rio

bali, indonesia, april 26-30
maputo, mozambique, january 13-17 2003

budapest, hungary, june 18-22 2002

rio de janeiro, brazil, april 16-19 2002

 

indigenous peoples' declaration

 

 

ASIA-PACIFIC CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES REVIEW PROCESS Bali, Indonesia, April 27, 2003

We, civil society participants who went through the self-selection process in the Asia-Pacific Extractive Industries Review, have played an active role in the Extractive Industries Review (EIR) consultation process concerning World Bank policy regarding extractive industries. Evidence of this is our sustained input to the EIR Eminent Person Dr. Emil Salim throughout this process, including papers and testimonies given directly to the EIR Eminent person, based on extensive documentation showing the failure of the Bank to achieve its stated goals of poverty allevation and sustainable development.

 

As the World Bank’s own leaked internal Operations Evaluation Department (OED) draft audit of January 21, 2003 shows, closely associated with extractive industries are “long-term environmental damage with accompanying health consequences, the destruction of traditional (and more sustainable) economic foundations of local communities, involuntary displacements and property takings, economic dependence on such revenues and increased economic volatility, increased corruption, violence, and civil war.”

 

Unfortunately, neither the World Bank Group nor the proceedings of the Extractive Industries Review to date have provided any evidence that Bank support for the extractive sector has promoted the Bank’s mandate of poverty reduction. In fact, a wide range of evidence including that contained in the OED draft audit report indicates that the World Bank should pull-out of oil, gas and mining since World Bank support for this sector has not reduced poverty. (See attached for a summary)

 

From the beginning, key NGO groups and local communities within the Asia-Pacific region have refused to participate within the Asia Pacific consultations because of the deeply flawed and inadequate process. Such a process cannot provide a genuine reflection of civil society concerns over the role of the World Bank in extractive industries.

We have shown good faith with the EIR eminent person throughout preparations for the Bali consultations. However, as the contents of this letter show, this goodwill has not been reciprocated. For instance:

A draft document containing conclusions of the EIR process - “Compilation of Consultation Inputs” - was posted on the EIR website on February 4, 2003. This document was produced PRIOR to the (1) Indigenous Peoples consultation; (2) The Asia-Pacific Consultation; and (3) the Middle East-North Africa consultation.

 

The said EIR document concluded that:

1. The World Bank Group should remain in extractive industries.
2. Oil, mining and gas projects can be a tool for poverty alleviation.
3. The World Bank Group can be a leader in tackling the environmental and social issues associated with extractive industries.

 

Furthermore, it was discovered that the draft EIR Conclusions had already been circulated among the extractive industry representatives and the World Bank.

 

Months before the start of the Bali consultation, civil society groups informed the EIR Eminent Person that the agenda failed to reflect issues of greatest concern to civil society. For instance, the extremely important issues of militarization, structural adjustment policies and their link to the extractive sector have been completely left off the agenda despite specific requests from civil society to have these issues included. The EIR Eminent Person made only cosmetic changes in response. In fact, later changes to the agenda reflected changes that we had no input into whatsoever with total disregard to our requests: one example is the introduction of the Sepon mine case despite the complete lack of a representative who would present the views of affected Laos communities.

 

The EIR Eminent Person refused to include basic framework questions that civil society feels should constitute the primary focus of the consultation process. For instance, the question “What has been the history of consultation processes with representatives of locally affected communities at the initial planning stages of public financial institution involvement in extractive industry projects?”

 

There has been a disturbing lack of transparency on the selection of ‘experts’ and academics for the Bali Consultation Process. The EIR Eminent Person refused to provide background information such as curriculum vitaes regarding the academics and experts selected to participate in the EIR. The EIR Eminent Person claimed that it did not have this information and refused to explain the basis by which its choice of academics and ‘experts’ had been made. Civil society had stated to the EIR Eminent Person its concerns whether the selected ‘experts’ were qualified. The EIR Eminent Person rejected a proposal to invite a prominent Indian scholar to fill one of the participant positions reserved for academics on the basis that “there was no more room.” The said scholar was in fact highly qualified to speak on the impact of mining on local communities.

 

The EIR Eminent Person did not provide documents requested by civil society - documents directly related to projects to be discussed and other materials central to the discussion, such as the World Bank OED audit document - later fortuitously obtained through a leak -- which assessed the Bank’s role in extractive industries. The OED audit was listed in the original agenda as a discussion item and was later taken out.

 

We underscore the fact that we have already provided the EIR Eminent Person with substantial information and testimony documenting histories of the impacts of the extractive industries sector and World Bank involvement in this sector upon communities throughout our region.

 

However, the issues cited above have led us to conclude that the ongoing EIR process will not reflect the magnitude of civil society concerns over the Bank’s role in extractive industries. Our participation can no longer continue within a process in which we have already lost faith. We are thus compelled to withdraw our participation from this process.

We challenge the EIR Eminent Person to move forward in this process in a way that truly reflects the extensive input and basic requirements for engagement provided by civil society.

Asia-Pacific Civil Society Participants:

Pravin Mote, Samata; India

A.K.M. Shafiqul Islam, Bangladesh Krishok Federation; Bangladesh

Khurshida Aktar, Bangladesh Kishani Shabha; Bangladesh

Nur Hidayati, WALHI (Indonesian Forum for Enivronment)/Friends of the Earth Indonesia -Indonesia

Rukka Sombolinggi, AMAN (Indigenous Peoples; Alliance of the Archipelago); Indonesia

Raymundo D. Rovillos, Tebtebba Foundation; Philippines

Dr. Jun Saturay, Southern Tagalog Environmental Action Movement/ Kalikasan People&s Environmental Network; Philippines

Peter P. Duyapat, Desama; Philippines

Red Constantino, Greenpeace Southeast Asia; Philippines

Stephanie Fried, Environmental Defense; Hawai;i

Rick Anex, Action Biosphere; New Caledonia

Titi Soentoro, Solidaritas Perempuan; Indonesia

Ingrid Macdonald, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad; Australia

Matilda Koma, NGO Environmental Watch Group; Papua New Guinea

Some examples why the World Bank should not be involved in extractive industries:

World Bank loans tied to structural adjustment impositions have resulted in policy reforms that have served to increase extractive industry activities. As the World Banks Operations Evaluation Department (OED) itself stated last January 21, 2003, “Historically, the Bank’s approach to the EI sector appears to treat increased private investment as the primary goal and a good in itself” (p. 11) and “that increased EI investment is likely to lead to bad development outcomes for many if not most of the Bank’s clients.” (p. 20, emphasis in original)

 

Furthermore, according to the same OED document, “In the worst case, the EI sector can bring little public benefit and leave long-term costs behind in the form of environmental destruction and war.” (p. 3) Local communmities “bear the brunt of accompanying environmental damage, health risks, property takings and damage, and changes to traditional life and culture.” (p. 1)

 

In addition, the document states that “the Bank risks facilitating the wastage of the country’s non-renewable resources, as well as contributing to environmental damage, violence, and weakening of the quality of governance itself. Moreover, when investment is increased in a poor governance environment, subsequent reforms are likely to become even more difficult. Actors develop vested interests in non-transparent revenue management or lax environmental regulation. … There is also the possibility that the level of corruption will determine what kind of foreign investors come to the sector. Investors whose success strategies depend on co-opting government officials in return for favored treatment may not be interested in subsequent good governance reforms either.”(p. 13, emphasis in original)

 

The interventionist role of the World Bank Group in pursuing structural adjustment policies that favour increased foreign direct investment-led mining projects, while at the same time favouring the privatisation of health, education and sanitation systems and the lowering of environmental, labour and human rights standards has also been completely left off the agenda.

 

Mining, oil and gas projects within the Asia-Pacific region have served to:

1. Generate massive environmental degradation, especially through the unacceptable practice of dumping mine tailings and waste directly into rivers and the ocean.
2. Undermine the rights of indigenous peoples over their land, resources and culture.
3. Create social rifts and conflicts among host communities.
4. Facilitiate the occurence and/or perpetuation of severe human rights abuses, especially involving the most vulnerable and marginalized – women, children and indigenous peoples.
5. Increase risks to local communities of alcoholism, sexual and family violence and HIV/AIDS.
6. Promote the increased use of military and security forces against civilian populations in and around mine sites.
7. Facilitate high levels of corruption and misuse of funds associated with mining, oil and gas revenues and royalties.
8. Produce economically destructive phenomena suchas the ‘Dutch disease’ and boom-bust economies.
9. Encourage the indebtedness of countries which are required to pay back large loans for encouraging foreign direct investment-led projects that benefit powerful transnational corporations at the expense of investment by countries in health, sanitation, education and democratic governance institutions.
10. Encourage the opening up of previous ‘No-Go’ zones such as protected areas, especially forests and World Heritage Sites.

AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY POSITION ON WORLD BANK GROUP INVESTMENTS IN MINING, OIL AND GAS AT THE AFRICA CONSULTATION OF THE EXTRACTIVES INDUSTRIES REVIEW IN MAPUTO, MOZAMBIQUE, 13-17 JANUARY 2003

introduction

We, African civil society organisations comprising NGOs, labour and local communities participating in the Africa Regional workshop on the extractive industries review from 13-17th January 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique call upon the World Bank Group to stop financing and support for mining, oil and gas until adequate and transparent mechanisms are established for lending as well as damages to national economies, local communities and environment by current World Bank Group financing are addressed.

 

Our long experience has shown that the interventions by the World Bank Group in the extractive sector in the continent are not only shrouded with secrecy but also has not resulted to poverty reduction which is the Bank's primary objective. The interventions have rather accounted for increased poverty, environmental destruction and human rights abuses especially among rural communities living within the precincts of such interventions.

We feel that the framework for the on-going Extractive Industries Review (EIR) process is inadequate to ensure a proper definition of the future role of the World Bank Group. For instance, there was no adequate consultation between the various stakeholders to establish the framework for the review process. The focus thus is limited as it does not attempt to review the past especially the role of the World Bank in the continent's indebtedness and unsustainable debt servicing.

 

There is doubt regarding the commitment of the World Bank Group to the outcome of the EIR process. Even as the process is in progress the World Bank Group is considering and approving new projects.

OBSERVATIONS

Africa is richly endowed with natural resources including minerals, oil and gas. In the past, these mineral resources have been exploited by colonizing states that structured the African economies as sources of cheap raw materials for the sustenance of Northern industries.

 

The World Bank Group's involvement in mining, oil and gas in Africa has contributed to intensifying colonial patterns of exploitation and the plunder of natural resources and peoples, leading to impoverishment, environmental degradation, human rights abuses, unsustainable debts and a relationship of domination and dependence.

During the past two decades, the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have promoted the liberalization of the extractive sector through reforms that compel mineral-rich African countries to relinquish ownership and control of extractive industries to foreign mining and petroleum companies while the Bank and its affiliates (the International Finance Corporation-IFC and Multinational Investment Guarantee Agency-MIGA), provide financing and support to foreign investors. The increased involvement of the World Bank Group is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in decent conditions of life for the people of Africa. It has rather led to a significant inflow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which promotes corporate interest and corruption.

 

Despite the large increase in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in extractive activities in Africa, the peoples of the continent are poorer and the economies of African countries are weaker. The Bank's role in the extractive industries has only succeeded in generating excessive profit for foreign investors with mining codes that ensure minimal taxes for foreign mining companies, increasing the debt burden of African countries and reducing the quality of life for peoples living in resource-rich communities and states. While nations derive little or no benefit from the extractive industries the people living in the communities affected by mining and other extractive activities have had to cope with impoverishment resulting from diseases, environmental degradation, air and water pollution, human rights abuses and social dislocation.

 

A major consequence of World Bank Group support for FDI in mining, oil and gas in Africa has been that indigenous small-scale miners have less room to operate, even though on balance they contribute more to the national economy than large-scale foreign operators. A substantial amount of foreign exchange earnings derived from the extractive industries are retained abroad while insignificant amounts are retained in the national economies of Africa.

Mining has remained an enclave activity with little or no linkages to other sectors of the African economies. As a result any "multiplier" benefits that result from processing or refining accrue outside Africa. Furthermore mining presents African countries with a major challenge in the form of new exposure to the volatility of the commodity markets.

Despite the clear disadvantages of World Bank support for FDI in mining, oil and gas in Africa, the Bank continues to promote such patterns of investment as a source of quick revenue for debt servicing. For example, the government of Cameroon, despite having to borrow from the World Bank to participate in the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline, will spend more in debt servicing than the projected revenue from the project.

 

World Bank sponsored extractive investments aggravates scarcity of land, which the majority of the populations depend on for their livelihood through farming. In many cases communities have been displaced from their lands to make way for mining companies, with little or no compensation. The land scarcity and community impoverishment is exacerbated by massive environmental degradation and pollution caused by extractive industries, as environmental safeguards are weak and often ignored by the World Bank Group and their beneficiaries.

 

World Bank supported extractive companies and host governments have engaged in grievous human rights abuses including killings of community members protesting the negative impacts of such investments, such as in Nigeria and Tanzania.

 

As stated by a report published by the World Bank June 2000, natural resources exploitation in Africa is a major source of conflicts in the continent. The World Bank support to extractive industries activities in Africa creates conditions for conflict as contending interests within states compete for control of revenue from mining operations and as corrupt management of revenue leads to the collapse of state institutions.

 

Communities may also get into conflicts over competition for the limited jobs that mining companies provide, which fall far short of the promise of job creation, which the World Bank and its beneficiary companies always make.

Moreover, the World Bank is an undemocratic and unaccountable institution controlled by the few richest countries with African countries having little or no influence in the Bank's decision-making processes. Such an undemocratic, untransparent and unaccountable institution cannot spur African development.

DEMANDS

In view of the foregoing observations, we call on the World Bank Group to stop financing and support for mining, oil and gas until the following conditions are met:

1. The cancellation of the debts of poor African countries, which were incurred un-transparently and which have been over-paid by countries during decades of debt servicing. Cancellation of debts will allow African countries to invest in more productive and sustainable sectors of the economy for the benefit of the mass of the peoples.

2. Extensive independent review of the impacts of existing World Bank investments in the extractives sector to ascertain how to correct and compensate for the damages to communities.

3. A clear guarantee from the World Bank Group that all new loans to government or private sector investors must be approved by the legislature of the host country and given extensive prior publicity in the interest of the citizens that are supposed to be beneficiaries.

4. Genuine prior consultation with communities rather than the information sessions. Such consultations should respect and recognise the rights of host communities to reject investments that will harm their livelihood and violate human rights.

5. There is a clear commitment by the World Bank Group to address and put an end to the culture of impunity that has characterized acts of gross human rights abuses involving members of the security forces and foreign multinationals operating in resource-rich areas.

6. A clear guarantee from the World Bank Group that there should be no funding of projects in countries that are ruled by undemocratic regimes, involved in armed conflicts or where extractive projects may create conflicts.

7. A clear guarantee that there shall be no funding for projects located in ecological sensitive zones such as forest reserves and state and or community protected areas.

8. A clear guarantee from the World Bank Group that there shall be no loans for mining projects in countries where the rate of corruption is high and where there is no acceptable mechanism to tackle corrupt management of revenue.

9. All extractive investments should be subjected to prior independent Environmental Impact Assessment using the best available standards.

10. The World Bank Group should ensure that the profit of beneficiary companies and the royalties to governments be disclosed to the citizens.

11. Improve the accountability of the complaint investigation and resolution mechanisms of the World Bank Group by enhancing their transparency and strengthening their independence.

12. Clear commitment by the World Bank Group and governments to support artisanal mining by protecting their land and mining rights and through the provision of financial and technical assistance to improve their productivity, minimize social and environmental risks associated with their activities and enhance access to markets for their produce.

13. All conditions should apply to all members of the World Bank Group including the IFC and MIGA.

We hope that the World Bank Group will establish mechanisms and durable processes of compliance to these conditions in a manner that ensures effective participation of all stakeholders.

 

Declaration of Civil Society and Indigenous Participants of the Regional Workshop of the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - April 16-19, 2002

We, the undersigned, would like to express our comments about the Latin American Regional Workshop of the Extractive Industries Review, and to highlight several important issues about the Review, keeping always within an analysis of whether or not the extractive industries have contributed to poverty alleviation in our countries.

Limited focus and unequal participation and information
The overwhelming number of participants from the mining and oil sectors, as well as those who have first hand access to information about their respective activity, created an imbalance of participation and a limited analysis of the problem.

The focus was around the question of whether or not the extractive industries generate wealth, which is obvious, since these industries are among the most profitable in the world. Instead, what should have been discussed was why this wealth is not fairly distributed, does not contribute to economic development, and has not been an effective response to combating poverty in our countries.
The problem at hand should be excluded from its national and global context, just as the World Bank's role cannot be ignored. It is crucial to analyze how Structural Adjustment Policies contribute to poverty, and to set priorities in order to ensure that the most effective strategies in alleviating poverty are implemented.

The World Bank Group's Role
World Bank staff participation contributed to the above-mentioned imbalance, and their overwhelming presence (especially through their presentations) should be modified in the remaining consultations. Moreover, the information they provided was neither objective nor appropriate for the Review. Useful information may have included economic and social analyses of our countries, which would help to understand the problem of poverty, and to put into context the role of the extractive industries within it.

Recommendations
1. The Review's focus should be expanded. In order to evaluate the problem, it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the economic, social and environmental consequences of development through extractive activities.

2. The World Bank has not been able to prove that the extractive industries contribute to poverty alleviation. Therefore, it should redirect its investments to other sectors, and reorient its development policies toward activities that have a greater impact on the fight against poverty, such as education and health, sustainable agriculture and tourism.

3. We reject all efforts to expand indiscriminately oil and mining activities in our countries, given their negative economic, social and environmental impacts. These activities threaten the natural resource base on which other current and potential productive activities depend.

4. Civil society organizations should be strengthened through investments in projects designed to promote sustainability and to contribute to poverty alleviation.

5. Development resources should be redirected toward support for small-scale and artisanal mining, as well as toward mitigating the environmental impacts caused by the extractive industries in our countries.

6. We demand that the World Bank and governments respect the wishes of the local communities when they are in opposition to extractive projects that threaten their way of life.

Indigenous communities' concerns and recommendations

The indigenous communities would like to make the following declarations:

- We reiterate once more that the indigenous communities bear the overwhelming social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of the extractive industries on indigenous territories, for which there must be indemnity to compensate for the negative effects of these activities.
- There has been a failure to recognize our fundamental rights, such as legal entitlement to our territories and our organizational structures.
- There are constant attempts to manipulate our leaders, with the intention of dividing our communities.
- There are no standards and procedures to guarantee previous consultation, and our right to participate in decision-making.
- There are no policies and procedures to guarantee that communities benefit from profits generated by the extractive industries, and that these contribute to the development of our communities. This could be directly contribute to poverty alleviation.
- Indigenous communities' participation in the tripartite dialogue does not meet the basic principles of equity, given our unequal standing, not only financially but in terms of capacity, against the government and the industry.
- The World Bank's and the respective governments' information systems are extremely limiting, as they are inaccessible by indigenous communities.
- Extractive activities in indigenous territories threaten biodiversity conservation, and our ancestral traditions, which are guaranteed by other international instruments such as the International Labor Organization's Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, as well as the Biological Diversity Convention.

Finally, regarding the World Bank's revision of Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous People, the indigenous delegates present here support the declaration of the indigenous communities during the Inter-American Working Group Meeting on Indigenous Rights of the Organization of American States.

The consultation process recommended by the indigenous communities has not been followed, and the document does not emphasize recognition of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples already guaranteed internationally, such as the right to land and territories, natural resources, cultural integrity, right to self-determination, customary decision-making and conflict resolution processes, the right to informed consent, among others.

Rio de Janeiro, April 19, 2002.

Sebastiao Haji Manchineri, Coordinador General COICA
Teresa Antazú, Dirigente AIDESEP, Perú
Rubén Suárez, Dirigente ONIC, Colombia
Robert Cartagena , Dirigente CIDOB, Bolivia
Florentino Nahuel, Dirigente Coordinadora Mapuche, Argentina
Adolfo Shakay , Presidente CONFENIAE, Ecuador
Ruperto Calena Vidal, CONACAMI, Perú
Jorge Acosta Arias, CDES, Ecuador
Gladis Márquez, Labor, Perú
Sandra Ramos López, Movimiento de Mujeres "María Elena Cuadra", Nicaragua
Carlos Zorrilla, DECOIN, Ecuador

Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Extractive Industries
15 April 2003, Oxford, United Kingdom

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 Washington in October 2002. We also draw attention to the findings of the Workshop on Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights and the Extractive Industries organised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva in December 2001.

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:

o Violation of our basic human rights, such as killings, repression and the assassination of our leaders;
o The invasion of our territories and lands and the usurpation of our resources.
o By denying us rights or control over our lands, including subsurface resources our communities and cultures are, literally, undermined.
o Many of our communities have been forced to relocate from their lands and ended up seriously impoverished and disoriented.
o Extractive industries are not transparent, withholding important information relevant to decisions affecting us.
o Consultation with our communities has been minimal and wholly inadequate measures have been taken to inform us of the consequences of these schemes before they have been embarked on.
o Consent has been engineered through bribery, threats, moral corruption and intimidation.
o Mines, oil and gas developments have ruined our basic means of subsistence, torn up our lands, polluted our soils and waters, divided our communities and poisoned the hopes of our future generations. They increase prostitution, gambling, alcoholism, drugs and divorce due to rapid changes in the local economy.
o Indigenous women have in particular suffered the imposition of mining culture and cash based economies.
o Extractive industries are unwilling to implement resource sharing with indigenous peoples on a fair and equal basis.

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 2003
Oxford, United Kingdom