17.11.2014 Views

Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

134 <strong>Pitfalls</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Pipelines</strong>: <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong> <strong>and</strong> Extractive Industries<br />

At the national level, advocacy is likely to focus on either<br />

the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights (which would have a<br />

wider impact beyond relations to extractive industries, but<br />

would still have relevance to that subject) or advocating on<br />

issues around the extractive industries themselves. Sometimes<br />

the two will be the same, i.e., when there is legislation on free,<br />

prior, informed consent (FPIC), which is an issue both of selfdetermination<br />

but also affects the function of access to mineral<br />

resources. <strong>Indigenous</strong> peoples also have to deal at a national<br />

level with the issue of state-sanctioned violence, <strong>and</strong> the risk of<br />

criminalizing legitimate protest.<br />

2.2.1 Advocating for <strong>Indigenous</strong> Rights <strong>and</strong><br />

L<strong>and</strong><br />

As will be discussed in Chapters 2.7 to 2.9, there have been<br />

major advances with regard to indigenous rights in international<br />

norms <strong>and</strong> international or regional court decisions,<br />

generally flowing from the UN Declaration on the Rights of<br />

<strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong> (UNDRIP). It is, however, how these advances<br />

are implemented—or not—at the national level, which<br />

tends to most directly impact upon indigenous peoples. There<br />

is frequently a great deal of disparity in that implementation<br />

between countries, or indeed even within global regions.<br />

There are a number of states who are often quoted as having<br />

a more progressive framework for indigenous peoples. These<br />

states include the <strong>Philippine</strong>s, through its 1997 <strong>Indigenous</strong><br />

<strong>Peoples</strong> Rights Act (IPRA), which was based on the provisions<br />

of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong>.<br />

The Act recognizes the right of FPIC for indigenous peoples<br />

for all activities affecting their l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> territories, specifically<br />

including the exploration, development <strong>and</strong> use of natural<br />

resources. 1 Greenl<strong>and</strong>, which is increasingly viewed as an<br />

example of an indigenous self-governing state, had “a mutual<br />

right of veto” over mining projects in its 1978 Home Rule<br />

Act. This Act has been superseded by the Act on Greenl<strong>and</strong><br />

Self-Government, adopted 19 May 2009. This Act transfers

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!