Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

17.11.2014 Views

206 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries • Fragmentation of FPIC process, so that limited impacts (such as exploration) will be subject to consent, but will then give de facto consent to much more significant operations; • “Transferring” a consent to a different company, even where this could significantly alter the project (which effectively allows companies to “buy a consent” that provides immunity from past wrongs); • Bribery of leaders; • Misreporting of meetings or misinterpretation of leaders’ wishes; • Creation or recognition of “false leaders” or tribal organizations; • Intimidation of leaders and/or communities (especially in militarized areas); • Continual repetition of successive FPIC processes until a community is worn down into giving their consent, a process that is referred to as being “dialogued to death.” 5 These abuses happen despite the law categorically defining FPIC as “the consensus of all members of [indigenous communities] to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices free from any external manipulation, interference, coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope or the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.” 6 It seems almost superfluous to point out that none of these all too common practices above seem to comply with the spirit of IPRA. The following is a quote from an Indian activist which effectively illustrates the negative feelings a “forced negotiation” can bring to a community (although it is focused on stakeholders, whereas the community should be viewed as more than that, as rights holders): The meaning of ‘stakeholder’ got ruined the day it got coined by Rio Tinto, a major mining multinational corporation, to give itself legitimacy and pose its demands of somebody else’s land as reasonable. The stakeholder engagement process is purported to be an exchange of information and

Chapter 2.4: Negotiations and Engagement with Companies 207 views between all parties concerned by one project. In fact, a ‘stakeholder engagement process’ stands for communities being continually told of companies’ plans and invited to modify them. But it does not mean that these communities are permitted to reject the projects per se. It does not mean that they are empowered to present their own development plans. 7 So, from an indigenous viewpoint the first element, if it is to be a real unforced negotiation of equals, is that it should entail an understanding of both indigenous culture, which is set within the framework of historical injustice. Therefore it must start with a recognition and respect for indigenous peoples’ rights, as codified in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). One of the clear starting points for that recognition is understanding that FPIC is a collective right for indigenous peoples, which is fundamental to indigenous peoples’ exercise of their right of self-determination with respect to developments affecting their lands, territories and natural resources. Article 26 of the UNDRIP clearly states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources [my emphasis] that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.” Article 32 then notes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.” 8 The Human Rights Committee has called upon states to act in accordance with article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasizing, in relation to indigenous peoples, that “the right to self-determination requires, inter alia, that all peoples must be able to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” 9 FPIC is an inherent right that belongs to members of indigenous peoples by virtue of their belonging to a people with internationally recognized collective rights. FPIC is not

Chapter 2.4: Negotiations <strong>and</strong> Engagement with Companies<br />

207<br />

views between all parties concerned by one project. In fact,<br />

a ‘stakeholder engagement process’ st<strong>and</strong>s for communities<br />

being continually told of companies’ plans <strong>and</strong> invited to<br />

modify them. But it does not mean that these communities<br />

are permitted to reject the projects per se. It does not mean<br />

that they are empowered to present their own development<br />

plans. 7<br />

So, from an indigenous viewpoint the first element, if it<br />

is to be a real unforced negotiation of equals, is that it should<br />

entail an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of both indigenous culture, which is<br />

set within the framework of historical injustice. Therefore it<br />

must start with a recognition <strong>and</strong> respect for indigenous peoples’<br />

rights, as codified in the UN Declaration on the Rights<br />

of <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong> (UNDRIP). One of the clear starting<br />

points for that recognition is underst<strong>and</strong>ing that FPIC is a<br />

collective right for indigenous peoples, which is fundamental<br />

to indigenous peoples’ exercise of their right of self-determination<br />

with respect to developments affecting their l<strong>and</strong>s,<br />

territories <strong>and</strong> natural resources.<br />

Article 26 of the UNDRIP clearly states that “<strong>Indigenous</strong><br />

peoples have the right to own, use, develop <strong>and</strong> control the<br />

l<strong>and</strong>s, territories <strong>and</strong> resources [my emphasis] that they possess<br />

by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation<br />

or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”<br />

Article 32 then notes that “<strong>Indigenous</strong> peoples have<br />

the right to determine <strong>and</strong> develop priorities <strong>and</strong> strategies<br />

for the development or use of their l<strong>and</strong>s or territories <strong>and</strong><br />

other resources.” 8<br />

The Human Rights Committee has called upon states to act<br />

in accordance with article 1, paragraph 2, of the International<br />

Covenant on Civil <strong>and</strong> Political Rights, emphasizing, in relation<br />

to indigenous peoples, that “the right to self-determination<br />

requires, inter alia, that all peoples must be able to freely<br />

dispose of their natural wealth <strong>and</strong> resources.” 9<br />

FPIC is an inherent right that belongs to members of<br />

indigenous peoples by virtue of their belonging to a people<br />

with internationally recognized collective rights. FPIC is not

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!