allowed people to be arrested without cause. Severe lockdowns left Indigenous Peoples extremely isolated leaving some people stranded for long periods in communities that weren’t their own due to extreme travel bans. And despite these extreme restrictions, large infrastructural and agricultural projects continued and Indigenous Peoples who were defending their land and communities continued to be targeted, including via the distribution of materials, fake news sites and fake social media profiles claiming Indigenous individuals and Indigenous organisations were terrorist groups.
In Nicaragua, attacks against Indigenous Peoples led to the death of 13 people and 10 others missing. In Guatemala several Indigenous and non-indigenous people standing up for Indigenous rights were killed, and according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, targeted for their activism.
As more areas see further lockdowns, governments have increased their powers through snap emergency legislation, and in some countries deployed military forces to implement the emergency legislation, meaning rights defenders are at further risk as they cannot move around freely. Thus, these important defenders are easier to find, their emergency support network is harder to mobilise for protection, and authorities continue to gain wider abilities to silence them.
Resilience of Indigenous Peoples: Self-protection and awareness raising
Indigenous communities have for generations experienced human rights violations, including violations of their right to health due to viral infections. They have learned how to protect themselves to survive and thus be strong and resilient communities. Indigenous Peoples’ communities in all regions of the world have already responded to the pan-demic using their self-determined protection mechanisms and have taken advanced measures to seal off their villages or retreat further into nature to avoid contact, long before national governments took action. Around the globe Indigenous Peoples proactively rose to the challenge to meet a critical need for information with radio/podcast communications disseminating COVID-19 information to their communities, as well as precaution measures in Indigenous languages (see for example the articles on Bolivia, Indonesia, Nepal, Tanzania, Thailand and Zimbabwe).
The response to the pandemic by Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic showed their strength and resilience by using their extensive oral traditions that tracked the long history of how pandemics have affected them to help tackle COVID-19. For example, using the knowledge of how to evade smallpox infections by understanding how the disease spreads and what actions were effective to mitigate it. Others employed nomadic practices to avoid disease hotspots. Many still have vivid memories of their family and community members sharing stories of the last global pandemic – the 1918-1920 Spanish flu pandemic – and as such were still able to implement particular traditional practices because the necessary skills and knowledge have been kept alive through oral traditions transferred between generations.
In Indonesia, national Indigenous organisations coordinated and advised each other on how to respond to the pandemic through what they called a “dignified quarantine” and held numerous virtual meetings to share information and learn from each other on how to adapt. At the same time, Indigenous women and youth were on the frontline of the response making sanitiser from natural ingredients and creating video tutorials to teach Indigenous communities how to stay safe from the virus. Indigenous communities in Thailand also came together to support each other by exchanging goods, sharing information on COVID-19, and teaching each other how to make sanitiser, gels and face masks.
In Australia, the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Sec-tor was able to deliver culturally appropriate solutions to the virus, demonstrating the importance and effectiveness of community control and self-determination which led to six times less cases of infection in those Indigenous communities. Some of the interventions included home test visits, working with food banks and cafes for those who needed food, delivering written translated materials and communicating over several social media platforms, and creating a specialised tool kit for prevention.
Hundreds of Indigenous communities around the world took steps to self-isolate, protecting their villages and territories from outsiders, including the closing of roads, air strips and transportation routes. In Bangladesh, Cambodia, India and Thailand, Indigenous communities blocked their villages. Indigenous Peoples in Algeria, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua did the same, creating security cordons, blocking people from entering and exiting areas or setting up controls, ensuring those who had contact with outsiders wore masks, alongside other measures. In Suriname, as the cover of this book shows, Indigenous communities went so far as to block airstrips. In Rapa Nui, flights were also blocked despite causing severe unemployment and a spike in the cost of goods as planes filled with cargo rather than tourists were only allowed. However, to adapt to the situation, Indigenous people on the island revived their food growing methods and fishing and the government turned its entire budget to focus on job creation.
In the US tribes set up health checkpoints at entrances to their territories to protect themselves from the virus; in Canada communities locked down access to travel and commerce; and in Malaysia, many Indigenous Peoples retreated further into forests not only for protection, but also for self-subsistence. These self-isolation tactics were in many cases the reason why there was a low spread of the virus among these communities.
In many cases the measures taken for self-isolation and self-protection drew on ancient traditional knowledge and practices that were re-invigorated. Indigenous Peoples also revived traditional medical and therapeutic practices, using traditional remedies and plants to help care for their communities and prevent the spread of the virus, examples can be found in the articles on Kenya and Tanzania. In Guatemala, for a number of Indigenous communities, the pandemic resulted in a re-invigoration of traditional medicine and healthy eating based on native products – rather than relying on non-native products – and has re-affirmed the need to strengthen the bonds of solidarity across communities and to defend their ancestral territories.
When national governments implemented COVID-19 laws to deal with the pandemic, some Indigenous communities were able to successfully push back on stipulations that were not culturally sensitive. In Aotearoa, for example, the government passed laws without consulting Maori and thus, after much political action, laws were amended to, for instance, allow larger gatherings for traditional practices and ceremonies. In Kenya, the government banned rites of passage in an unprecedented move, but elders opened dialogue with the government to reach a compromise and rituals were able to be carried out with a mind for COVID-19 prevention.
International and regional processes and mechanisms find a new way to engage
As the pandemic spread, many international and regional mechanisms and agencies, such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Inter-American Human Rights System, were quick to cancel their meetings and find ways to continue their important work. In the beginning adjustment proved difficult to become accustomed to online and virtual platforms and to bridge the digital gap between them and Indigenous Peoples, but it soon became an integral and widely used solution.
One major drawback, however, to the temporary online reality of global meetings has been that while Indigenous Peoples took advantage of the opportunity to proactively engage, states and other relevant stakeholders did not. Without presential sessions Indigenous representatives were not able to directly engage with states and promote their views and demands. The pandemic has clearly shown a decrease of engagement of states with Indigenous Peoples and in general with civil society actors.
One further troubling aspect of state behaviour has been in a situation such as that of Peru and Colombia, where consultation processes were forced to continue online, which was continuously argued against and rejected by Indigenous Peoples.
A virtual model is not a replacement for in situ meetings and work where networks are made and fostered, and where cross-regional learning is made possible, but it is a new and complementary method of engagement that is “here to stay”, as Calí Tzay told IWGIA.
Perhaps one of the positive aspects to come out of the pandemic has been the success of Indigenous Peoples being able to harness the opportunity of no longer being tied to having their voices heard in face-to-face meetings, but rather could do so virtually, more frequently and with more representatives online. Additionally, representatives of the various mechanisms, such as the Permanent Forum and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, organised an increasing amount of global and regional dialogues with Indigenous Peoples, especially on the topic of COVID-19 and its impact on them.
Indigenous Peoples from all regions engaged and contributed in these new opportunities and in many ways their voices were strengthened. In fact, many of the recommendations made by these mechanisms came directly from Indigenous Peoples through these dialogues, with UN Special Rapporteur Calí Tzay’s report on COVID-19 to the UN General Assembly being a prime example. And agencies, such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, concretely react-ed to Indigenous Peoples’ recommendations by targeting them in their COVID-19 programming.
Indigenous Peoples and human rights mechanisms dealing with Indigenous Peoples rights have found the outcomes, increased frequency of being able to meet and more broad representation to be an important new development in how engagement can be done with increasing effectivity. But real change cannot be done online alone.
As we look to the future it will be important to continue to hold states accountable and to ensure that the success of virtual engagement is not seen out of context, replacing all future Indigenous Peoples’ participation processes to only online platforms. As the world embraces the benefits of technology, the voices of Indigenous Peoples must not be silenced by transferring crucial processes from in-person, community-driven engagement to online meetings.
We also need to look at strengthening connectivity to expand the reach of representation and engagement as access to stable internet connections is not a common reality for many Indigenous communities. Much can continue to be done to bring Indigenous communities online, not just for the sake of engagement with international and regional mechanisms, but also to overcome the challenges with online education and the spread of information and news. Strengthening connectivity also provides a great opportunity for Indigenous Peoples themselves to share their experiences with each other, bolster advocacy efforts and support solidarity initiatives across regions.
IWGIA would like to recognise the tremendous effort these bodies have taken to ensure the experiences and recommendations of Indigenous Peoples were heard and brought to a global platform.
Building back better
As the pandemic has magnified the inequalities Indigenous Peoples have faced for generations, but also sharpened the focus on the strength and resilience of Indigenous Peoples and their communities in coming together and implementing traditional practices and knowledge for their survival, how do we build back better?
One of the necessary measures that needs to be taken is the increase of efforts to provide Indigenous communities with the adequate and necessary means of prevention in relation to COVID-19, including access to adequately equipped and culturally appropriate healthcare facilities, and information in Indigenous languages. Inclusive and community-led assessments of risks and needs should be undertaken in order to understand the specific situation of Indigenous Peoples. Strengthening capacities in Indigenous Peoples’ rights for state institutions charged with dealing with Indigenous issues should be strengthened, including mechanisms for the participation of, and consultation with, Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples’ full and effective participation in the management of health and educational services, including the return to school, should also be ensured and distance learning opportunities provided.
As national governments focus on economic recovery to upend the damage of the global pandemic, many may opt for traditional ways of economic development with a focus on natural resources, large infrastructural projects and extractive opportunities.
Indigenous Peoples have long experienced threats to their lands, territories and natural resources from extractive industries and large industrial projects. A building back “better” economy that focuses on these sectors is again likely to have a negative impact on Indigenous Peoples and violate their rights and livelihoods. Furthermore, they have the ability to set humankind back in its aim to curb climate change. Business as usual is not the solution.
Therefore, building back better initiatives need to take point of departure in Indigenous Peoples’ rights and particularly the right to land , territories and natural resources, which are essential for their traditional activities and for sustainable and regenerative practices. Indigenous Peoples’ own initiatives and businesses must come first and be prioritised. Indigenous Peoples’ labour rights also must be ensured at all stages of crisis response and recovery measures.
For building back better, Indigenous Peoples’ solutions need to be heard as Indigenous communities and organisations hold knowledge essential in the design of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, taking advantage of their resilience capacities and traditional knowledge and practices, and with full respect of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
Copenhagen, March 2021
This article is part of the 35th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2021 in full here
Notes and references
United Nations. “Indigenous Peoples Increasingly Succumb to Extreme Poverty as Land Evictions Spike amid COVID-19, Special Rapporteur Tells Third Committee.” Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, GA/SHC/4292, 12 October, 2020. https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/gashc4292.doc.htm
Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact. “Flash Update on COVID-19: Lessons learned from IPs in Asia.” 20 April, 2020. https://aippnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Combined-2nd-flash-Brief-C19.pdf
Front Line Defenders. “Global Analysis 2020.” 2020. https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/sites/default/files/fldglobalanalysis_2020.pdf
García-Alix, Lola, and Alejandro Parellada. “Francisco Calí Tzay: In situ visits to countries are important.” Debates Indígenas, 1 February, 2021. https://debatesindigenas.org/ENG/ns/90-cali-tzay-interview.html