Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
326 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries Under the Australian Native Title Legislation, the bar to proving that indigenous peoples have a strong connection to their land has been set extremely high, and the hoops that we have to go through are many. As a result the desire to opt out of the litigation process for something less onerous had become very attractive. And that something was negotiation—not only with the government but also with industries that could offer economic benefits. But that meant using native title rights as a bargaining chip for economic gain. We had put that bargaining chip on the roulette table and what had been coming up black was coming up red; that native title chip had become worthless, and for some, there was no chance of winning it back. Free, prior and informed consent is all very well in an international convention, but the reality is, Australian legislation such as the Native Title Act, does not allow those rights in their full capacity. Under the Native Title Act, traditional owners have what is called the “right to negotiate” for certain activities such as mining to occur on their land. But this right to negotiate is about how that activity proceeds; it does not provide the right to negotiate on whether the activity proceeds or not. In other words, traditional owners do not have the right to veto over mining projects as is implied under free, prior and informed consent—we do not have the right to say “no.” Traditional owners have had to negotiate deals for the best terms they could achieve because if they did not negotiate, the mining activity was going to go ahead anyway, regardless of their views. This reality recently became startlingly clear. The Western Australian government announced that they would resort to compulsory acquisition of land in the Kimberley region if there could not be a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) agreement reached with the local Aboriginal people for access to land for the development of a LNG processing precinct. This idea had been investigated since the discovery of gas reserves in the Browse Basin several years ago. The precinct could provide hundreds of jobs, millions of investment dollars and a long-term economic diversification for Broome and the West Kimberley Region of Western Australia. Plants in the precinct would process gas from the Browse Basin, located some 400 km offshore. Estimates of the extent of the reserves are around 27.5 trillion cubic feet of gas and 600 million barrels of condensate, with an expected project life of some 40 years. Several resource companies will be involved in the extraction of the gas with individual companies needing a mainland plant in order to process the LNG before exporting to international markets. This would have meant that individual companies would require different sites for the development of their own processing plants.
Chapter 2.8: Importance of Free, Prior and Informed Consent 327 The project has also presented an opportunity for Kimberley traditional owners to negotiate access to traditional lands. Negotiations continued in earnest over many months to secure an appropriate site to locate the single precinct. Not only do traditional owners want to ensure their cultural lands are protected with minimal damage to the environment, but the project would potentially provide economic opportunities never before seen in the region for local indigenous communities. The area in question has significant cultural and environmental values; it is close to a humpback whale nursery and is considered to be part of a pristine environment that many Australians believe should be preserved. Until September last year, and probably for the first time in the Western Australian State Government’s history, Kimberley traditional owners were negotiating under the true spirit of free, prior and informed consent— including the right to veto any site that they deemed to be culturally unacceptable. Much work had been done and four sites had been shortlisted as potentially suitable, subject to social and environmental impact assessments. And then, at the end of 2008, everything changed when a new State Government came to power with different political views. Embarrassed by the loss of a Japanese company to the Northern Territory, which meant fewer royalties for the state, they immediately removed the right to veto for indigenous peoples, announced a preferred site for the precinct, and insisted that agreement be reached for that site by the traditional owners by the end of March 2009, at the time within a three month period. This in itself was debilitating news, but there were also many debilitating factors with such a short timeframe. It fell during cultural law time where traditional owners have family and cultural obligations and it also fell over the wettest period of the tropical rainy season, which makes it difficult and sometimes even impossible for travel to consultation meetings from remote areas. During this time, rains are so heavy that some indigenous communities get cut off from the rest of the country with roads becoming impassable. The Kimberley Land Council is the indigenous native title representative body that is tasked with navigating the diverse views within communities and trying to reach an acceptable balance between traditional owners’ cultural values and the government’s demands. Wayne Bergmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Land Council, was openly critical of the process: “Almost all of the major communities in the Kimberley are among the most disadvantaged quarter of all indigenous communities. This was
- 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 348 and 349: 320 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 350 and 351: 322 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 352 and 353: 324 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
- Page 398 and 399: 370 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 400 and 401: 372 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 402 and 403: 374 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
326 <strong>Pitfalls</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Pipelines</strong>: <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong> <strong>and</strong> Extractive Industries<br />
Under the Australian Native Title Legislation, the bar to proving that<br />
indigenous peoples have a strong connection to their l<strong>and</strong> has been set<br />
extremely high, <strong>and</strong> the hoops that we have to go through are many.<br />
As a result the desire to opt out of the litigation process for something<br />
less onerous had become very attractive. And that something was<br />
negotiation—not only with the government but also with industries that<br />
could offer economic benefits. But that meant using native title rights as<br />
a bargaining chip for economic gain. We had put that bargaining chip on<br />
the roulette table <strong>and</strong> what had been coming up black was coming up red;<br />
that native title chip had become worthless, <strong>and</strong> for some, there was no<br />
chance of winning it back.<br />
Free, prior <strong>and</strong> informed consent is all very well in an international<br />
convention, but the reality is, Australian legislation such as the Native Title<br />
Act, does not allow those rights in their full capacity. Under the Native<br />
Title Act, traditional owners have what is called the “right to negotiate”<br />
for certain activities such as mining to occur on their l<strong>and</strong>. But this right<br />
to negotiate is about how that activity proceeds; it does not provide the<br />
right to negotiate on whether the activity proceeds or not. In other words,<br />
traditional owners do not have the right to veto over mining projects as is<br />
implied under free, prior <strong>and</strong> informed consent—we do not have the right<br />
to say “no.” Traditional owners have had to negotiate deals for the best<br />
terms they could achieve because if they did not negotiate, the mining<br />
activity was going to go ahead anyway, regardless of their views.<br />
This reality recently became startlingly clear. The Western Australian<br />
government announced that they would resort to compulsory acquisition<br />
of l<strong>and</strong> in the Kimberley region if there could not be a Liquid Natural Gas<br />
(LNG) agreement reached with the local Aboriginal people for access to<br />
l<strong>and</strong> for the development of a LNG processing precinct. This idea had<br />
been investigated since the discovery of gas reserves in the Browse Basin<br />
several years ago. The precinct could provide hundreds of jobs, millions<br />
of investment dollars <strong>and</strong> a long-term economic diversification for Broome<br />
<strong>and</strong> the West Kimberley Region of Western Australia. Plants in the<br />
precinct would process gas from the Browse Basin, located some 400 km<br />
offshore. Estimates of the extent of the reserves are around 27.5 trillion<br />
cubic feet of gas <strong>and</strong> 600 million barrels of condensate, with an expected<br />
project life of some 40 years. Several resource companies will be involved<br />
in the extraction of the gas with individual companies needing a mainl<strong>and</strong><br />
plant in order to process the LNG before exporting to international<br />
markets. This would have meant that individual companies would require<br />
different sites for the development of their own processing plants.