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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

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

of local farmers who were beaten, threatened, hooded, <strong>and</strong><br />

held captive after being attacked by the police during a march<br />

by farmers against the Rio Blanco copper mine in Peru. Two<br />

women were sexually abused <strong>and</strong> five claimants were shot,<br />

one losing an eye. The case was taken before the UK High<br />

Court, but the company settled for an undisclosed amount<br />

before the case came to trial. One of the lawyers involved,<br />

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day <strong>and</strong> Co., noted, “This constitutes<br />

a salutary lesson for multinationals operating in developing<br />

countries.” 32<br />

Stuart Kirsch in the 2009 Manila Conference, reviewed<br />

the lessons learned from the case of the OK Tedi copper <strong>and</strong><br />

gold mine in Papua New Guinea. By the early 1990s the Ok<br />

Tedi River had been declared almost biologically dead following<br />

the annual dumping of some 90 million tons of mine<br />

waste in the river by the Australian company BHP. In 1994<br />

the people living downstream from the mine took a legal case<br />

against BHP in Australia. The Government of Papua New<br />

Guinea, allegedly at the behest of BHP, responded by drafting<br />

legislation criminalizing the taking of legal action against<br />

them in foreign courts.<br />

The Australian court decided that it could not hear a case<br />

of damage to property in another country <strong>and</strong> instead focused<br />

on the fact that the mine had violated the peoples’ subsistence<br />

rights. The case was eventually settled out of court in1996.<br />

Mr Kirsch argued that the court’s recognition of subsistence<br />

rights under common law was an important precedent that<br />

could be invoked elsewhere. He also maintained that focusing<br />

on subsistence rights was a good approach to addressing<br />

impacts of extractive projects, as these rights are based on<br />

indigenous practices. He suggested that better mechanisms to<br />

compile <strong>and</strong> circulate relevant legal precedents were necessary.<br />

As part of the settlement reached in the OK Tedi case<br />

BHP agreed to build tailing facilities, <strong>and</strong> more than $1billion<br />

has been lodged in a trust fund. Most of this money, however,<br />

goes to the state, with very little of it reaching the impacted<br />

indigenous peoples. In addition, the mining company failed<br />

to stop discharging mine wastes into the river <strong>and</strong> the mine<br />

has continued operating—<strong>and</strong> polluting the river—in order

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!