A/75/185 did not take into account the systemic barriers faced by recipients. Some Governments relied entirely on civil society or volunteers to ensure the care of indigenous peoples. 45. Health support and economic relief for indigenous peoples, where it took place, was generally arranged months after the first declared cases of COVID -19 in spite of the predictable disproportionate impact on indigenous populations. The response was rarely developed in concert with indigenous authorities or organizations and was often part of a wider strategy for “vulnerable” groups. As a result, these responses failed to adequately take into account their specific needs across their various lifestyles or whether they live in their communities, in urban settings, in voluntary isolation or in initial contact. For example, remote indigenous communities from the Amazon reported facing a dilemma in deciding whether to take the risk of contracting COVID-19 by travelling to cities on public transport to collect financial assistance to which they were entitled. 61 46. Some Governments have adopted specific responses, with variable levels of participation by indigenous peoples. Financial support has in some cases been channelled through intermediary government agencies, instead of directly to affected communities, and excluded peoples living off-reserve or in urban settings. 47. Some positive examples exist. In El Salvador, it was reported that efforts by indigenous communities to create communication channels with municipalities had in some cases yielded benefits, resulting in coordination with the local government on developing and implementing appropriate measures. 62 In Canada, Indigenous Services Canada is financially supporting each indigenous community in developing its own emergency response plan. 63 In Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group on COVID-19 provides culturally appropriate advice on COVID-19 to the Department of Health, including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and communities. In Mexico and Paraguay, the Governments have supported shelter initiatives for families of indigenous patients staying in cities while they receive treatment in hospitals. 64 In Costa Rica, guidelines and an action plan for the prevention of COVID-19 in indigenous territories were adopted in the early stages of the pandemic, including specific guidance for the care of indigenous patients in health centres. 48. Inclusion and participation are essential to preserve distinct ancestral cultures, knowledge and practices, which can be compromised by the imposition of measures that do not acknowledge the specific role and characteristics of indigenous peoples. Governments should support measures that indigenous communities have themselves judged appropriate in application of their collective right to autonomy and selfgovernance. In order to ensure timely and culturally appropriate responses by States with regard to a pandemic or any other crisis, indigenous peoples, in all their diversities, need to be included at the early stages of contingency planning. 49. As highlighted in an article in The Lancet: “Investing in [indigenous communities’] health is an investment in all of our futures. Valuing the unique contribution of such communities demands that our goal with respect to their well-being should not simply be that they survive this pandemic, but that they thrive after it.” 65 __________________ 61 62 63 64 65 14/27 Submission by Rede Pró-Yanomami e Ye’kwana. Submission by Consejo Coordinador Nacional Indígena Salvadoreño. Submissions by Chiefs of Ontario and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Submissions by Mexico and Paraguay. Kaitlin Kurtice and Esther Choo, “Indigenous populations: left behind in the COVID -19 response”, The Lancet, vol. 395 (6 June 2020). Available at https://www.thelancet.com/ action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931242-3. 20-09737