Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

204 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries
It appears that much of the pressure to focus primarily on
promoting “best practice” comes primarily from the industry.
The companies would seem to be the main beneficiary from
ensuring that agreements are made, and projects move forward.
There is also enthusiasm, however, for the idea from
governments, donors and international agencies. As such, it
may be worth considering if some of the donor energy and
funds could be better utilized in community-focused capacity
building for indigenous organizations.
The reason there are mainstream indigenous suspicions
around this agenda may be because there are many different
interpretations of what is meant by “best practice.” It seems
that the examples of so-called “best practice” for extractive
industries tend to be given by the companies themselves. They
therefore illustrate best practice from an industry perspective.
The case study of Vale-Inco’s Goro nickel mine has been cited
as best practice by Vale; yet it is clear that indigenous communities
are less than satisfied with it as an example of a free negotiation.
2 There are clear examples of cases being talked of as
best practice, only to later discover severe problems. Examples
of this include the Red Dog mine in Alaska, and the Tintaya
roundtable in Peru. 3 It may therefore be worth separating out
the different viewpoints on good negotiations.
Before doing so it is worth pointing out that although
the idea of community engagement is now fairly widespread,
its practical application is neither widespread nor consistent.
While governments may require extractive industry companies
to implement some type of community engagement in
projects, they do not necessarily provide guidance on how to
do it. Unless they are allowed to use traditional processes—
which rarely happens—communities are less likely to have an
idea of how an “engagement process” should work, and can
then be dragged along in a dialogue process which is neither
participatory or informed. 4