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.

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

Conference delegates raised the fact that indigenous peoples<br />

had already seen decades of failed consultations, manipulation<br />

<strong>and</strong> imposed tribal councils. Now this same practice was<br />

continuing under the guise of “corporate social responsibility”<br />

<strong>and</strong> the co-option of the language of FPIC by companies, who<br />

hire anthropologists <strong>and</strong> consultants to come in to manipulate<br />

communities. There was a risk that this was resulting in the<br />

creation of new divisions in communities, while according<br />

greater power to corporations <strong>and</strong> detracting from the fundamental<br />

question of l<strong>and</strong> rights.<br />

A number of participants raised the fact that even where<br />

there were laws around consultation, these consultations<br />

were not conducted in an appropriate or adequate manner<br />

<strong>and</strong> compensation was often not provided to communities. It<br />

was therefore crucial to empower communities on how to use<br />

available laws to advocate <strong>and</strong> lobby for their rights.<br />

Ms Simms gave a specific example of a l<strong>and</strong> claim where<br />

consent was incorporated as a binding requirement for entry<br />

<strong>and</strong> access within the context of the Inuit peoples’ 1993<br />

Nunavut Final Agreement (NFA). In the context of a planned<br />

uranium mine within the NFA territory, however, it appears<br />

that consent is only being granted at the “executive level,” i.e.,<br />

by the Designated or Regional Inuit Organization. Meanwhile<br />

at the community level there is generally only consultation<br />

without the requirement for consent. As a result, issues such<br />

as impacts to traditional livelihoods <strong>and</strong> the compatibility<br />

of mining with the worldvision of the people have not been<br />

addressed.<br />

Another example provided by Ms Simms of where consent<br />

had been entrenched in laws <strong>and</strong> agreements was the 2002<br />

Yukon Oil <strong>and</strong> Gas Act <strong>and</strong> the bilateral agreements that were<br />

signed in 2003 between the Government of Yukon <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Kaska Nation, which required consent for all new developments<br />

in their territories. Ms Simms pointed out, however,<br />

that the context had recently changed in the Yukon with the<br />

government attempting to move away from the requirement<br />

to obtain consent <strong>and</strong> objecting to the terminology of FPIC<br />

on the grounds that it is perceived as being primarily a veto<br />

power.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!