Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
320 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries Conference delegates raised the fact that indigenous peoples had already seen decades of failed consultations, manipulation and imposed tribal councils. Now this same practice was continuing under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and the co-option of the language of FPIC by companies, who hire anthropologists and consultants to come in to manipulate communities. There was a risk that this was resulting in the creation of new divisions in communities, while according greater power to corporations and detracting from the fundamental question of land rights. A number of participants raised the fact that even where there were laws around consultation, these consultations were not conducted in an appropriate or adequate manner and compensation was often not provided to communities. It was therefore crucial to empower communities on how to use available laws to advocate and lobby for their rights. Ms Simms gave a specific example of a land claim where consent was incorporated as a binding requirement for entry and access within the context of the Inuit peoples’ 1993 Nunavut Final Agreement (NFA). In the context of a planned uranium mine within the NFA territory, however, it appears that consent is only being granted at the “executive level,” i.e., by the Designated or Regional Inuit Organization. Meanwhile at the community level there is generally only consultation without the requirement for consent. As a result, issues such as impacts to traditional livelihoods and the compatibility of mining with the worldvision of the people have not been addressed. Another example provided by Ms Simms of where consent had been entrenched in laws and agreements was the 2002 Yukon Oil and Gas Act and the bilateral agreements that were signed in 2003 between the Government of Yukon and the Kaska Nation, which required consent for all new developments in their territories. Ms Simms pointed out, however, that the context had recently changed in the Yukon with the government attempting to move away from the requirement to obtain consent and objecting to the terminology of FPIC on the grounds that it is perceived as being primarily a veto power.
Chapter 2.8: Importance of Free, Prior and Informed Consent 321 The issue of FPIC as a veto comes up time and again with the extractive industries. The argument deployed is that FPIC could be the veto of just one individual in a community. It is clear that FPIC is expressed as a collective right, however, manifest in the traditional decision making system of the peoples concerned. How consent is reached within indigenous communities is subject to the norms and traditions of collective decision making. But more importantly, FPIC is inextricably linked to a whole range of rights protected by international law, including rights to self-determination, development, cultural identity, autonomy, and participation. Conflating FPIC simply with a veto right ignores the range of other rights that require the implementation of FPIC in order to be upheld. 17 Another issue is that too often extractive projects are justified—with an accompanying denial of indigenous rights— under the guise of “national development.” The argument is that such “development” supersedes the rights of communities to defend their more sustainable economy and values. This not only ignores the basis of “rights-based development,” but it specifically denies the right of indigenous peoples to FPIC. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights clearly states that “while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.” 18 Oxfam Australia points out that respect for the right of FPIC is not only consistent with the principles of good governance, it is essential to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals of halving world poverty by 2015. 19 Indigenous peoples are often at great pains to emphasize that they are not anti-development. It is control over development that is the key issue. Their reservations about extractive industry projects on their territories have more to do with unrecognized land rights, the legacies of previous extractive projects, and a lack of evidence that their community will obtain more benefits than costs. An Afro-Colombian leader puts it well by saying that “Free, prior and informed consent should be in the relationship about how we see our right to development… When we say ‘no,’ we are saying we have different rights to different paths.” 20
- Page 298 and 299: 270 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 300 and 301: 272 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 302 and 303: 274 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 304 and 305: 276 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 306 and 307: 278 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 308 and 309: 280 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 310 and 311: 282 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 312 and 313: 284 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 314 and 315: 286 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 316 and 317: 288 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 318 and 319: 290 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 320 and 321: 292 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 322 and 323: 294 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 324 and 325: 296 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 326 and 327: 298 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 328 and 329: 300 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 330 and 331: 302 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 332 and 333: 304 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 334 and 335: 306 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 336 and 337: 308 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 338 and 339: 310 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 340 and 341: 312 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 342 and 343: 314 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 344 and 345: 316 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 346 and 347: 318 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 350 and 351: 322 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 352 and 353: 324 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 354 and 355: 326 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 356 and 357: 328 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 358 and 359: 330 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 360 and 361: 332 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 362 and 363: 334 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 364 and 365: 336 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 366 and 367: 338 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 368 and 369: 340 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 370 and 371: 342 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 372 and 373: 344 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 374 and 375: 346 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 376 and 377: 348 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 378 and 379: 350 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 380 and 381: 352 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 382 and 383: 354 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 384 and 385: 356 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 386 and 387: 358 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 388 and 389: 360 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 390 and 391: 362 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 392 and 393: 364 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 394 and 395: 366 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 396 and 397: 368 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
Chapter 2.8: Importance of Free, Prior <strong>and</strong> Informed Consent<br />
321<br />
The issue of FPIC as a veto comes up time <strong>and</strong> again with<br />
the extractive industries. The argument deployed is that FPIC<br />
could be the veto of just one individual in a community. It<br />
is clear that FPIC is expressed as a collective right, however,<br />
manifest in the traditional decision making system of the peoples<br />
concerned. How consent is reached within indigenous<br />
communities is subject to the norms <strong>and</strong> traditions of collective<br />
decision making. But more importantly, FPIC is inextricably<br />
linked to a whole range of rights protected by international<br />
law, including rights to self-determination, development, cultural<br />
identity, autonomy, <strong>and</strong> participation. Conflating FPIC<br />
simply with a veto right ignores the range of other rights that<br />
require the implementation of FPIC in order to be upheld. 17<br />
Another issue is that too often extractive projects are justified—with<br />
an accompanying denial of indigenous rights—<br />
under the guise of “national development.” The argument is<br />
that such “development” supersedes the rights of communities<br />
to defend their more sustainable economy <strong>and</strong> values. This<br />
not only ignores the basis of “rights-based development,” but<br />
it specifically denies the right of indigenous peoples to FPIC.<br />
The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights clearly<br />
states that “while development facilitates the enjoyment of all<br />
human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to<br />
justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human<br />
rights.” 18 Oxfam Australia points out that respect for the right<br />
of FPIC is not only consistent with the principles of good governance,<br />
it is essential to the achievement of the Millennium<br />
Development Goals of halving world poverty by 2015. 19<br />
<strong>Indigenous</strong> peoples are often at great pains to emphasize that<br />
they are not anti-development. It is control over development<br />
that is the key issue. Their reservations about extractive industry<br />
projects on their territories have more to do with unrecognized<br />
l<strong>and</strong> rights, the legacies of previous extractive projects,<br />
<strong>and</strong> a lack of evidence that their community will obtain more<br />
benefits than costs. An Afro-Colombian leader puts it well by<br />
saying that “Free, prior <strong>and</strong> informed consent should be in<br />
the relationship about how we see our right to development…<br />
When we say ‘no,’ we are saying we have different rights to<br />
different paths.” 20