Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

190 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries
The forced evictions of people to make way for the refinery and the
threatened evictions over the proposed mine resulted in a massive
mobilization of local indigenous peoples. There were protest rallies and
demonstrations, including a 17 km-long “human wall.” The campaign
also reached out to national and international partners, and resulted in a
number of legal actions.58
In September 2005, an inquiry by a leading advisory committee to
India’s Supreme Court (the Central Empowered Committee, or CEC)
concluded that inter alia Vedanta had “falsified information” to obtain
environmental clearances for the alumina refinery under construction
on plains below the mountain. The company had also destroyed more
than 10 hectares of forest land. The CEC urged the mining venture be
rejected on environmental grounds, and also because it would violate the
constitutional rights of the Kondh people. 59
Despite the CEC’s forthright recommendation, during the succeeding five
years, Vedanta continued battling to clear the mining project. Meanwhile
many Khonds rose up in vociferous opposition to what they perceived
as an unprecedented threat to their land and livelihoods. The strength of
their campaign attracted the backing of leading Indian human rights and
environmental NGOs and of international organizations such as Amnesty
International and ActionAid. 60
The UK-based tribal peoples’ campaign group, Survival International,
submitted in September 2009 a complaint about Vedanta’s activities
around Lanjigarh to the UK Government’s National Contact Point
(NCP) for a ruling under guidelines set by the OECD for the conduct of
multinational corporations. 61 The NCP ruled that Vedanta “did not respect
the rights of the Dongria Kondh”; did not “consider the impact of the
construction of the mine on the [tribe’s] rights”; and “failed to put in place
an adequate and timely consultation mechanism.”
The UK government body concluded that a “change in the company’s
behavior” was “essential.” Moreover, it criticized Vedanta for “fail[ing]
to provide any evidence during the examination”—despite repeated
requests. According to Survival International, this was “the only time a
[UK] company has refused to participate in an OECD investigation.” 62
In February 2010, Amnesty International published detailed allegations of
the company’s social and environmental violations in the Lanjigarh area,
which Vedanta has neglected to answer. 63