A/HRC/36/53 Livelihoods and Rights of Pastoralist Communities is aimed at reinforcing the contribution of pastoral livestock to national, regional and continent-wide economies. 46. Indigenous economic models are becoming increasingly valued as they offer proven examples of sustainable development. Indigenous peoples’ strong affiliation to the natural environment is one of the reasons for their survival and many indigenous peoples are adept at reading early warning signals of global warming and other indicators of environmental change. For the future of the planet, State policies and actions should recognize the important role that indigenous economies and business models play in promoting sustainable development practices. III. Practices 47. Encouraging practices are emerging from various actors seeking to address discrimination against indigenous peoples’ economic activities or businesses, including from indigenous peoples themselves. A. States 48. States hold primary accountability for providing support to indigenous peoples’ economic activities, as stated in article 21 of the Declaration, and are addressing the issue of discrimination against indigenous peoples’ businesses or economic activities in different ways, some of which are outlined below. 1. Addressing discrimination against indigenous peoples’ businesses through recognition and protection of rights over lands and resources 49. Land rights legislation that has supported indigenous peoples’ economic development include the Maori Fisheries Act of 2004 in New Zealand and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. They illustrate the complexity of enacting legislation to remedy the legacies of dispossession in the modern era. For example, while the latter “settled” vast indigenous land claims in Alaska through substantial monetary payments and title to certain lands, it has been criticized for imposing Western-style corporate models on traditional Alaska Native communities, paving the way for widespread natural resource development by outsiders, and failing to respect indigenous territorial jurisdiction, with mixed results including decades of litigation on indigenous rights to selfgovernance and other matters. To date, many Alaska Natives continue to suffer high rates of poverty, domestic violence, suicide and other social ills, with some of those problems compounded by the jurisdictional legacy of the Act. Yet, Alaska Native corporations are successful along various metrics. For example, NANA, one of 13 regional corporations created by the Act, has a business arm and subsidiaries that employ more than 15,000 people from around the world and in 2015 had an annual revenue of $1.6 billion.16 NANA also emphasizes indigenous values, including cooperation, family, spirituality and hunting, known collectively as “Iñupiat Ilitquisat”, in its activities.17 50. Another notable business initiative associated with legislative reform is Moana New Zealand, a Maori fisheries company, established following the Treaty of Waitangi settlements of Maori claims to marine resources. Those legislative settlements, dating back to 1989, also faced their share of criticism and litigation over the question of whether the Government had effectively consulted with Maori pursuant to indigenous governing norms. Yet, by 2007, Maori owned an estimated 40 per cent of the New Zealand seafood industry.18 Those and other examples demonstrate the economic potential that flows from 16 17 18 10 See www.nana.com/regional/about-us/nana-faq/. See http://nana.com/regional/about-us/mission/values/. See Melanie Durette, “Indigenous property rights in commercial fisheries: Canada, New Zealand and Australia compared”, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) Working Paper No. 42/2008 (Canberra, CAEPR, 2007). See also Erin McKenzie, “Aotearoa Fisheries rebrands to Moana New Zealand to deliver premium Kiwi seafood to the world”, Idealog, 15 July 2016. Available from