STATEMENTS

Full statement on the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples August 9, 2020

Asia Indigenous peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) is one with the world in commemorating International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. Today, we salute all indigenous peoples who have persevered in their struggles for the respect and defense of our collective rights to ancestral land, resources and self-determination.

While we applaud our gains, we equally recognize our losses and challenges. The lessons we learned from this historic struggle are our weapons as we move forward in our quest for true freedom, a healthy natural environment, and lasting peace. These are the fundamental elements for self-determination and sustainable development from the perspective of indigenous peoples.

As we advance our struggles, we confront more difficult and life-threatening challenges such as the plunder of our resources and the aggressive implementation of extractive and destructive development projects in our territories. Indigenous peoples are repeatedly victims of human or people’s right violations in various forms such as harassment, vilification, abduction, rape, incarceration for fake charges, torture, extra-judicial killing, bombing, burning of villages, massacre, etc. At worst, ethnocide and genocide could already be happening among some indigenous groups.

Today, these challenges have worsened to a level beyond expectation as we experience the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Again, among the most affected are indigenous peoples and the poor majority of the global population. The imposition by States of extreme restrictions in mobility has prevented people from working for their daily subsistence, especially with the closure of many establishments. Medical, economic and food relief support from the government are limited or none at all. Many people are experiencing hunger and mental trauma that have pushed some to commit suicide.

Ironically, transnational corporations engaged in extractive industries seem undisturbed and exempted from restrictions under the COVID-19 quarantine. Corporations continue to operate their businesses especially in the mining and energy sectors. In Asia, the pandemic is being used to further oppress the people with the imposition of various militarist policies and the implementation of anti-people development projects, which indigenous peoples strongly oppose.

In the Philippines, mining-affected people of Didipio, Nueva Ecija were locked down in their homes and communities to stop the spread of the pandemic. Meanwhile, OceanaGold Mining Company insisted on operating despite the expiration of its FTAA permit on June 20, 2019. The mining company aided by policemen, had sneaked into the mine-site to bring in fuel supplies breaking through the community barricade with a fuel tank truck. Community members who strongly protested were even charged for violation of quarantine restrictions.

In Myanmar, on July 2, 2020, a landslide at a jade mine in Hpakant, Katchin state, north Myanmar killed at least 126 mine workers and injured54 others. Reports say that many large jade mine companies are owned by families of former generals, army, cronies, and drug lords. The Katchin minority people of Myanmar have been opposing the Jade mine for decades already.

In Northeast India, an oil spill happened on May 27, 2020 at Baghjan Oilfield of India Limited (OIL) in Tinsukia district in Assam state causing a fire that lasted for 2 weeks. Around 3,000 (1,610 families) people were affected and forced to evacuate. Furthermore, the oil spill badly damaged two biodiversity areas (Maguri-Motapung wetland and Dibru-Saikhowa National Park) where at least 36 species of mammals including feral horses and at least 382 species of birds are found. It was also reported that this is not the first disaster incident at Baghjan Oilfield. In February this year, a blast at the oil pipeline had caused the Burhi Dihing river to catch fire.

In Indonesia, land use conversion for commercial purposes is continuing. 15 million hectares of rainforests on ancestral lands plus another 15 million hectares are being converted into oil palm plantations. In addition, more than 93 million hectares of land are covered by mining concessions, part of which are lands owned by indigenous peoples.

The cases mentioned here illustrate how the tandem of transnational corporations and governments with their armed forces in Asia are advancing

their businesses for huge profits- amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Adversely affected areindigenous peoples, their territories, environment and biodiversity. Now more than ever, we indigenous peoples should act as one in confronting these challenges. We need to persevere in fighting for our rights to land and self-determination, as we strengthen our solidarity with other oppressed sectors around the globe for the common good of the people and the planet.

Long live Indigenous Peoples in Asia! Log live Indigenous Peoples of the World! Long live International Solidarity!

SOLIDARITY STATEMENT FOR THE ONGOING DIDIPIO BARRICADE: Relentlessly assert our collective rights to land and resources!

We are adding our voice to amplify the calls of the residents of Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. With renewed fervor, we pledge our full support to the ongoing peoples’ barricade against Oceanagold Philippines, Inc. (OGPI) and congratulate them on their perseverance to stop the unlawful and destructive mining operations.

Indigenous peoples and the community of Didipio in Nueva Vizcaya mounted a peoples barricade to stop the large scale gold and copper mining operations of Oceanagold, an Australian-Canadian mining corporation. The local government unit has issued a restraining order after the foreign mine’s Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) expired last June 20, 2019 on its 25th year. The mining giant, however, has defied these orders claiming that it can continue operating on the premise that their application for FTAA renewal has been endorsed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) to the office of the Philippine President.

Pending the President’s approval of their application, Oceanagold filed a petition for preliminary injunction. The Regional Trial Court denied this finding no sufficient evidence to support the claim of Oceanagold that they are authorized to continue mining operations thru the endorsement of line agencies. Thus, any continued operation by the mining corporation is illegal.

The years of exploitation and the environmental destruction that the mining caused has earned the ire of the community, environmental advocates and groups and even the local government officials. The ongoing barricade they have mounted since the beginning of this month is a testament to the peoples objection to the company’s attempt to extend their plunder of Didipio’s mineral reserves.

We stand with the indigenous peoples and the community of Didipio in their fight to protect land and resources and put an end to corporate greed. We enjoin everyone to amplify the calls and bring this issue to a wider platform to consolidate the peoples strength and voice against OGPI.

Oceanagold, out of Nueva Vizcaya now! No go for Oceanagold!

For Reference:

Jill Carino, AIPNEE Coordinator

AIPNEE and CEMSOJ’s joint submission on Development Finance Institutions and Human Rights to the UN

Below is the joint submission made by Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) and Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights for their forthcoming report on “Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) and Human Rights”. The submission particularly focuses on the rights of indigenous peoples based on the experiences of AIPNEE and CEMSOJ of working with indigenous and other local communities that have faced or are facing human rights impacts due to energy and trade facilitation projects financed by various DFIs.

Click here for the PDF of the submission.

Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) and Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) appreciates the opportunity to submit inputs for the report of the Working Group to the 53^rd session of the Human Rights Council on “Development Finance Institutions and Human Rights”. This submission particularly focuses on the rights of indigenous peoples as it is based on our experiences of working with indigenous and other local communities that have faced or are facing human rights impacts due to energy and trade facilitation projects financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB)¹, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), the Bank of China (BOC)², and the World Bank³, among other DFIs, including in the engagement of the communities with the DFIs and their “independent” accountability mechanisms (IAMs).

DFIs’ Safeguards

The biggest challenge that we and the communities we have been working with have observed to ensure that the DFIs respect human rights in the contexts of the projects they finance is that their environmental and social framework, safeguards or standards are not in line with the international human rights standards, including the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). For example, the ADB’s Indigenous Peoples Safeguards require ascertaining consent of the indigenous peoples affected by the projects that the ADB finances for certain project activities, which is understood as a collective expression of the affected indigenous communities of broad community support for such project activities. Such requirement falls short of the rights of indigenous peoples guaranteed under the UNDRIP, which calls for obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples prior to the approval of any project affecting them.

Worse, DFIs such as the JICA and the recently established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) do not even require obtaining consent of indigenous peoples for their projects affecting them. The JICA’s safeguards simply states that “efforts must be made to obtain consent of indigenous peoples in a process of free, prior and informed consultation”. The AIIB’s Environmental and Social Standard 3 on Indigenous Peoples only require engaging in Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPICon) for certain project activities unless FPIC is mandated by the national laws where the project is located. Among the DFIs, the EIB’s Environmental and Social Standards (2022) seem to be the most progressive in terms of the respect of the rights of requirement of FPIC but that still applies to a project under certain activities but not for an entire project prior to its approval. It is not even well known if national DFIs such as the JBIC, the BOC and the Export-Import (EXIM) banks, which have been increasing their development financing, even have any environmental and social safeguards applicable for the projects they finance.

The Environmental and Social Safeguards, Standards or Framework of DFIs should be fully aligned with the international human rights law and standards, including the ILO Convention 169 and the UNDRIP in the context of the rights of indigenous peoples. Specifically, the DFIs should explicitly require obtaining the FPIC of the concerned indigenous peoples prior to approval of any project they finance affecting the indigenous peoples.

Further, for a project co-financed by various DFIs, it is very difficult for the project-affected marginalized communities to understand different Safeguards/Standards of each DFI that apply to the project. So, the Safeguards, Standards or Framework of all the DFIs should be streamlined to make them similar if not the same with the aim to achieve the best Standards and Safeguards in line with the international human rights standards instead of going for lower or existing standards as we have experienced in the ongoing Safeguards review process of the ADB. Additionally, the DFIs should ensure that their clients or project implementers as well as other stakeholders (such as concerned government authorities) fully understand the requirements under the Safeguards and their applicability beyond national legal provisions if the laws have lesser requirements to protect and respect rights.

Access to remedy

The other major challenge that we have observed is in relation to the engagement of the communities affected by the DFI-financed project to access remedy with the IAMs of the DFIs. Firstly, not all DFIs, particularly national, sub-regional and regional DFIs, have established IAMs while the existing IAMs lack mandate and scope to effectively address the grievances of the affected communities to ensure their access to remedy for the project impacts. For example, even when IAMs find credible evidence of non-compliance with the Safeguards and significant impacts on the affected communities, they cannot recommend suspension of project financing – that is often the first ask of the communities to avoid further harms – until the grievances are addressed. Their recommendations are very often ignored by the DFIs and their clients. IAMs cannot look into complaints beyond the project financed by the DFIs even when there might be cumulative or associated impacts of the project with other related undertakings of the client or the project implementer. Similarly, IAMs mostly cannot look into allegations of corruption in the project even when they are related to the environmental and social impacts of the project.

Secondly, when the communities are able to file a complaint to the IAMs, many complaints are deemed ineligible for various reasons. For example, the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism requires the affected communities to undertake good faith efforts with the Bank management to resolve their grievances before filing their complaint with the Mechanism. Often, such good faith efforts use up the communities’ limited resources and time while can even bring them risks from the Client or the project implementer as the management seek negotiated settlements between the implementer and the communities. Many complaints to the Mechanism are found ineligible for the lack of such good faith efforts prior to filing complaint. EIB’s Complaint Mechanism on the other hand does not have such requirement.

Additionally, the procedures of the IAMs are quite technical, complex and lengthy, which cause significant difficulties for the project affected communities to access them. At the same time, their procedures differ from each other, which cause confusion among the communities in the context of projects co-financed by various DFIs to understand the procedures of each IAM. For example, the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism does not allow for the ADB project-affected people/communities to first seek compliance review to ADB safeguards for a complaint and then move to dispute resolution. The ADB-project affected communities we worked with have felt that if non-compliance of ADB safeguards could be established before seeking dispute resolution, that would put greater pressure on the client or the project implementer to respect the rights of the communities. Similarly, they have experienced that the processes of the IAMs are not community- or victim-centered. In a dispute resolution process, for instance, the IAMs ignore significant imbalance of power between the communities and the Client or project implementer when they seek to be equal towards both parties of the dispute. At the same time, operational level grievance mechanisms often set up under the client or the project implementer have been little useful if at all due to limitations of mandate, scope and independence while the communities are mostly not made aware about such mechanisms.

Thus, while all DFIs, including national, sub-regional, regional and international, should establish IAMs, such IAMs should be provided effective and broad mandate and scope with their full independence from the Management ensured. Specifically, the IAMs should be able to make binding recommendations that the DFIs and their client or project implementer should fully and effectively implement. The IAMs should even have the ability to recommend suspension of financing when they find serious harms caused and to avoid further harms by the project.

The processes and procedures of the IAMs should be streamlined so that they are similar if not same and easy for communities to understand. They should follow some minimum standards in their processes so as to make them community-centered, such as removing inappropriate prior requirements or procedural conditions that restrict the communities’ access to the IAMs. The DFIs and their IAMs should promote operational level grievance mechanisms for their projects in line with the effectiveness criteria of company grievance mechanisms in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. However, such mechanisms should be independent from the client or the project implementer and set up under the DFI or its IAM. The mechanisms should be gender-sensitive to ensure participation of affected women with them and culturally appropriate in line with the customary laws and practices of indigenous peoples and other affected communities.

Furthermore, the DFIs should themselves be liable to remedy harms caused by the projects they finance. So, they should create remedy frameworks through meaningful public consultations to ensure availability of resources throughout the project cycle to remedy any harm caused. The International Finance Corporation is currently developing a draft approach to remedy. However, the draft needs to be strengthened in line with the comments from the civil society, including for IFC to directly finance remedial measures for the harms of the projects it finances.

Accountability of DFIs

At the end, we assert that since the multilateral, regional, sub-regional or national DFIs are composed by multiple or individual governments, the State duty to protect human rights should subsequently fall on the DFIs as well to some extent. In our experiences, we believe that the DFIs do not consider themselves as one of the duty bearers to protect the human rights of communities impacted by the projects they finance and merely consider themselves as a financier with limited responsibility for the rights of the affected communities. The level of duty or responsibility of DFIs to protect or respect human rights in the context of projects they finance given their intergovernmental or governmental nature should be elaborated further.

Many DFIs enjoy immunity for the impacts of the projects they finance under the national laws or their agreements with the governments. That makes it difficult for the affected communities or their representatives to challenge the actions, or lack thereof, of the DFIs to protect or respect human rights of the communities in the contexts of the projects they finance. In order to make the DFIs fully accountable for their human rights impacts, the DFIs should be stripped of such immunity so that they are subject to scrutiny under national and international laws. Accordingly, the proposed legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises should also be applicable to the DFIs to hold them responsible for the human rights impacts of the projects they finance.

3 March 2023

______________________________________________
References:

______________________________________________

AIPNEE and CEMSOJ’s joint submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights for its forthcoming country visit to Japan

Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) and Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) made a joint submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights on Monday for its forthcoming official country visit to Japan. The submission particularly focuses on the roles of Japanese institutions in providing assistance or financing projects that harm Indigenous Peoples in countries across Asia and the lack of accountability of those institutions to remedy such harms. It is based on our experiences of working with Indigenous communities that have faced or are facing human rights impacts due to energy and other projects reportedly or being (co-)financed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)¹ and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)².

The submission details the challenges that are faced in seeking accountability of these mechanisms and accordingly provides recommendations.

Information disclosure

The first challenge that we and the communities face in seeking accountability of Japanese institutions for harms caused by the projects with their assistance/financing is the lack of public or easily accessible information about such assistance/financing. For example, the JICA website in Nepal does not provide any information about its assistance for the Tanahu Hydropower Project, which impacts Indigenous Magar and other local communities in western Nepal. The impacted communities have been engaged in dispute resolution processes with the Project facilitated by the accountability mechanisms of other co-financiers of the Project – the Asian Development Bank and the European Investment Bank. In lack of public information about JICA’s involvement in the project, including on its website, the communities are unaware if the JICA has taken any action in consideration to the concerns they have raised in relation to the project.

Often, governmental, news and other reports suggest assistance of Japanese institutions such as JICA/JBIC in contentious projects. But comprehensive information about the projects is difficult to find on their websites (particularly for JBIC financed projects³) or even in communications with the institutions (for example, in the case of JICA loan for improvement of electricity distribution in Kathmandu, which has been raised concerns among communities⁴).

Hence, JICA and JBIC should improve their information disclosure to provide comprehensive information, such as environmental and social impact assessments, impact management plans, monitoring reports, etc., about the projects that they are involved in publicly, including on their websites – categorized by country and each project in line with or building on the information provided by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Safeguards and Accountability Mechanisms

It is welcome that JBIC and JICA have their Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations⁵ and their accountability mechanisms, namely the JBIC’s Office of Examiner for Environmental Guidelines (OEEG)⁶ and the JICA’s Secretariat of the Examiner for the Guidelines⁷. However, the almost identical Guidelines of JBIC and JICA and their accountability mechanisms are not well known. The Guidelines are very generic although they refer to the requirements and standards to comparable standards such as that of the World Bank. The guidelines and the accountability mechanisms can be considered very weak – even in comparison to the standards of international financial institutions. This is evident in the fact that there have not been many complaints to the mechanisms.

JBIC and JICA should thus significantly increase their outreach about their Guidelines and accountability mechanisms, including in collaboration with relevant civil society organizations and other stakeholders such as the accountability mechanisms of international financial institutions. Further, they should strengthen their Safeguards (the Guidelines) that apply to the projects they finance as per the international human rights standards as well as their accountability mechanisms in line with the good practices among such mechanisms of international financial institutions the iso as to encourage the communities impacted by those projects to engage with them.

Other matters

Further, Japan’s National Action Plan on Human Rights (2020-2025)⁸ launched in October 2020 and the subsequent Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains⁹ (September 2022) have significant rooms of improvement although they represent strong steps in the right direction. For example, the National Action Plan and the Guidelines recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the vulnerable groups/stakeholders that require particular attention – the latter even notes the need to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples for their relocation. However, both the National Action Plan and the Guidelines lack mandatory measures to address the rights of Indigenous Peoples, among other human rights, in business contexts.

Thus, in line with the advancements in other parts of the world (particularly Europe and the European Union) as well as the global level with the proposed treaty on business and human rights, the Government of Japan and other authorities should move towards mandatory human rights due diligence requirements on Japanese businesses and financial institutions such as JICA and JBIC so that communities if impacted by business or other operations with involvement of those Japanese entities can seek accountability within Japanese legal and judicial systems.

Click here for the PDF version of the submission.

Statement of solidarity of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) for the 40th Cordillera Peoples Day

The Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) together with its affiliate members in various countries in the region extends its solidarity with the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) chapters and members on the commemoration of the 40^th Peoples’ Cordillera Day this 24 April 2024 in Kalinga, Philippines.

As per the theme for the Day: “SUMKAD! Courageously advance the struggle for land, life and honor”, the annual commemoration is a steadfast commitment of CPA chapters, members and advocates in supporting communities in their struggles, advocating on their calls and standing alongside in defense of their rights.

The Cordillera region, having abundant natural resources, including lands, water and minerals, has become target for extractive industries operated by both States and corporations. According to the CPA, 109 energy and 104 mining projects are in the entire region, which impact social and environmental aspects and collective rights of indigenous peoples here. This is coupled with repression of indigenous peoples human rights defenders – a reality the CPA faced since its establishment.

The situation is similar in other regions of the Philippines. Thereby, indigenous peoples are struggling for their rights, for example, against various new mining projects for nickel in Palawan. Likewise, in other countries of the region, considering Asia’s natural resources is the richest and most diverse in the plane, ironically indigenous peoples are disregarded and continue to experience non-recognition of land rights, marginalization by and neglect of government, militarization, and human rights violations.

AIPNEE and its affiliate members have been working closely with indigenous communities in the Philippines and other countries to protect and promote their rights in the context of extractive and energy projects. For instance, AIPNEE has been supporting local youth group defending the rights of Isnag communities affected by hydropower dams in the Apayao river. Similarly, AIPNEE and its members are assisting communities affected by silica mining in Malaysia, and hydropower dams in India and Nepal, among others.

While acknowledging that the adversities faced by indigenous communities presents challenges, AIPNEE celebrates and stands in solidarity on our resolve and that of indigenous peoples to courageously advance the struggle for land, life and honor. The 40^th Peoples’ Cordillera Day marks not just a celebration but reaffirmation of commitment to the rights and dignity of the Cordillera mass movement.

Sumkad and long live international solidarity! Long live indigenous peoples of the world!

Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations submit joint commentary on ADB’s draft Environmental and Social Framework

Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI), Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP), and Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) have collectively submitted a comprehensive commentary on the proposed Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), focusing on the draft Environmental and Social Standard 7 (ESS7) concerning Indigenous Peoples. The commentary, while centred on the ESS7, addresses broader issues of compliance, process, and accessibility, aiming to ensure effective implementation and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Compliance, Process, and Accessibility: The commentary emphasizes the need for accessible language and forms in the ESF, considering that English is not the primary language for most Indigenous Peoples in the region. It underscores the importance of not just the wording but also the effective implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of the ESF, citing concerns raised in the Independent Evaluation Department’s (IED) 2020 report.

Text of the ESS7: The commentary welcomes the recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the draft ESS7 but calls for greater coherence with international standards. It stresses the need for alignment with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and effective implementation.

Identification and Impact Assessment: Issues with the identification of Indigenous Peoples and impact assessment methodologies are highlighted, pointing out flaws identified by the IED review and calling for robust assessments aligned with international standards.

Meaningful Consultation: The commentary underscores the importance of meaningful consultation, stressing adherence to Indigenous Peoples’ customs and traditions. It advocates for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and emphasizes Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination over their lands, territories, and resources.

Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) and Voluntary Isolation: Concerns regarding the implementation and enforcement of IPP, budget allocation, and FPIC requirements are raised. Additionally, the commentary questions the handling of voluntary isolation, advocating for a clearer and more respectful approach.

Special Requirements and FPIC: Specific recommendations are made regarding legal recognition of Indigenous lands, compensation, and sustainable development opportunities, all centered around the principle of FPIC.

The joint commentary serves as a comprehensive evaluation of the ADB’s draft ESF, offering detailed feedback and recommendations to ensure the effective protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It calls for meaningful dialogue, alignment with international standards, and robust mechanisms for implementation and enforcement. As the ADB moves forward with its safeguard policy review, the voices and concerns of Indigenous Peoples must be given utmost consideration to achieve sustainable and equitable development in the region.

Download the full commentary here.

______________________________________________
References:

______________________________________________