o keefe indigenous peoples and asm

CASM Conference

Sustainable livelihoods:Artisanal mining and indigenous peoples

6th OctoberBrasilia, Brazil

Ed O’KeefeSynergy Global Consultingwww.synergy-global.net

Introduction

© Synergy Global Consulting Ltd 2008

Observations

• There are very different viewpoints of artisanal mining in

indigenous lands – often opposing

• There are relatively few well-documented cases of

artisanal mining in indigenous lands

• There is even less understanding of the issue at an

international level


Context• Increasing demand - With increased demand for minerals, the

mining industry is increasingly operating in indigenous lands. • Economic drivers – poverty and lack of more attractive livelihood

options push more people into artisanal mining• Legacy - Relationships between the mining industry and indigenous

peoples have often lead to negative outcomes for the livelihoods of indigenous groups, such as environmental pollution, influx, diseases and cultural changes

• Increasing indigenous empowerment - Indigenous peoples now have increasing potential to increasing potential to negotiate better outcomes: – indigenous peoples in many countries have stronger land rights, – lessons learned from elsewhere are providing indigenous groups

with improved ways of working– more equitable consultation processes – through changes in

domestic legislation, mining company policy and internal capacity within indigenous groups.

• Changing relationship - This situation is fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship between indigenous groups and miners wishing to work on indigenous lands.


Context• Countries where ASM is conducted in indigenous lands include:

– Suriname– Bolivia– Brazil– Venezuela– Indonesia– Papua New Guinea– Solomon Islands– Cambodia– Thailand– Laos– Phillipines

• Predictions that in 20 years around half of global gold production will come from territories used or claimed by indigenous peoples

• National Indigenous Foundation estimates that diamonds worth $600-800 million are mined illegally on Brazil's indigenous reserves every year

Indigenous Peoples


Defining ‘Indigenous Peoples’

• Referring to a distinct, social and cultural group possessing some or all of the following characteristics in varying degrees:– Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural

group and recognition of this identity by others; – Collective attachment to geographically distinct areas,

habitats or ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

– Distinct customary institutions - cultural, economic, social, legal, and/or political - that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture;

– Indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

• There are an estimated 250 million indigenous peoples (also referred to as First or Aboriginal peoples) worldwide, covering a diverse set of groups such as Pygmy and Inuit. The number varies given that there is no universally accepted definition available.


International framework• Increasing recognition of ‘Indigenous peoples’ - Over the past 25 years,

‘indigenous peoples’ has emerged as a distinct category of human societies and their right to give or withhold consent

– International law and policies• The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

– International financial institutions• International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 7 on

Indigenous Peoples (PS7) • World Bank (WB) Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy (OP) 4.10 • New EBRD policy

– National policy• Australia• Canada• Philippines• Many Latin American countries

– Large-scale mining company policy• Anglo American• Newmont• Rio Tinto

ASM and Indigenous Peoples


Indigenous Peoples & ASM

Indigenous Peoples Artisanal Miners

• Marginalised and discriminated against

Conflict • Marginalised and

discriminated against

• Land claims and rights not legally recognised

Conflict • Land claims not legally

recognised

• Strong connection with environment

Conflict • Significant environmental

impacts

• Lack of government support Conflict • Lack of government support

• Complex internal organisation and lack of empowerment

Conflict • Complex internal organisation

and lack of empowerment

• Often poor and vulnerable Conflict • Often poor and vulnerable

• Isolated small communities Conflict • Large scale migrations to

remote areas


Key issues in ASM & IP interactions• Rights

– Legal and political recognition of indigenous peoples land rights and their right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC)

– Legal and political recognition of artisanal mining rights– Relative power of land rights over sub-soil rights

• Empowerment and internal diversity– Government political will and ability agencies to implement and

enforce the law in relation to ASM licensing, environmental management and indigenous rights

• Internal diversity within government - relative importance of economic development, indigenous rights and artisanal mining

– Indigenous people capacity to negotiate and use rights, and ability to give or withhold consent

• Internal diversity within indigenous groups – leaders vs community members, elders vs youth

– Artisanal mining organisation and empowerment• Internal diversity within artisanal mining sector - indigenous vs non-

indigenous, local vs migrant, legal vs illegal, ASM vs LSM


Dilemmas

• Short term economic gain versus• Long term social and

environmental impacts

• Benefits to few versus • Benefits to many

• Local rights and development versus • National rights and development

• Ability to enforce legislation versus • Problems of lack of regulation

• Rights of indigenous peoples versus • Rights of mining sector

• Rights to surface land versus • Rights to sub-surface minerals

• Artisanal mining versus • Large scale mining


Power relations

Government

Indigenous PeoplesMiners

Case Studies• San Antionio de Lomerio, Bolivia• Suriname• Large scale mining best practices


San Antionio de Lomerio, Bolivia • Context

– Rural municipality of San Antonio de Lomerio, Santa Cruz– Nearly 100% of residents live below the poverty line– Economic needs pushed indigenous Chiquitanos to agree to legal small scale

tungsten mining• Empowered indigenous group

– Lomerio is legally titled as a Communal Territory of Origin (TCO) – communally owned indigenous land – although government sub-soil rights over-ride these

– Strong Bolivian indigenous movements have encouraged communities to forcibly withholding consent even to legal concessionaires

– Leaders negotiated with mining companies, but with limited awareness of pricing– Communities prefer ASM to LSM

• Government – rural location and low taxes from small scale mining means limited enforcement of

environmental requirements by central government. – local government trying to hold miners to account but has not power to enforce

and legacy of mistrust by indigenous groups• Outcomes

– Mining helping meet economic needs – particularly ability to send children to school

– Long-term health and environmental impacts


San Antionio de Lomerio, Bolivia

• Empowered indigenous

group with legal recognition

• Government legislation but

weak enforcement

• Weak mining sector

Government



Suriname

• Increasing ASM activity in or near indigenous lands– Around 10-20,000 artisanal miners – tribal Maroons dominate industry and foreign & urban migrants– 2nd largest employer after public sector, 15% of GDP

• Significant social impacts from ASM in indigenous lands – diseases, violence, alcoholism, prostitution, break down in traditional authority

• Indigenous groups increasingly organised and empowered• Some large scale mining companies recognising and engaging with

indigenous groups• Mining legislation is weak in many areas, including environmental

and social issues and coverage of ASM• Surinamese law does not recognise or protect Indigenous land

rights, no requirement for consultation or consent, or recognition of traditional governance structures

• Very little state capture of revenues from mining – taxes, fees, royalties


Suriname

Government


• Powerful mining sector• Weak recognition of

indigenous rights but increasing empowerment

• Weak government role


Kayapó, Brazil• Kayapó are strongly empowered

– Recognised land rights - received 100,000 square kilometers of formal land reserves (semi-autonomous territory) from Brazil in 1980s and 1990s

– Politically active – a series of high profile protests e.g. during Rio 1992 Earth Summit, Altamira protest, international support from NGOs and individuals, e.g. Sting

– Effective at developing economic opportunities – e.g. supplying Brazil nut oil with The Body Shop

– Effective at avoiding exploitation – e.g. suing The Body Shop for using images without permission

• ASM and the Kayapó– 1982 – 1,000s of gold miners entered Kayapó land– Managed to gain control of mining concessions, signed contracts with the participation of

government – Village where ASM was focused, Gorotire, became wealthy - used gold earnings to buy

airplanes and hire Brazilian pilots to police their territory– Created divisions within the group due to perception of inequitable distribution of benefits– Social issues such as diseases, social vices, breakdown in traditional authority, etc– As a result mining was eventually stopped – but currently lobbying against government

moves to increase access to mineral resources on indigenous lands• Outcomes

– Kayapó have consented to ASM and harnessed benefits to:• improve their livelihoods• Fund opposition to other forest-destroying activities• Strengthen their indigenous political and cultural identity and rights


Kayapó, Brazil

Government


• Highly empowered indigenous groups – used ASM to increase empowerment

• Varying government support from different agencies

• Mining on indigenous peoples’ terms – but increasingly influential


Large scale mining best practices

• A small number of cases of large scale mining companies operating in contexts with supportive government, recognition of indigenous rights and empowered indigenous groups – particularly in Canada and Australia

• Mining companies and indigenous peoples have negotiated agreements which typically include:

– Financial – royalties, equity, bonus payments – Employment and contracting opportunities– Environmental and social impact management – Social investment – Institutional and decision-making arrangements

• Key factors behind successful agreements include:– Focusing on long-term outcomes and mutual benefits – Building understanding and trust – Managing the risk of exacerbated tensions within indigenous groups and

companies – The importance of capacity building – on all sides– Agreements which are integrated and understandable – Government involvement and support

• Indigenous peoples are having increasing control of mining – projects are driven by supporting indigenous development goals, with strong indigenous control, management and participation in mining


LSM best practices

Government


• Empowered indigenous groups

• Active government

• Empowered mining companies

Key Questions


Key questions

• Other experiences of ASM and indigenous peoples?• Is ASM a valid livelihood option for indigenous peoples to achieve

their desired development outcomes?• Can ASM be used as a temporary step on the journey of

development?• Is ASM a better option than LSM for indigenous peoples?• How can capacity be built to reach more effective outcomes?• Can effective negotiations and agreements be made between

artisanal miners and indigenous peoples?• How can social and cultural impacts of ASM in indigenous lands be

better managed? • Integration of indigenous issues and FPIC in certification standards?• Is increasing legal control of sub-soil rights a logical trend in

increasing indigenous peoples empowerment?• What could CASM do to support these issues?

Thank you!

Muito obrigado!


Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC)

• Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a decision-making process that is free of manipulation or coercion, made before proposed activities take place, is based on a full understanding of the issues and ultimately involves saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the proposal.

• Increasing debate in international law/international institutions stating that Indigenous Peoples have the right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent.

• FPIC can be understood as the practical implication of Indigenous peoples’ land and territorial rights.

• FPIC is advocated by supporters to be seen as the principal determinant of whether there is a ‘social license to operate’

• FPIC increasingly endorsed by major UN and international agencies (inc. UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, EU, EBRD, the World Commission on Dams and the World Bank Extractive Industries Review (EIR))

• FPIC is incorporated in various ways in national legislation in many countries

o keefe indigenous peoples and asm

Technology