Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Development Projects?
From the perspective of IPs, free and prior informed consent (FPIC) to
development projects is regarded as a means for operationalizing the right to
self-determination, respect for IPs decision-making processes and the associated
right to accept or reject projects that will affect them. To IPs the right to FPIC is
rooted in the exercise of customary law. However, recognition of IPs right to
veto proposed developments brings concerns that such rights perceived
rightfully or wrongly, poses an obstacle to national development. In the
Philippines, not only mineral development but also energy projects like power
transmission, petroleum, geothermal, hydro and even wind farms are being
affected. The question that comes to a developers mind is whether Republic Act
No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997 (IPRA) gives IPs
the right to veto projects defined by governments as those in pursuit of national
interest.
To IPs, the right to give or withhold their consent includes the right to determine
the type of process of consultation and decision-making that is appropriate for
them. IPs also view FPIC as embodying this right to say no without having to
engage in a prolonged consultation or negotiation process. Resources companies
are thus confounded with the burden of understanding how to engage with
indigenous communities in order to seek their consent in accordance with the
communities laws and procedures. Further complicating the issue is whether
the role of the State is relegated merely to act as a facilitator in the FPIC process,
not by creating new bodies from which to obtain FPIC, but by respecting the
indigenous authorities that already exist. [Cathal Doyle and Jill Cario, Making
Free Prior & Informed Consent a Reality: Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive
Sector (May 2013)]
While resource developers understand that FPIC is being promoted to give IPs
more leverage in their negotiations with companies, government and private
industry engaging in projects of national interest often find it difficult to accept
that communities have the right to withhold consent. Consent is perceived by
governments and the private industry to be incongruent with national
sovereignty, as developers who usually obtain their license to operate from
governments have expressed grave apprehensions that indigenous communities
have a right to veto their projects. This is further complicated when a
government has already given a license to the company for the activity. [Amy K.
Lehr and Gare A. Smith, Implementing a Corporate Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent Policy: Benefits and Challenges]
The revised policy also gives greater weight to the self-identification criterion
but does not call for it as a principal criterion because it is difficult to apply in
practice. In projects where activities are contingent on establishing legally
recognized rights to IPs lands and territories, the policy requires the borrower
to set forth an action plan for the recognition of such rights. The policy does not
prohibit physical relocation but requires the borrower to explore alternative
project designs to avoid physical relocation, and when not feasible, to seek broad
support of the affected communities as part of the free, prior and informed
consultation process. As expected, this statement did not fully meet the
expectations of some umbrella IP organizations as well as human rights
advocacy groups. [Implementation of the World Banks Indigenous Peoples
Policy, (August 2011)]
The World Banks standard, of 'free, prior, and informed consultation resulting in
broad community support' set the parameters for the International Finance
Corporations (IFC) position on FPIC (2006). However, while IFC policy
towards indigenous similarly requires 'free, prior and informed consultations',
these are not required to lead to 'broad community support' but are interpreted
as requiring 'good faith negotiation with and informed participation of
indigenous peoples'. In the case of projects that may affect IPs lands, IFC clients
are required to document IPs 'informed participation and the successful
outcome of the negotiation'.
In the Philippines, IPRA recognizes the right of IPs to self governance (s 13) and
the principle of self-delineation in the identification and delineation of ancestral
lands (s 51). However, the most ambiguous provisions of the law pertain to the
rights of ownership over natural resources found in ancestral domains vis-a-vis
the Regalian Doctrine.
In less than a year IPRA was passed, a constitutional challenge was lodged with
the Supreme Court (SC) alleging that IPRAs provisions on IPs ownership and
control and supervision over natural resources located in ancestral domains and
lands are unconstitutional in violation of the Regalian doctrine. (Cruz v Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources, et al.) Of the fourteen (14) justices who
participated in deliberating the petition, seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition
and seven (7) other members voted to grant the petition. As the votes were
equally divided and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was
redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the
same and thus, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the
petition was dismissed and IPRA was declared constitutional.
The SC held that the rights given to the IPs regarding the exploitation of natural
resources under ss 7 and 57 of IPRA only amplified what has been granted to
them under existing laws but the State retains full control over the exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources. The SC interpreted s 57 as
only granting to IPs priority rights in the utilization of natural resources, not
absolute ownership nor exclusive rights but only the right of preference or first
consideration in the award of privileges provided by existing laws and
regulations, with due regard to the needs and welfare of IPS living in the area.
The SC stressed that the grant of priority rights does not preclude the State from
undertaking activities, or entering into co-production, joint venture or
production-sharing agreements with private entities, to utilize the natural
resources which may be located within the ancestral domains nor is there any
intention, as between the State and the IPs, to create a hierarchy of values. Also,
the grant of priority rights to the IPs does not mean excluding non-IPs from
undertaking the same activities within the ancestral domains upon authority
granted by the proper governmental agency because to do so would unduly limit
the ownership rights of the State over the natural resources.
However, the SC declared the need for prior informed consent of IPs before any
search for or utilization of the natural resources within their ancestral domains
is undertaken. Where the State intends to directly or indirectly undertake such
activities, it must, as a matter of policy and law, consult the IPs in accordance
with the intent of the framers of the Constitution that national development
policies and programs should involve a systematic consultation to balance local
needs as well as national plans. IPRA grants to IPs the right to an informed and
intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project,
government or private, and the right not to be removed therefrom without their
free and prior informed consent.
While the SC allowed the use of customary laws in determining the ownership
and extent of ancestral domains on the basis of Art XII s 5 par 2 of the
Constitution, it declared that the use of customary laws under IPRA is not
absolute, for the law spoke merely of primacy of use and only prescribes their
application where these present a workable solution acceptable to the parties,
who are members of the same indigenous group. This restrictive application of
customary laws basically forecloses any further inquiry into the interpretation of
traditional resource rights since it is nothing but an aid to the mediation or
dispute resolution process among indigenous peoples and not a reference for
ascertaining the nature and incidents of their native title.
For this reason, FPIC has been incorporated into the Philippine legal system with
administrative regulations dictating the procedures to record and validate
consent. Nevertheless, these regulations have been criticized for turning FPIC
into a formality that is no longer based on customary laws. [Marcus Colchester,
Free, Prior and Informed Consent Making FPIC work for Forests and Peoples
(2010)]. The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) believes that the
FPIC process is being reduced to a formal exercise in positive law, allowing the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, as the designated government
authority, to sign away rights to lands and resources by providing certificates of
compliance with FPIC. This bureaucratic process according to the LRC is not
iterative, nor is it rooted in customary laws and systems of decision-making. [Joji
Cario and Marcus Colchester, From Dams to Development Justice: Progress with
'Free, Prior and Informed Consent' Since the World Commission on Dams (2010)]
The FPIC process usually commences with the mapping of IP tenure rights. Most
often the field-based investigation reveals conflicting claims within or between
communities. Considerable time and resources may be needed to resolve these
disputes and anti-development interest groups usually take advantage of the
dispute to prolong the FPIC process or to make it a total failure so the developer
will just walk away. In my experience as a resources lawyer, the FPIC process
may also be taken advantage of by a disgruntled socio-political faction or
unrelenting landowner sometimes becoming a minority right of veto and not
the actual decision of the community. Resources companies are often
confounded with the burden of understanding how to engage with indigenous
communities in order to seek their consent. Companies must also deal with the
elders, the traditional authorities and various leadership structures at different
levels in the negotiation process, which further convolutes the process. Even
local politicians have often times meddle with the FPIC process in the guise that
IPs are part of their constituencies too.
Conclusion
Fernando Ronnie Penarroyo is the Managing Partner of Puno and Penarroyo Law
(fspenarroyo@punopenalaw.com). He specializes in Energy, Resources and
Environmental Law, Business Development and Project Finance.