FPP letter of protest to the Supreme
Court of India
17 January 2008
To:
The Honorable Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, Arjit Pasayat,
and
S.H. Kapadia, on the Forest Bench, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi 110001, India
Appeal to protect Niyamgiri and the Dongria
Kondh Adivasis from bauxite mining by Sterlite-Vedanta
Honourable Sirs,
We are writing with a high level of concern regarding the case of
Niyamgiri, where Sterlite-Vedanta is trying to get mining clearance.
We understand that the company is awaiting judgement from the Supreme
Court of India on whether the mining clearance will be issued.
We are an international Non-Governmental Organization based in the
UK working to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples
and forest-dependent peoples. We are particularly concerned with the
case before you at the moment, as we feel that the views and perspectives
of indigenous and tribal peoples' have not been properly heard at
the court, and their livelihoods as well as their religious and cultural
traditions are likely to be effectively destroyed if the planned mining
goes ahead.
This would violate the 5th Schedule of India's Constitution, and
the recently enacted Forest Rights Act, as well as international laws
and standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples passed by the General Assembly in September 2007. We would
also like to draw your attention to the recent decision of the Supreme
Court of Belize vis-à-vis the applicability of the Declaration in
national courts, where the Court ruled that:
…this Declaration, embodying as it does, general principles of
international law relating to indigenous peoples and their lands
and resources, is of such force that the defendants, representing
the Government of Belize, will not disregard it. … In Article
42 of the Declaration, the United Nations, its bodies and
specialized agencies including at the country level, and states,
are enjoined to promote respect for and full application of the
Declaration’s provision and to follow up its effectiveness.
It should be noted that India voted in favour of the Declaration.
We understand the vital necessity to balance environmental protection,
social and human rights concerns and development objectives. However
the currently proposed mining operations can not be termed 'sustainable'
in any way and proposed compensatory schemes are insufficient. The
area under consideration, we understand, is an area in which communities
and peoples are living in remote communities according to customary
land and resource management systems. Allowing mining clearances in
these areas would irreversibly distort and damage such systems, and
the cultures from which they emerge.
Further to these concerns regarding the rights of indigenous and
tribal peoples, we are also concerned about the implications under
India's new Forest Rights Act. We understand that the summit of Niyam
Dongar is covered by primary forest - a unique forest area in Orissa,
at an altitude of 4,000 feet and with a very high level of biodiversity.
We understand that the document presented by the Ministry of Environment
& Forests to your court on 5th October stated that re-afforestation
plans involving plantations would "enhance the forest cover"
in the area. We consider this to be a reflection of a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role and importance of biological diversity,
and a misunderstanding of national commitments under the Convention
on Biological Diversity.
The religious significance of the area proposed to be covered by
the mining concession is very high, as it is considered sacred to
the Dongria people. This religious significance and the protection
provided by the Dongria in the name of their god, Niyam Raja, 'King
of Law', is one of the reasons for the high forest level retained
on the summit of this mountain. The Dongria have a taboo against felling
any trees on the summit of the mountain and we are told that it is
today the best-forested of the bauxite-capped mountains in Orissa.
With such religious and cultural significance, it is clear to us
that financial payments for "tribal development" or other
compensation packages would be ill-placed to replace that which would
be lost if mining was allowed to take place on the mountain. In particular,
we would like to emphasize that indigenous and tribal peoples have
the right to self-determination, and the right to give or withhold
consent to development initiatives on their traditional and customary
lands. Without the consent of the Dongria people, allowing this mining
clearance to be passed would constitute a violation of international
law.
We would also like to restate concerns about the past record of Vedanta-Sterlite,
the company petitioning for the mining clearance. We understand that
in your Order of 23rd November you accepted that Vedanta has established
a bad reputation in India & worldwide for its record on the environment
as well as human rights. We would like to draw attention to the linkages
between Vedanta and Sterlite and that a black-listing of one should
apply equally to the other.
For the above reasons, we respectfully ask that the mining clearance
is not provided for the proposed site.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Leake
Policy Advisor
|
