| Abridged
Minutes for the International Workshop on Indigenous Peoples, the Extractive Industries and the World Bank |
|
Day 1 Introductions Some participants were unable to attend due
to the international political climate and the obstruction of visa issuing
authorities. Presentation on the Extractive Industries Review Dr Emil Salim -
Background to the EIR: Launched by the World Bank
following the Annual Fall Meetings in - Outline of the consultative process and predicted outline of the final report - Outline of the Terms of Reference Case study 1: The Philippines Raymundo Rovillos Panel: Rodion
Sulyandziga and Robert Goodland Impacts of the World Bank-influenced 1995 Mining Code on
indigenous communities in the - Philippine
mining code “reform” part of a globally influential package of “reform”
developed inside the Bank - lack of appropriate consultation and participation: Didipio case - widespread misuse/abuse of the principle of free prior and informed consent (FPIC), which is included in the Code: see Didipio case plus others - militarization including unacceptable tie up between companies and military concern expressed by UN Special Rapporteur Recommendations: - scrap Mining Code of 1995 - moratorium on new extractive projects - recognition and respect for IP rights and views - respect for local government views - ban on unacceptable technologies STD , open pit plus others - the World Bank (WBG) should support agriculture rather than mining if it is truly promoting indigenous development. Mining not a priority - Minimum prior confidence building measures including Justice for past victims, restoration of devastated sites, return land to IPs Panel reactions: - who really benefits from development in IP territory? - Prior consultation is essential, although details of FPIC must be more fully discussed - Involuntary resettlement is unacceptable - Bank must start directly addressing poverty rather than creating more poverty - Need to begin using performance bonds as insurance against negative social/environmental outcomes - Need to ensure possible and viable access to courts for affected peoples - Need to create a level playing field between indigenous peoples (IPs) and the government and private sector - IPs want selected “developments” under their control. Don't want forced external model that is destructive Dr Salim reactions: - Conflict between WBG policies promoting capitalist approach and its mandate of poverty alleviation. Is there a possible approach which benefits the poor rather than private interests? - How can citizens be heard? Do governments merely follow what the WBG says? - Concern at fabricated consent Floor: - What is poverty for IPs, and who defines it? IPs don't feel poor in some areas-eg housing etc. What kind of ‘poverty alleviation’ do IPs really want? -
FPIC is present in Mining Code and the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act ( -
It was pointed out: (i) the WBG is not a
direct funder of Philippine reform but takes the point that has been widely
instrumental in promoting reform; (ii) IFC did not fund and does not endorse
Didipio project; (iii) we have to have limited expectations: the Bank is not a
social work organisation. Its strength is in dealing with growth and
development, and there are limitations to what can be done in terms of poverty
reduction. It is not the only organisation working on this and we have to keep
realistic expectations. The Bank has recently been exaggerating its Public
Relations in terms of poverty, because it has been discovered that poverty
reduction is the Bank's mandate, but even internally, we have to be realistic. -
Under what circumstances can mining be undertaken on IP
lands? Case Study 2: Colombia Armando Valbuena Wouriyu Panel: Ingrid
MacDonald, Matilda Koma and Saleem Ali Impacts of WBG policies on the Mining Code: - Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) of the WBG: consultations were a travesty - Severe problems of lack of democracy, corruption in the government, state terrorism, government-induced racial discrimination and civil conflict, with terrible/tragic outcomes for the indigenous communities - Bank supports corruption - Conflict between existing constitutional legislation regarding IP right protection and new mining code, the latter permitting violations of the former. - As a result of the new mining code, mining operations are increasingly illegal, with increasing numbers of guerrilla groups, mercenaries, and violations of state-recognised indigenous territories (resguardos), leading to displacement - Mining companies drafted the mining code: how can they be impartial? Recommendations - IFI’s should withdraw funds from abusive companies which do not respect human rights - Explorations should be prohibited in resguardos - Non- compliers should be brought to justice Panel reactions: - link between poverty reduction, mining, corruption and violations of IP rights must be scrutinised (52% mining revenues go to corruption) - lack of coordination between IFIs - issue of IP empowerment and representation. IPs can manage their own development but loans go to TNCs . Even when micro projects seem to be an alternative they more promote globalising economic integration rather than local control -
In Dr Salim reactions: - bad governance: should the WBG be involved at all in countries where governance is so bad? - what are the roles of the Colombia Executive Director and the WBG ombudsman in such situations? - What needs to be done so that social and environmental issues (Environmentally and Socially Sustainably Development – ESSD – of WBG) are also taken into account by the WBG, not simply growth? Floor: - ESSD rarely have operational activities, and WBG is very slow at mainstreaming such issues into projects - WBG has a list of no-go countries such as Burma/Myanmar, where governance is seriously wanting. But in weakly governed countries should the WBG enter in a different capacity? - Monitoring and accountability mechanisms should be incorporated throughout WBG involvement with a state - IPs feel they are being “dialogued to death”: real action is now imperative - WBG should use its significant political leverage to a greater extent, to protect IPs - Companies recipient of WBG funds should also be screened for corruption - Affected IP should be part of this screening process - WBG is subject of international law, and should recognise this - Compliance to safeguard policies is severely wanting in WBG projects and this consistent problem should be addressed - . There is a governance problem inside the Bank Case Study 3: Cameroon Jeanne Nouah, Joachim Gwodog and Didier Amougou Panel: Kathryn
MacPhail, Tricia Feeney and Armando Wouriyu Impact of WBG funding of Chad-Cameroon pipeline on Bagyéli communities - consultations extremely deficient, IP rights not respected - existing land and discrimination conflicts between Bantu and Bagyéli exacerbated by flawed individual and community compensation plans, Bagyéli cheated, Bagyéli now banned from certain areas - fundamental grievance: unfulfilled promises (health, education, identity cards, houses etc) - Impoverishment :loss of hunting grounds, animals have moved away, river severely polluted -
Bagyéli communities are fearful of potential violence
and bloodshed resulting from oil passing through their lands (such as was the
case in Recommendations - WBG should address pressing issue of land rights - Consultations should be more culturally appropriate - All promises should be made good especially Bagyéli need for viable forest homeland -
Respect for Bagyéli as full citizens of Panel reactions: - fundamental issue: appropriate distribution of benefits, on national and local level - capacity building is essential - Shameful extremely deficient social analysis, need culturally appropriate mechanisms for implementation of sustainable development - Rights based approach says needs of the most disadvantaged group should be addressed first, in line with Millennium Development Goals. Not happening because of lack of political will - Participation levels = shear tokenism - need clear chain of command within project staff to ensure accountability Dr Salim reactions: - government should be at the forefront of development, not WBG, otherwise the latter takes on the role of a neo-colonial power - monitoring mechanisms: what is the extent of their success and utilisation? Floor: - in situations where governance is weak, IPs have no recourse to national legal system and so the WBG has greater responsibility + without WBG funding this project would not have gone ahead (it is therefore complicit in abuses perpetrated by the government) - loan conditionality should be used as leverage to improve governance - how come the pipeline runs right through IP territory when it could have taken a different route? Case Study 4: Russia Rodion Sulyandziga, Vlad Peskov and Vladimir Bocharnikov Panel: Fergus Mackay
and Liz Chidley Impacts of WBG policies on oil development on reindeer
herder lands in -
cultural survival of IPs in - Indigenous Peoples already a minority within their own territories - Russian budget entirely dependent on oil and gas, but rich get richer whilst poor remain poor - There are excellent laws but poor implementation - Consultation only on implementation not on decisions affecting IPs - Polar Lights (financed by IFC) is an example of better practice by Russian standards, yet significant lack of information and consultation, and problems of corruption not avoided Recommendations: - moratorium on all new OGM projects affecting indigenous territories - recognition of international law, human rights standards and IP rights - development of partnerships involving IPs at all stages of the project cycle - encouragement of national governments to implement national rights and legislation - need system of credible monitoring and protection - IPs should be fully involved in WBG development strategy and IP Development Plan (IPDP) - This is UN decade of Indigenous Peoples theme “Partnership in Action” we need this - One positive model equal level commissions (Govt, NGO, IP, etc ) like Arctic Council Panel reaction: - post-process consultations: fundamental violation of internationally recognised HR standards - adequate compensation and development plans still down to the goodwill of the company - need IPDP body to be controlled by IPs - problem of governments considering IP lands as “empty” due to low pop density: how can FPIC effectively be implemented in such scattered communities? Dr Salim reactions: - has global warming been taken into consideration by the WBG? - Have IPs been included in CAS/Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper? Floor: -
court cases being brought against the Russian govt in
the - difficult to create good relationship with the govt since it continuously changing - strong partnerships with govt and private sector are fundamental aim of IP communities -
climate change not taken into consideration in - problem of foreign companies adjusting downwards to Russian environmental standards – the WBG should tackle this problem Day 2 Case Study 5: Indonesia Pak Pius Nyompe, Yuyun Indradi and Liz Chidley Panel: Gisèle
Morin-Labatut and Ingrid MacDonald Impact of WBG involvement in in Kelian Gold Mine in - history of problems with Rio Tinto Kelian mine: intimidation, illegal detention, sexual harassement, involuntary resettlement, environmental degradation - various stages of negotiations, involving different local, national and international NGOs, the community, government and company - problems with BPD: imbalance in dialogue in favour of government/industry; the community feels this process was being used by Rio Tinto as propaganda for other mining operations, and so community group withdrew from negotiations in March 2003 Recommendations - indigenous peoples have rights to natural resources as well, and must not be treated as mere bystanders - dialogues should always be balanced Panel reactions: - the WBG should put pressure on governments to improve consultation - after 25 years of mining, no demonstrable effects of poverty alleviation: is this development? - Negotiation process puts enormous strain on communities, and importance of civil society proven in this case Dr Salim reactions: - tragedy of community divisions - WBG not a part of this project - “The story I hear here is different from the story that I have heard at home. So I will go back and find the truth when I get home.” Floor: - BPD was a brainchild of the WBG and industry: WBG own review suggests it was not a success. Industry found it largely ineffective. - BPD did become involved in Kelian dispute issues - BPD was only helpful in reinstating dialogue between company and community but the latter felt that the company was using this mechanism to protect its name, and was not transparent in its dealings, and many human rights abuses issues remain unsettled Case Study 6: Papua New Guinea Matilda Koma, Augustine Hala and Jacklynne Membup Panel: Stuart Kirsch,
Raymundo Rovillos and Fergus Mackay Impact of World Bank policies on mining legislation in PNG, and involvement of MIGA in Lihir Gold Mine: - PNG mineral rich but weak governance - Bank influence on policy in EI sector massive - Environmental standards tolerated though below acceptable international standards - result of $ 10 mill WBG Technical Assistance loan: tax exemptions for companies and rapid increase in exploration: OGM promotion only benefits the rich - environmental pollution is a significant problem: weak envtal safeguards in PNG - social changes: community divisions, negative influence of the cash economy on indigenous culture - land is fundamental to PNGeans, and indigenous ties to it are being distorted and severed by extractive industry projects - Lihir Gold Mine: significant social inequalities arising from mining project; lack of independent environmental monitoring; lack of voice and decision-making power for women in this traditionally matrilineal society, creating social disruption; lack of communal benefit sharing rather some identified for compensation and some excluded creating division and conflict - MIGA support despite use of questionable STD waste management Recommendations: - Transparency + participation in discussions concerning WBG policy loans - No new projects until IP rights are recognised and fully respected - Independent monitoring of environmental consequences of mines - strictly no more riverine or submarine tailings disposal (STD) Panel reactions: - indigenous communities have limited understanding of environmental consequences of STD, and of the profound social consequences of a cash economy – how can FPIC be implemented if this is the case? Is FPIC the right goal to be pursuing? - Militarization flourishes in unstable regimes: this must be addressed - Need unhampered access to legal remedy. In PNG a company influenced legislation rendering it impossible for communities to achieve legal recourse against it abroad (BHP Billiton in Ok Tedi case) Dr Salim reactions: - is the WBG to abandon the extractive industries altogether leaving it entirely to private enterprises? Is it not better to have WBG involvement? - Cash compensation in a cashless society like PNG has highly negative outcomes: are there viable alternatives? Floor: - WBG involvement has not lead to evident improvement, and has in fact legitimised some destructive projects (such as Chad Cameroon), so no, WBG involvement is not better than no WBG involvement - WBG influence has only strengthened the mining department, leaving the environment and conservation department behind, thus providing greater power to industries rather than the people. - FPIC is an internationally recognised right which should not be questioned, although the methods for achieving it need to be elaborated – need to use precautionary principle: if FPIC is not culturally/socially feasible, the project should not go ahead. In addition, for IPs FPIC is a means and not an end, and is conceived as a process by which a relationship of trust can be established between companies and IPs - Who is the rightful owner of sub-surface resources? Case Study 7: India Bineet Mundu Panel: Didier Amougou
and Tom Griffiths Impacts of the World Bank’s Coal Sector Environmental and Social Mitigation Project on Adivasi communities in Jharkand: - aim of project: make coal production more environmentally and socially friendly + develop policies for rehabilitation, mitigation, environmental management, etc - concerns 25 opencast coal mines - the Inspection Panel report is highly damning of the project and WBG failed compliance to its safeguard policies - problems with involuntary resettlement and lack of land titles, lack of appropriate rehabilitation, lack of appropriate consultation and compensation, loss of sacred sites, water springs, socially and economically important trees, severe medical concerns - some of the consultations were made with people unaffected by the mines, and alleged consultations made with people who had passed away years before Panel Reaction: - Crucial absence of strict monitoring - There can be no sustainable development without the recognition of IP rights (Kari Oca Declaration at Rio Earth Summit) - Resettlement undermines and fragments the underlying fabric of indigenous society - Standards are part and parcel of sustainable development; WBG unable to implement its policies, so how can it pretend to be involved in sustainable development? Dr Salim reactions: - where was the government in all of this? Why is it not protecting its people? - How can we create a more effective funding institution? Floor: -
WBG is a bank and its task is to lend money; the
government of - Indigenous Peoples feel trapped between the WBG and the government, with no recourse to justice in either - Once the social fabric of an IP community is broken down, it is very difficult to retrieve it Presentation on Synthesis Paper Geoff Nettleton [See Caruso, E, Ensuing discussion focussed on the implementation and application of standards; it was noted that: - The prevailing culture in the Bank focussed on economic growth needs to be corrected by countervailing powers promoting other values - Markets do not value matters of importance to IPs - Governments seem ineffective in promoting these values - High staff turnover in the Bank makes accountability difficult - Accountability to international Human Rights standards is vital - Bank has rejected international Human Rights standards - Bank lends to regimes with poor governance and a high degree of corruption - Bank frequently fails to adhere to its own safeguards - Indigenous peoples should be shareholders in mining ventures - The EIR should convene a dialogue between indigenous rights lawyers and the World Bank to explore the World Bank’s Human Rights obligations Recommendations: Indigenous Peoples Declaration on Extractive Industries The Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Extractive
Industries Preamble: Our futures as indigenous peoples are threatened in many ways by developments in the extractive industries. Our ancestral lands- the tundra, drylands, small islands, forests and mountains - which are also important and critical ecosystems have been invaded by oil, gas, and mining developments which are undermining our very survival. Expansion and intensification of the extractive industries, alongside economic liberalisation, free trade aggression, extravagant consumption and globalisation are frightening signals of unsustainable greed. Urgent actions must be taken by all, to stop and reverse the social and ecological injustice arising from the violations of our rights as indigenous peoples. We, indigenous peoples welcome the initiative of the World Bank to carry out an extractive industries review. We note that the purpose of this review is to assess whether, and under what circumstances, the extractive industries can contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainable development. We note that ‘sustainable development’ is founded on three
pillars which should be given equal weight if such development is to be
equitable namely environmental, economic and human rights. We note that this
issue has already been addressed by the Kimberley Declaration of Indigenous
Peoples to the World Summit on Sustainable Development and by the Roundtable
between the World Bank and Indigenous Peoples held in We, indigenous peoples, reject the myth of ‘sustainable mining’: we have not experienced mining as a contribution to ‘sustainable development’ by any reasonable definition. Our experience shows that exploration and exploitation of minerals, coal, oil, and gas bring us serious social and environmental problems, so widespread and injurious that we cannot describe such development as ‘sustainable’. Indeed, rather than contributing to poverty alleviation, we find that the extractive industries are creating poverty and social divisions in our communities, and showing disrespect for our culture and customary laws. Key Concerns: Our experience of mining, oil and gas development has been one of:
These problems reflect and compound our situation as indigenous peoples. Our peoples are discriminated against. Those who violate our rights do so with impunity. Corruption and bad governance compound our legal and political marginalization. We find that the extractive industries worsen our situation, create greater divisions between rich and poor and escalate violence and repression in our areas. Recommendations: In view of this experience and in line with precautionary principles, ¨ We call for a moratorium on further mining, oil and gas projects that may affect us until our human rights are secure. Existing concessions should be frozen. There should no further funding by international financial institutions such as the World Bank, no new extractive industry initiatives by governments, and no new investments by companies until respect for the rights of indigenous peoples is assured. ¨ Destructive practices such as riverine tailings disposal, submarine tailings disposal and open pit mining should be banned. ¨ Moreover, before new investments and projects are embarked on, we demand - as a show of good faith - that governments, companies and development agencies make good the damages and losses caused by past projects which have despoiled our lands and fragmented our communities. Compensation for damages encompasses not only remuneration for economic losses but also reparations for the social, cultural environmental and spiritual losses we have endured. Measures should be taken to rehabilitate degraded environments, farmlands, forests and landscapes and to restitute our lands and territories taken from us. Promises and commitments made to our communities must be honoured. Appropriate mechanisms must be established to address these outstanding problems with the full participation of the affected peoples and communities. ¨ Once and if, these conditions are met, we call for a change in all future mining, oil and gas development. All future extractive industries development must uphold indigenous peoples' rights. ¨ Equally, international development agencies must require borrower countries and private sector clients to uphold human rights in line with their international obligations. The international financial institutions and development agencies, such as the World Bank, must themselves observe international law and be bound by it in legally accountable ways. ¨ By human rights, we refer to our rights established under international law. We hold our rights to be inherent and indivisible and seek recognition not only of our full social, cultural and economic rights but also our civil and political rights. Respect for all our rights is essential if ‘good governance’ is to have any meaning for us. ¨ In particular we call for recognition of our collective right as peoples, to self-determination, including a secure and full measure of self-governance and control over our territories, organisations and cultural development. ¨ We demand respect for our rights to our territories, lands and natural resources and that under no circumstances should we be forcibly removed from our lands. All proposed developments affecting our lands should be subject to our free, prior and informed consent as expressed through our own representative institutions, which should be afforded legal personality. The right to free, prior informed consent should not be construed as a ‘veto’ on development but includes the right of indigenous peoples to say ‘no’ to projects that we consider injurious to us as peoples. The right must be made effective through the provision of adequate information and implies a permanent process of negotiation between indigenous peoples and developers. Mechanisms for redress of grievances, arbitration and judicial review are required. ¨ Education and capacity building is needed to allow us to be trained and informed so we can participate effectively and make decisions in our own right. ¨ Before projects are embarked on, such problems as marginalisation, insecure land rights, and lack of citizenship papers must be addressed. Indigenous Peoples’ Development Plans (IPDPs) must be formulated with the affected communities and Indigenous peoples should control mechanisms for the delivery of project benefits. ¨ Voluntary standards are not enough: there is a need for mandatory standards and binding mechanisms. Binding negotiated agreements between indigenous peoples, governments, companies and the World Bank are needed which can be invoked in the courts if other means of redress and dispute resolution fail. Formal policies and appeals procedures should be developed to ensure accountability for loan operations, official aid, development programmes and projects. These accountability measures should be formulated with indigenous peoples with a view to securing our rights throughout the strategic planning and project cycles. ¨ Independent oversight mechanisms, which are credible and accessible to indigenous peoples, must be established to ensure the compliance by all parties with agreed commitments and obligations. ¨ Companies seeking to invest in mining, oil and gas ventures on our lands should also be obliged to take out bonds as guarantees of reparations, in the case of damages to our material and immaterial properties and values, sacred sites and biological diversity. ¨ We recognise that many mining, oil and gas investments have their origins in national, regional and international policy agreements, which often facilitate relaxation of laws, fiscal reforms, encouragement of foreign investment and accelerated processes for handing out concessions to extractive industries. International agencies, such as the World Bank, promote such changes through adjustment and programmatic lending, through technical assistance interventions, country assistance strategies and sectoral reforms. Our experience is that often these policy and legal reforms ignore, override or even violate our constitutional rights and our rights and freedoms set out in national and international laws. Often the impacts of these developments on indigenous peoples are ignored during national planning. ¨ We demand our right to equal and effective participation in these planning processes and that they take full account of our rights. Given the country-wide embrace of these national strategies, we demand that the agencies such as the World Bank give equal attention to the application of existing laws and regulations which uphold our rights in policy and country dialogues and financial agreements. Development agencies should give priority to securing our rights and ensuring they are effectively implemented before facilitating access to our lands by private sector corporations such as extractive industries. Mining laws which deny our rights should be revised and replaced. ¨ The World Bank must encourage member states to fulfil their obligations under international human rights law and existing national legislation on indigenous peoples' rights. Consistent with the call for "Partnership into Action" by the UN Decade for Indigenous People, we call for equal participation by indigenous peoples in the formulation of general Country Assistance Strategies and particularly in Indigenous Peoples Development Plans. ¨ Poverty alleviation must start from indigenous peoples’ own definitions and indicators of poverty, and particularly address the exclusion and lack of access to decision-making at all levels. Rather than being merely lack of money and resources, poverty is also defined by power deficits and absence of access to decision-making and management processes. Social and ecological inequalities and injustice breed and perpetuate the impoverishment of indigenous peoples. ¨ Independent and participatory environmental, social and cultural assessments must be carried out prior to the start of projects, and our ways of life respected throughout the project cycle, with due recognition and respect for matrilineal systems and women's social position. ¨
As indigenous peoples, we do not reject
development but we demand that our development be determined ourselves
according to our own priorities. Sustainable development for indigenous peoples
is secured through the exercise of our human rights, and enjoying the respect
and solidarity of all peoples. We are
thus empowered to make our contributions and to play our vital role in
sustainable development. A Call for Action and Solidarity We call on the international community and regional bodies, governments, the private sector, civil society and all indigenous peoples to join their voices to this Indigenous Peoples Declaration on the Extractive Industries. We call on the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review to uphold our recommendations and to carry through their implementation in the World Bank Group’s policies, programmes, projects and processes. We also recommend a discussion on this theme at the upcoming meeting of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. We call on the Permanent Forum to insist on respect for our human rights by companies, investors, governments and development agencies involved in the extractive industries. The Permanent Forum must promote understanding of the negative impacts of the extractive industries on the economic, cultural, social and spiritual well-being of indigenous peoples and appropriate safeguard policies. The World Bank, as part of the United Nations family, should report to the Forum on how it proposes to amend its policy on indigenous peoples, in conformity with international law and the recognition of indigenous rights. We also propose that further discussions on this theme of ‘Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights and Extractive Industries’ are held at the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) with a view to developing new standards on this matter, in conformity with the Working Group’s mandate. We call for democratic national processes to review strategies and policies for the extractive industries towards a reorientation to secure sustainable development. We enjoin all indigenous peoples to unite in solidarity to address the global threats posed by the extractive industries. 15 April 2003Oxford, United Kingdom |
