Implementation of ILO 169, or the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 in Nepal.

On 13 September 2007 Nepal voted for the adoption of UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples in the 61st General Assembly of the United Nations. The next day, on 14
September, 2007, the government of Nepal ratified the ILO Convention 169. Based on a paper
presented by Om Gurung, Ph. D. in 2009, Nepal faces various challenges in the Implementation
of ILO 169 some of which are:1
 Dominance of Hindu High Caste’ or ‘Bahunbaad’ - An effective implementation of ILO
Convention 169 would require an amendment and/or revision of existing laws that
contradict various provisions of ILO Convention 169. But the state government
overwhelmingly dominated by so-called high caste Hindu groups is not ready to change
the existing laws so easily.
 Rights to self-determination and ethnic autonomy – Since indigenous peoples of Nepal do
not have deep trust to the government for sharing power and implementing international
human rights conventions, they demand for their own rule through the transformation of
state structure.
 Indigenous peoples have claims on their rights over the land and natural resources, and
these have become contested issue in Nepal as many other non-indigenous settlers also
have settled in the same geo-ecological regions and have used the natural resources for
their livelihood.
 Lack of Adequate Resources and Effective Mechanism - UN and other international
agencies which promote these conventions do not have special funds nor do they have any
effective mechanism to supervise and monitor the implementation of these conventions.
 The government of Nepal has ratified the convention as a strategy to pacify the movement
of indigenous peoples who have been demanding for their social, cultural, economic and
political rights and agitating in the street. Instead of implementing the ILO convention 169
and fulfilling its commitment, the government of Nepal is now deliberately trying to
misinterpret the convention as a source of conflict.

1
Gurung (2009), Major Challenges for Implementing ILO Convention 169 in Nepal, available at
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/research/areas/intrel/projects/should-states-ratify-project/gurung-final-major-
challenges-of-ilo-implemen..pdf.
  Generating and transforming political will into work for bureaucracy - The civil servants
who are responsible for implementation often prioritize their personal benefit and benefit
to their own kin and clans rather depriving other citizens such as indigenous peoples.
 No mechanism is in place that specifically deals with the implementation of ILO
Convention 169.
 The role of mainstream media is not supportive to indigenous peoples' issues.
 Non-Support from the mainstream ‘Civil Society’: In Nepal civil society which is
controlled by the ruling social groups also actively denounce indigenous rights in many
ways.

As part of its implementation together with other ratified conventions, Nepal implemented 3
point strategy that entails: (1) Providing technical and financial assistance to the constituents and
stakeholders to effectively implement the provisions of ratified conventions; (2) supporting the
constituents’ initiatives to ratify conventions of national priorities (3)supporting policy and legal
reform.

It was narrated that the issues of indigenous peoples’ in Nepal are increasingly being seen as
part of a rights-based approach to development, along with issues related to caste and gender.
Likewise, it was observed that the indigenous peoples and government representatives are
increasingly participating in international processes related to indigenous peoples’ rights,
including in the Sessions of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and technical expert
meetings of various focus. But despite increase of awareness amongst concerned stakeholders,
there have been few incidents of activists misinterpreting the Convention and using it to raise
claims beyond the scope of the instrument. Thus, there is fairly widespread concern that failure to
raise awareness, to build capacity and implement the principles contained within the Convention
No. 169 and UNDRIP, in real terms, will see an increased potential for conflict. In order to address
these potential problems, it was stated that ILO together with a wide range of government and
indigenous civil partners will facilitate and support the implementation of the National Action Plan
of ILO Convention No 169 by building capacity of stakeholders at the local, district and central
levels for the implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights in the Nepali context.2

But there is a problem on the implementation in Nepal. On August 8 2016, The National
Human Rights Commission of Nepal is still asking the government to immediately approve and
implement the draft of the national action plan relating to ILO Convention 169. The
aforementioned action plan is made to ensure effective protection of indigenous nationalities’
rights; unfortunately it has been awaiting the government’s approval for the last 10 years. NHRC
Chair Anup Raj Sharma stated then that it was a matter of worry that the draft action plan remained
stuck in the Cabinet for so long.3 The NHRC also said that the protection of indigenous people’s
rights have not become effective because of the government’s failure to approve the action plan
even after a decade has passed after the endorsement of the convention.4

2
Nepal’s Decent Work Country Programme for 2013-2017 (2013), available at
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_mas/---
program/documents/genericdocument/wcms_562089.pdf
3
Implement ILO’s national work plan: NHRC (2016), The Himalayan Times, available at
https://thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/implement-ilos-national-work-plan-national-human-rights-
commission/.
4
NHRC urges govt to implement ILO Convention 169 Natioba Action Plan (2016), The Katmandu Post, available at
http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2016-08-08/nhrc-urges-govt-to-implement-ilo-convention-169-
national-action-plan.html