El Consentimiento Libre,
Previo e Informado:
Un vistazo de algunas políticas e
iniciativas a nível Internacional
Viviane Weitzner, PhDc
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS-DF), México
[email protected]
“Extracting Justice?”, UNC Chapel Hill, 6-8 octubre 2014
Guia de presentación
 Narrativas de sus Origenes
 Algunos ‘standard-setters’ a nivel internacional






La ONU
El Banco Mundial
El Sector Privado
Las ONGs
Los Pueblos
Las cortes internacionales
 Algunos retos, vacios, choques….
Sesgo:
El Sector
Extractivo, con
un enfoque
particular sobre
el Sector
Minero
Estado?!
Orígines del CsLPI
Fuente: Colchester y McKay (2004)
Una cuestion de pervivencia…
“When we talk about free, prior and informed consent, its not
only about human and Treaty rights for us as First Nations, and
our nation-to-nation relationships; we’re talking about our
very existence, our survival. Because long after the mining is
done, and the mining companies are gone, we still need to be
on the land. And that’s why it’s so important that we have a say
what happens within our homelands.”
--Chief Stan Beardy, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, 2009
ONU e
Instrumentos Internacionales
 OIT Convenio 169 (1989)
 Motoc y Tebtebba (2004/5) – Comentario Legal
 Declaración sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas
(2007) – “estandardes mínimos”
 John Ruggie – Marco (2008) y Directrices (2011)
 Anaya – 2013
 Observaciones de la Comisión sobre la Eliminación de
Discriminación Racial (CERD)
 Otros…
Motoc and Tebtebba (2005)
(55) Substantively, the right of free, prior and informed consent is grounded in and is
a function of indigenous peoples’ inherent and prior rights to freely determine their
political status, freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development and
freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources - a complex of inextricably
related and interdependent rights encapsulated in the right to self-determination, to
their lands, territories and resources, where applicable, from their treaty-based
relationships, and their legitimate authority to require that third parties enter into an
equal and respectful relationships with them based on the principle of informed
consent. Procedurally, free, prior and informed consent requires processes that allow
and support meaningful and authoritative choices by indigenous peoples about their
development paths.
(56) In relation to development projects affecting indigenous peoples’ lands and
natural resources, the respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent is
important so that:




Indigenous peoples are not coerced, pressured or intimidated in their choices of
development;
Their consent is sought and freely given prior to the authorization and start of
development activities;
indigenous peoples have full information about the scope and impacts of the proposed
development activities on their lands, resources and well-being;
Their choice to give or withhold consent over developments affecting them is respected
and upheld.
Anaya (2013)
 Impactos de la minería: “Indigenous peoples around the world have
suffered negative, even devastating consequences from extractive
industries”
 Consentimiento = “Una regla general”
“Extractives activities should not take place within the territories of indigenous
peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
“In all instances of proposed extractive projects that might affect indigenous
peoples, consultations with them should take place and consent should at least
be sought, even if consent is not strictly required.”
“The general rule ..derives from the character of free, prior and informed
consent as a safeguard for the internationally recognized rights of
indigenous peoples that are typically affected by extractive activities that
occur within their territories. …together, principles of consultation and
consent function as instrumental rights of participation and selfdetermination and as safeguards for all those rights of indigenous peoples
that may be affected by external actors, including rights that indigenous
peoples have under domestic law or treaties to which they have subscribed, or
rights recognized and protected by authoritative international sources like the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and various
widely ratified multilateral treaties.” (p. 9)
Anaya (2013)
 Excepción sólo cuando = “It must be necessary and proportional in
relation to a valid State objective motivated by concern for the human
rights of others.” (según UNDRIP)
“The special Rapporteur cautions that such a valid public purpose is not found in mere
commercial interests or revenue-raising objectives, and certainly not when benefits
from the extractive industries are primarily for private gain. It should be recalled that
under various sources of international law, indigenous peoples have property, cultural and
other rights in relation to their traditional territories, even if those rights are not held
under title deed or other form of official recognition. Limitations of all those rights of IPs
must, at a minimum, be backed by valid public purpose within a human rights framework,
just as with limitations on rights formally recognized by the State.”
 Derechos de PIs de oponerse a los proyectos mineros
 Derechos de PIs de NO CONSENTIR A UNA CONSULTA CUANDO no hay dudas
de su oposición al proyecto (“they UNAMBIGUOUSLY OPPOSE” the project)
“States should not insist, or allow companies to insist, that indigenous peoples engage in
consultations about proposed extractives projects to which they have clearly expressed
opposition… In such cases, neither the States nor companies need or should insist on
consultations, while, at the same time, they must understand that the situation is one in
which indigenous peoples have affirmatively withheld their consent”
Anaya (2013)
 Modelo ‘Alternativo’ v . Modelo ‘Clasico’
(Indígena v. Terceros y Estado)
 Estados deberían de dar preferencia a licencias y permisos para Indígenas antes de
terceros
 Apoyo estatal y programas de capacitación
 ‘Revenue-Sharing’, porcentajes de ganancias, participación en la toma de decisiones
= ‘genuine partnership”
 Monitoreo participativo/ESIA
 Mecanismos de Resolución de Conflictos
 Obligación de empresas de hacer su propia evaluación si contravienen normas
internacionales AUN SI obtienen autorizacion del estado



“If they would not be in compliance [with international standards], the extractive
operations should not be implemented, regardless of any authorization by the State
to do so.”
“extractive companies should avoid accepting permits or concessions from States
when prior consultation and consent requirements have not been met (par 40).”
Regulación extraterritorial de Estados

p.14, para 48: “States should therefore adopt regulatory measures for companies
domiciled in their respective jurisdictions that are aimed at preventing and, in
appropriate circumstances, sanctioning and remedying violations of the rights of
indigenous peoples abroad for which those companies are responsible or in which
they are complicit.”
Cortes/Instrumentos
Internacionales
 Corte Inter-Americana sobre Derechos
Humanos:
 Saramaka v. Suriname (2007)
 Comité sobre Derechos Humanos –
Convenio Internacional sobre los
Derechos Civiles y Politicos
 Poma v. Peru (2009)
Banco Mundial
 World Commission of Dams (1998-2000)
 Extractives Industries Review (2001-2004)
Resultado: Dilución de la recomendación de
“consentimiento libre, previo e informado
a
“consulta previa, libre e informado”
“Broad Community Support”
 IFC 2011 – CsPLI en ciertas circunstancias
 Revisión de Politicas actualmente…
IFC Performance Standards
 Los directríces mas consultados a nível global para empresas
Also
 adoptado ‘voluntariamente’ por los 80 Bancos/Instituciones
Financieras ‘ecuatorianos’ (‘Equator Bank’)
 Export Credit Norway acaba de integrarse(Junio 2014)! Export
Development Canada, otros…
 Guia también algunas políticas gubernamentales, e.g. Canada
 El portafolio del IFC en IE holds es de US$2.5 billion:
 75 % en hidrocarburos, y 25% en US$ que se han comprometido
PERO casi igual en terminos de numeros de inversiones
 Inversiones en mas de 45 países – Africa y Latino América = 66%
del protafolio en términos de US$ millones.
IFC Performance Standards
 IFC (2006) PSs: free, prior and informed consultation, broad community and good
faith negotiation
 IFC (2011) PSs: informed consultation and participation of communities, and free,
prior and informed consent in specific circumstances.
 where project design, implementation and expected outcomes are associated with
the following adverse impacts:




impacts on lands and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under
customary use;
relocation of Indigenous Peoples from lands and natural resources subject to
traditional ownership or under customary use;
significant impacts on critical cultural heritage that is essential to the identity
and/or cultural, ceremonial, or spiritual aspects of Indigenous Peoples’ lives,
including natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value such as sacred groves,
sacred bodies of water and waterways, sacred trees, and sacred rocks; or
use of cultural heritage, including knowledge, innovations or practices of Indigenous
Peoples for commercial purposes.
IFC Performance Standards
 Críticas del‘Sustainability Framework’:
 No requiere evaluación sobre impactos de derechos humanos
 No se refiere explícitamente a:
 Convenio 169 de la OIT
 La Declaración de la ONU sobre Pueblos Indígenas
 Jurisprudencia internacional clarificando los derechos de los
Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales
 Problemas procesuales:
 El cliente documenta
 “FPIC does not necessarily require unanimity and may be achieved
even when individuals or groups within the community explicitly
disagree” (para 12).
 Si hay un Ombuds (CAO) que podría recomendar sanciones y
perdida de financiamiento, pero…
Revisión ACTUAL de las Políticas
Salvaguarda del Banco Mundial
 30 de Julio, 2014 – empezó revision de politicas de medio ambiente y sociales que
condicionan sus programas e inversiones (fuera de las agencias que financian el
sector privado directamente)
Segun la Nota de Prensa
“We are proposing to extend the existing protections for Indigenous Peoples and
introduce Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples,” said Mark King,
Chief Environmental and Social Standards Officer.
“In exceptional circumstances when there are risks of exacerbating ethnic tension or
civil strife or where the identification of Indigenous Peoples is inconsistent with the
constitution of the country, in consultation with people affected by a particular project,
we are proposing an alternative approach to the protection of Indigenous Peoples. But
we should be clear that any alternative approach will only be adopted with approval
from our Board, which represents all of our member countries.”
 Críticas:




Demasiado Poder en manos de los gobiernos nacionales ! -- “Opt-out” of IPs policy
Diluición de capacidad y recursos de monitoreo/verificación del Banco
“Turning Back the clock by 30 years!”
IMPACTOS REGRESIVO SOBRE OTRAS INSTITUCIONES!
Sector Privado
 ICMM
 Varias empresas con políticas de CsPLI
Políticas =/= implementación
ICMM (Consejo Internacional de Minería y Metales)
22 empresas mineras
32 asociaciones mineras nacionales y regionales -- conexiones con 1,500 empresas globales
Mandato: “to address the core sustainable development challenges faced by the industry.”
A nivel global, miembros son responsables por produccion de cobre (52%), platino (44%), iron ore (42.5%, oro (26.88%) y nickel (28%)
Xstrata
Rio Tinto
BHPBilliton
Areva
Newmont
Goldfields
Barrick Gold
Nippon
Lihr Gold
Glencore
Vale
GoldCorp
Teck
Minerals and
Metals Group
Hydro
Anglo American
Freeport McMoran
Mitsubishi
Sumitomo Metal
Mining
African Rainbow
Minerals
Lonmin
Member associations
Cámara Asomineros Andi - Colombia
Chamber of Mines of South Africa
Chamber of Mines of the Philippines
Chamber of Mines of Zambia
Cobalt Development Institute
Consejo Minero de Chile A.G.
Eurometaux
Euromines
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries
Ghana Chamber of Mines
Instituto Brasileiro de Mineraçao
Instituto de Seguridad Minera (ISEM) - Peru
International Aluminium Institute
International Copper Association (ICA)
International Iron Metallics Association
International Lead Association
International Manganese Institute
International Molybdenum Association (IMOA)
International Wrought Copper Council
International Zinc Association
ITRI
Japan Mining Industry Association
Minerals Council of Australia
Mining Association of Canada
Mining Industry Associations of Southern Africa (MIASA)
National Mining Association (NMA) - USA
Nickel Institute
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Sociedad Nacional de Minería (SONAMI) - Chile
Sociedad Nacional de Minería, Petróleo y Energía
(SNMPE) - Peru
World Coal Association
World Gold Council
ICMM:
Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples (2008, 2013)
 Implementación “Requerido” en 2015
 “Recognizing the potential vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples, the commitments
in this position statement may be summarized as requiring members to:



respect the rights, interests, special connections to lands and waters, and
perspectives of Indigenous Peoples, where mining projects are to be located on lands
traditionally owned by or under customary use of Indigenous Peoples
adopt and apply engagement and consultation processes that ensure the meaningful
participation of indigenous communities in decision making, through a process that is
consistent with their traditional decision-making processes and is based on good
faith negotiation;
work to obtain the consent of Indigenous Peoples where required by this position
statement.”
 Define el Cspli como:
“FPIC comprises a process, and an outcome. Through this process Indigenous Peoples
are: (i) able to freely make decisions without coercion, intimidation or manipulation;
(ii) given sufficient time to be involved in project decision making before key
decisions are made and impacts occur; and (iii) fully informed about the project and
its potential impacts and benefits. The outcome is that Indigenous Peoples can give
or withhold their consent to a project, through a process that strives to be
consistent with their traditional decision-making processes while respecting
internationally recognized human rights and is based on good faith negotiation.”
ICMM:
Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples (2013)
 Implementación -- mayo 2015 SOLO PARA NUEVOS PROYECTOS
 Consentimiento = Acuerdo y proyecto saliendo adelante!
 Acapara marco nacional, no internacional
 Procesual: poder de decision en mano de los gobiernos:
 “If consent is not forthcoming despite the best efforts of all
parties, in balancing the rights and interests of Indigenous
Peoples with the wider population, government might
determine that a project should proceed and specify the
conditions that should apply. In such circumstances, ICMM
members will determine whether they ought to remain
involved with a project.”
ONGs

World Resources Institute

Oxfam America

Oxfam Australia -- Ombuds

Forest Peoples Programme

Instituto Norte-Sur

Amnestia Internacional

Kairos

Piplinks

Indian Law Resources Centre

First Peoples Worldwide

Dejusticia

Otros…
Otras
Iniciativas a notar:
IRMA - Alianza
Earthworks con
empresas hacia
esquema de
certificación)
Resolve – Diálogo
Empresas/algunos
ONGs re CsPLI
Pueblos Indígenas/Afros
 Protocolos propios
 Fortalecimiento interno
 Gobierno propio
 Zonas de Exclusión frente a la Gran Minería
 Mineria ancestral como alternativa propia
 Alianzas: inter-étnicas, nacionales e internacionales
 Redes
‘Consultas
Populares’
Fuente: Kirsch (2014)
Retos, Vacios, Choques
Fundamentales
 “Desarrollo” v. Buen Vivir
 El subsuelo como ‘recurso extraible’ estatal v. El territorio integral
como fuente de la vida, cultura, pervivencia
Conceptuales
 El ‘baile’ del discurso


Consentimiento =/= licencia social para operar =/= Broad Comunity Support
La consulta v. el consentimiento
Prácticas/Procesuales
 Debilidad institucional
 Falta de Voluntad política
 ASIMETRIA DE PODERES – Reglas de Juego: Quién lo define? Quién lo
implementa? Cuándo? Quien lo asegura/verifica?
 Apego al marco nacional en vez de los estandares internacionales por
parte de las empresas
FPIC
No consent,
No concession
Permit
Prior to
Concession
Research/
community ESIA
Prior to any
changes in
FPICproject;/prior
to closure
No consent,
No changes
Community monitoring
ESIA
Prior to a
access to
territory;
If yes,
Exploration
Agreement
ESIA
advanced
exploration
FPIC
FPIC
Prior to
advanced
exploration;
If yes,
Participation
Agreement
management/
action plans
FPIC
Company environmental management
Prior to ESIA/
Prior to
feasibility;
permit;
If yes,
If yes,
agreement
Impact
on
Independent Panel Benefit
ESIA/feasibility
Agreement
of Experts
process
Location decision
Advanced exploration/
deposit delineation
Project design:
Feasibility EIA/regulatory
Initial exploration
Construction
FPIC
1 to 5 years
2 to 5 years
3 to 8 years
Suspension/termination
Suspension/termination
Suspension/termination/
rejection by regulators
(rare)
Source: Weitzner 2011 (Adaptation of Mining Cycle in Gibson and O’Faircheallaigh 2010: 17)
Independent watchdog
Monitoring/Implementation of
management and action plans
Operations
Closure/
reclamation/
post-closure
2 to 60 years
1 to 5 years/
in perpetuity
Temporary/closure
Descargar

El Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado