Running Head: TNCs‟ TACTICS 1
TNCs‟ Tactics: A multiple case study on the violation of Indigenous Peoples‟ free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC) by mining transnational corporations (TNCs)
An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to
The Department of Social Sciences
University of the Philippines Manila
In Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the
Degree on Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Trisha Beverly C. Flores
2008-62359
March 2012
TNCs‟ TACTICS 2
Abstract
Philippine experience asserts that the indigenous peoples‟ free, prior and informed consent
(FPIC) as mandated by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is manipulated or railroaded by mining transnational corporations. This research aims to determine the strategies and tactics employed by mining TNCs in order to attain the “consent” of indigenous communities for their corporation‟s operations on ancestral lands. Hence, the multiple case study method was used in order to determine the patterns, similarities and differences in the tactics that TNCs employ in different indigenous communities. The study specifically looked into three cases: 1) Didipio
Copper-Gold Project in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya; 2) Mindoro Nickel Project in Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro; and 3) Rapu-Rapu Polumetallic Project in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. The research drew conclusion from review of literature and analysis of indigenous peoples‟ narratives from documentaries by indigenous peoples‟ advocacy groups. The author used the theory of imperialism and dependency theory and world systems theory to analyze these findings.
Keywords: indigenous people, mining transnational corporations, free, prior and
informed consent, Philippines
TNCs‟ TACTICS 3
Acknowledgement
TNCs‟ TACTICS 4
Appendix
Table 1. Priority Mining Projects in the Philippines
TNCs‟ TACTICS 5
Acknowledgement 3
Appendix 4
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Research Question and Objectives 10
Methodology 11
Significance of the Study 12
Chapter Two: Background of the Study 13
Review of Literature 13
Indigenous People 13
Free, prior and informed consent 14
Mining transnational corporations 15
National Situationer 16
Northern Luzon 16
Cordillera 16
Western Mindanao 16
Southern Mindanao 17
Framework of the Study 18
Data Presentation and Analysis 20 TNCs‟ TACTICS 6
Background of the Case Studies 20
Freedom from external manipulation, bribery and coercion 20
Prior to operations commencing 29
Adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts 32
Consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making 34
Conclusions and Recommendations 38
Bibliography 40
Appendix 43
TNCs‟ TACTICS 7
Chapter One: Introduction
The Indigenous Peoples Right Act of 1997 (IPRA) is considered as a landmark legislation of the Philippines. It recognizes, protects and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples. IPRA defines the free, prior and informed consent
(FPIC) as the “consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community” (IPRA, Chapter 2, Section 3G). In line with this, the Philippine law requires the company to obtain free, and prior, informed consent of indigenous peoples prior the implementation of activities within ancestral lands specifically the exploration, development and use of natural resources (Carino, 2002, p. 19).
While the law is assumed to be implemented, there have been numerous complaints from indigenous communities regarding the manipulation and violation of the indigenous peoples‟ right to FPIC. According to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor (2008), the operations of companies take place without the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities (p. 15). In a study entitled “Philippine Asset Reform Report Card”, a majority
(72.1%) of the extractive activities are in operation without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous community. In those cases where FPIC processes had been conducted, it was found that in the majority of communities “not all proper procedures were undertaken to ensure a fair and unbiased outcome” (Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor, 2008, p. 16). According to the
National Workshop of Indigenous Peoples on Human Rights (2004) organized by Cordillera
Peoples‟ Alliance (CPA), Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP), TNCs‟ TACTICS 8
Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID), AnthroWatch and Tebtebba, certificates of FPIC which were acquired were usually taken fraudulently: such as through the creation of fake tribal councils who will give their consent, bribing local officials and tribal leaders, deception and manipulation of the community members, which usually leads to divisions among indigenous groups and even between families and clans (p. 115).
The focus of this research is the violation of the core principles of FPIC through strategies and tactics of mining transnational corporations. These four core principles of FPIC will be used as indicators in this study: freedom from external manipulation, bribery and coercion; solicitation of consent prior to operations commencing; and adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts as well as consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making (Gariguez, 2010). The study asserts that the core principles should be collectively attained to acquire the “genuine” consent or free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous communities. The violation of one or more core principles of FPIC translates to the violation of the right to FPIC. Each principle is important and necessary for the attainment of the consent of indigenous peoples and indigenous cultural communities. The study will not tackle the violation of the FPIC in terms of technical and procedural aspects.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 9
Figure 1. Core Principles of the Free, prior and informed consent
Source: Community Perspective on FPIC: Philippine Experience (Gariguez, 2010)
TNCs‟ TACTICS 10
Research Question and Objectives Research Question. How do mining Transnational Corporations (TNCs) acquire the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples for their corporations‟ operations on IP‟s ancestral land?
Objectives. 1. To determine the whether the core principles of the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent are violated or fulfilled by the mining transnational corporations 2. To determine the most common strategies and tactics employed by TNCs to “acquire” the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples for their corporations‟ operations on IP‟s ancestral land 3. To identify the patterns, similarities and differences of the tactics employed by TNCs in different indigenous communities a. Didipio Copper-Gold Project b. Mindoro Nickel Project c. Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project
TNCs‟ TACTICS 11
Methodology
The study used the multiple case study method in order to determine the most common tactics employed by mining TNCs as well as to identify the patterns, similarities and differences among different indigenous communities. Among the 23 priority mining projects of the government estimated to be worth up to US$6.5 billion, 18 are in identified ancestral lands.
Among these 18 priority mining projects in ancestral domains, the researcher purposely chose three prominent and controversial cases all located in Luzon: the Didipio Copper-Gold Project in
Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, the Mindoro Nickel Project in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro and the Rapu-
Rapu Polymetallic Project in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. The study does not cover all priority mining projects operating in indigenous peoples‟ ancestral domain and is limited to these three cases only. Unless otherwise specified, the term “mining” in this paper refers to large-scale mining.
The author used Marxist-inspired Globalization theories to analyze the findings: Imperialism and
Dependency theory by Paul Baran and Andre Gunder Frank and World Systems theory by
Immanuel Wallerstein.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 12
Significance of the Study
This multiple case study contributes to the existing materials on the implementation of the free, prior and informed consent in the Philippines. This study is unique in the sense that it underscores the active role of the foreign mining companies in pursuing their interests and the perspective of the indigenous peoples regarding the violation of their right to FPIC focusing on the comparison of incidences of FPIC violation between three mining projects. The conclusions of the study are drawn from review of literature and analysis of affected indigenous peoples‟ narratives in documentaries and records of advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations. The researcher also used journals on the indigenous people by the national and international advocate NGOs, books and articles and also provisions from the laws of the
Philippine government.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 13
Chapter Two: Background of the Study
Review of Related Literature
Indigenous People.
Indigenous peoples are the primary inhabitants with a defined territory with continuing historical tradition and a unique relationship with the natural world. (Castillo, 2010) According to the United Nations, an indigenous person is one who belongs to indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).
On the other hand, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997defines indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as:
A group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by
other, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded
and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have,
through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous
religions and culture, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.
According to Jośe Martínez Cobo , indigenous peoples at present form non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. TNCs‟ TACTICS 14
Free, prior and informed consent. Indigenous peoples have an inherent right to free, prior and informed consent and self determination. The opportunity to give or withhold free prior and informed consent is both a right of indigenous peoples and a principle that is central to the rights of other local community members (Oxfam Australia, 2007, pg. 39). These rights are reflected in international human rights law and in the laws of some countries. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) which was enacted in 1997 recognizes indigenous peoples inherent rights to ancestral domain, self determination and free, prior and informed consent, among others.
According to Miranda, Chambers & Coumans (2005), FPIC can be broken down into the following required elements:
(1) consent that is obtained free of coercion or manipulation; (2) securing such consent
prior to any authorization by the government or third parties, and prior to commencement
of activities by a company affecting indigenous peoples‟ lands, territories, and resources;
and (3) consent that is informed by meaningful participation and consultation of
indigenous peoples based on the full disclosure of relevant aspects of the proposed
project by the company and permit granting authority in a form that is understandable and
accessible to indigenous peoples and local communities.
Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, FPIC is mandatory before the start of any project within ancestral lands. According to Oxfam Australia (2007), gaining affected indigenous peoples‟ and local communities‟ consent for mining projects is an essential aspect of respecting the human rights of those individuals and peoples.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 15
According to Goodland (2011), FPIC is a good way of achieving agreement:
“FPIC prevents the use of force and trickery, mainly by any mining companies who try to
buy consent by donating a few footballs or other “gifts”. Information reduces the normal
gross asymmetry of power between mining companies and impacted people, augments
transparency and reduces the potential for fraud, deceit and scams” (p. 9).
Mining transnational corporations.
Transnational Corporations are business firms that are headquartered in one country but have plants or places of operation in other countries as well (Coleman, 2008). Transnational corporations (TNCs) are generally regarded as enterprises comprising entities in more than one country which operate under a system of decision-making that permits coherent policies and a common strategy (UNCTAD).
Mining and other large-scale development projects can have a significant effect on host communities and the environment (Oxfam Australia, 2007, pg. 39). In the exploitation of
Indigenous people, transnational corporations play a big role. Transnational corporations have extracted resources from indigenous territories without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples involved and provided little or no compensation for the communities they inflicted with adverse impacts in terms of livelihood and cultural/spiritual life (United Nations,
2009). These transnational corporations tend to be among the largest companies in the world, and their widespread activities in search of resources and markets brings them into contact with a variety of tragic human and environmental situations across the globe
(Hennessy, 2003). TNCs‟ TACTICS 16
National Situationer: TNCs’ Tactics to acquire consent of Indigenous peoples
Discussed therein are the various strategies employed by mining TNCs to obtain the social consent and free, prior and informed consent from the affected indigenous communities.
Northern Luzon.
In the Cordilleras, specifically Mankayan, Benguet, large-scale mining operations began despite the lack of substantial consultations with affected tribal communities and despite the strong opposition by indigenous peoples in the area (The Coordinating Committee of the
National Workshop of Indigenous Peoples On Human Rights, 2004, p. 68). Community opposition is being met with harassments and other human rights abuses especially from hired
“security” officers of transnational corporations.
Cordillera.
Mining operations have resulted to several cases of violation of peoples‟ rights. Even the
Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) provision of the Indigenous Peoples‟ Rights Act (IPRA) is not being followed by the transnational corporations. (The Coordinating Committee of the
National Workshop of Indigenous Peoples On Human Rights, 2004, p. 70)
Western Mindanao.
In Western Mindanao, the lands of Subanons at Mt. Canatuan are being readied for open- pit mining operations. The affected Subanon communities asserts that the mining corporation manipulated the process of acquiring the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) by forming its own fake Council of Elders, which then approved the company‟s mining operations (The TNCs‟ TACTICS 17
Coordinating Committee of the National Workshop of Indigenous Peoples On Human Rights,
2004, p. 13) The indigenous community was also forced to sell their land at a very low price
(P1000.00 per hectare).
Southern Mindanao.
In the report of the Coordinating Committee of the National Workshop of Indigenous
Peoples On Human Rights (2004), the Lumads in Pantukan, Davao del Norte said that the
Canadian-owned Echo Bay-TVI mining corporation has been using two approaches to get social consent for the mining project:
“One is through community relations work and the second is through militarization. To
appease the residents, they promised school, medical services and livelihood projects.
Military operations, on the other hand, are conducted in areas of the mining project to
quell the resistance of the affected communities” (p. 51).
TNCs‟ TACTICS 18
Framework of the Study
The Global Capitalist System.
The World Systems theory posits the existence of a global capitalist system. In this capitalist system, countries are divided into metropoles and satellites (Frank) or core and periphery (Wallerstein). The global capitalist system is symbolized by a triangle featuring the elite mining transnational corporations from the first world or developed countries (core) at the top and the indigenous peoples and communities from the third world or developing countries
(periphery) at the bottom. These mining TNCs employ tactics and strategies to pursue their interest of extracting raw materials and resources from indigenous territories. The indigenous right to FPIC, instead of being upheld and used to protect the ancestral land rights and self determination of the communities, is instead being railroaded, violated and used as an instrument of the capitalist class, the core, to pursue their interests, perpetuate the underdevelopment of the periphery and maintain the global capitalist system.
Marxism is a theory of social evolution, but in Marx‟s partial treatment of colonialism, and in Lenin‟s much more developed critique of imperialism as a necessary phase of capitalist expansion, the Marxist theory of history becomes a theory of the development of global capitalism, a system based upon the uneven development of colonial and metropolitan powers and on the systematic impoverishment of what we now call the Third World (Axford (2001) on
The Processes of Globalisation). According to Paul Baran, imperialism, colonialism and neo- colonialism are solely responsible for the development of the First World and the subsequent underdevelopment of the Third World. Axford posited that there exists today neo-imperialism wherein instead of military conquest and administrative rule, there is imbalance of trade between TNCs‟ TACTICS 19 the First and Third Worlds and the power of transnational corporations with their roots in the
First World to dictate the terms of world trade and investment.
The Imperialism and Dependency theory is a neo-marxist perspective that maintains that
Third World countries are underdeveloped because of the activities of the First World.
Dependency theory holds that “the condition of underdevelopment is precisely the result of the incorporation of the Third World economies into the capitalist world system which is dominated by the West and North America” (Randall & Theobald, 1998, p. 120). World trade and investment on resources extracted from ancestral domains of IPs are dictated by foreign mining corporations and other multinational corporations. Most mining corporations are foreign and multinational owned, mostly by the First World or developed countries. Having sources of capital and other resources such as manpower, skills and equipment, transnational and multinational corporations are able to lobby, support and operate on a large-scale as opposed to local and national companies. At present, the presence of imperialist and exploitative mining transnational corporations from first world countries such as Canada, Australia and the United
States and operation sites in third world countries such as the Philippines is evident.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 20
Chapter Three: Data Presentation and Analysis
Background of the Case Studies.
The Didipio Copper-Gold Project located in Barangay Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya is operated by the Australasian Philippines Mining Inc (APMI), a subsidiary owned by Oceana
Gold Limited (Martin, 2007). The mining project completed the exploration stage but has not yet proceeded to the construction and operations stage. Affected indigenous communities include the
Ifugaos who migrated to Kasibu from the Cordilleras, and the Ilongot, Kalanguya, Ibaloi tribes
(Agpayso A Balitok, 2009). On the other hand, the Mindoro Nickel Project is located at Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro and is operated by Intex Resources ASA or Intex. According to Alyansa Laban sa Mina (2012), exploration of approximately one third of the total area for the Mindoro Nickel
Project (MNP) has been completed and the project had acquired the FPIC certificates from the
National Commission for Indigenous People. Affected indigenous communities include that of the Alangan, Kabilogan, Tadyawan and Sadaki. Lastly, the Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Project is owned by the Australian company, Lafayette Mining Ltd. It is located in Rapu-rapu Island,
Albay Province, Southeastern Luzon in the Philippines. The Polymetallic resources of Rapu-rapu are copper, zinc, gold and silver (Oxfam Australia, 2008). The mining method used is open pit mining. The Taboys are the affected indigenous community in Rapu-rapu mining.
Freedom from external manipulation, bribery and coercion.
According to the 2007 Mining Ombudsman report of Oxfam Australia, indigenous peoples of Didipio experience violation of free, prior and informed consent through the gross violation of the core principle of “freedom from manipulation, threat or coercion and bribery.”
Indigenous community members assert that there is external manipulation and cheating by TNCs‟ TACTICS 21 mining TNCs. During the Mining Ombudsman investigations, community members explained how the company required them to sign attendance forms at meetings. These attendance forms have a large blank space at the top and that they thought false headings were later added stating they supported the project (Martin, 2007). Similar incidents happened where Didipio community members were asked to sign documents that were supposed to be a request for a hanging bridge and an authorization for the improvement of the local school. They claimed that the final version of these documents had additional text stating that all signatories were in favour of the mine, thus, illegitimately demonstrating their consent for the project (Mining Ombudsman Report:
Didipio Copper-Gold Project, 2007).
Lorenzo Pulido, a Didipio community member, confirms this view:
“We have been cheated. The company called for meetings in different communities …
they would ask people to sign a sheet for their attendance. But when the company went to
court in Manila, we found out that the attendance sheets had actually been approval forms
for mining. The company used the sheets to back up their project. All those that signed
the attendance forms were really cheated (translated) (Mining Ombudsman Report:
Didipio Copper-Gold Project, 2007).”
There were also cases of manipulation and cheating by mining transnational corporations in the Mindoro Nickel Project. In the 2009 documentary entitled “The Last Stand for The
Alangan”, it was revealed that Crew Minerals convinced the Alangan leaders to place their thumbprints on a document granting them permission to explore the land for nickel. But the
Alangan‟s claimed that they were lied to and misled. According to Ramil Baldo, a community member, “The people didn‟t know it was an agreement about mining. We only learned about that TNCs‟ TACTICS 22 later on. We are against that kind of cheating and misleading.” In the case of Rapu-rapu
Polymetallic project, the core principle that is freedom from external manipulation is also violated. One former local barangay councillor for Binosawan, Mr. Edwin Boticario, claims that his signature and that of three of his council colleagues were forged in passing a resolution supporting the mine (Martin & Newell, 2007).
Community members of Didipio also allege that there is bribery and “offering of material incentives to political officials” by the mining transnational corporation to the indigenous community of Ifugaos. Community members claim that the mining company employees offered land and money to at least one council official expressing opposition to the mine (Martin,
McLeod & Vettori. 2007). According to Oxfam Australia, this councillor (who requested that his name not be published) stated in an interview on March 4, 2007 that he received 1.5 million pesos for a half-hectare lot that he sold to the mining company. The prices offered for land by the
Australasian Philippines Mining Inc (APMI) are fixed at 200,000 pesos per hectare. This price is
15 times higher than payments offered to other landholders. According to Kagawad (Councilor)
Peter Duyapat of the Barangay Didipio Council, in an interview conducted by Oxfam Australia:
“A company executive [name withheld] told me that if I allowed mining and would help
him, he would give me much money. He said that as long as I was alive I would not be
able to consume this money. And so that you don‟t have trouble with your community,
you can get out of Didipio and go to another place where no-one knows you and you can
live there. But I told him: „What about my children?‟… I told him I will not allow my
land to be destroyed by the mining company (translated).”
TNCs‟ TACTICS 23
Bribery through employment opportunities, healthcare and educational infrastructure, among others is used as strategy of the OceanaGold Philippines. There are allegations that current pro-mining barangay officials gained employment with the company, the company paid teachers‟ and healthcare workers‟ salaries at three times the pre-existing rate to advance its agenda and then afterwards, when the current anti-mining Barangay Council was elected, the salaries of teachers and healthcare workers were withdrawn.
The community members of Didipio that responded positively to this bribery of mining transnational corporation believe that the mining operations in their indigenous territory “could be a driver for economic development in the community”. They spoke of how they have either received work from the mine (such as the construction of roads and bunk-houses) or directly benefited from OceanaGold‟s presence through leasing their land to the company and the provision of infrastructure including dirt roads, a health clinic and improvements to the local school (Mining Ombudsman Report: Didipio Copper-Gold Project, 2007). However, others are sceptical about becoming dependent on a foreign company to provide these services, as they believe this is the role of the government (Martin, McLeod & Vettori, 2007). According to
Antonio Donato, a farmer from Barangay Didipio, “They claimed that mining was beneficial to the people. I had thought so, because they said we would have good roads. Our farm produce could be transported easily. I said it was fine and more jobs could be created for the residents.
(translated) (Agpayso A Balitok, 2009).”
There has also been an allegation of bribery in the Mindoro Nickel Project in terms of the construction of a dike to prevent flooding that was financed by the mining transnational TNCs‟ TACTICS 24 corporation. Alyansa Laban sa Mina (ALAMIN) and The Future in Our Hands (FIOH) assert that Intex supported a community development project in Alcate village to build a 10 million pesos dike to prevent flooding. Intex has been involved in bribery to facilitate their mining exploration (ALAMIN, et. al., 2012). The construction of the dike raised doubts as to whether the company is undertaking such projects in order to secure endorsements.
The freedom from bribery and manipulation of indigenous communities in Rapu-rapu,
Albay was also violated by the Australian-owned Lafayette mining company. In the documentary entitled “Dalawang Mukha ng Rapu-Rapu” (2010), Ailene Cabato of Barangay
Pagcolbon revealed: “One of the complaints of the people is the non-fulfilment of promises by the companies. During the meeting and consultations, their plans and promises are really good.
After the meetings, not even one plan for the community is fulfilled. What I mean is, nothing happens (translated).” On the other hand, Marilanie Lanuzo, the Manager of CARE Department of Rapu-Rapu Mining, Inc. said “The difficult thing with dealing with people who have been frustrated already for so many years are their responses like „We already heard promises like that before. Many companies and their staff have been here. We no longer believe in that. That‟s not true (translated).”
Bribery in the indigenous community of Rapu-rapu is also reflected by the “camp accommodation” benefit of those who are employed in the mining company. Aside from the comfortable accommodation, delicious food is also used as a bribe by Lafayette. “When we were inside the camp accommodation, we saw its striking difference with the way of living of the residents of Rapu-rapu. If there are delicious food and comfortable rooms inside the mining TNCs‟ TACTICS 25 company, the situation of the residents is the opposite (translated) (Dalawang Mukha ng Rapu- rapu, 2010).”
Community members raise complaints regarding the threat and coercion that they experience from the OceanaGold mining corporation. According to Martin, McLeod & Vettori
(2007), community members are intimidated, harassed, pressured and forced to give the company access to or sell their land at prices determined by the company. Community members have raised very serious grievances against a company-employed legal team that uses allegedly intimidating tactics to acquire their lands (Martin, McLeod & Vettori. 2007).
According to Rosalinda Dulawan, a farmer of Barangay.Didipio, many residents of Brgy.
Didipio has been persuaded to sell their land at a bargain without benefit of an actual survey
(Agpayso A Balitok, 2009):
“We were among the first to sell the land. We were paid P900,000 for 3.1 hectares that
were planted citrus. But upon surveying, it turned out to be 3.5 hectares. When we
explained the discrepancy, they refused to pay for the additional 4,000 square meters.
Then they bulldozed the property, constructed a road, flattened the high mountain,
because it was, they said, theirs (translated).”
In the Mining Ombudsman Report of Oxfam Australia (2007), many community members in Didipio, Kasibu stated that they felt harassed and intimidated by the frequent visits of company representatives, letters, notices and legal processes. They also allege that they were harassed until they endorsed the project. For example, they were followed when they went to fetch water, do their washing or work in the fields. TNCs‟ TACTICS 26
“Violations in Didipio also include the destruction of sources of livelihoods including
citrus and banana trees and rice fields, use of law suits, including filing of criminal cases
to pressurize community members to sell their homes and land and shooting incidents
and intimidation of the community through the presence of a large contingent of armed
security guards. Those who did not succumb to intimidation and refused to sell their
lands had to construct barricades and file injunction cases in attempts to prevent the
company from accessing their lands and destroying their homes” (Cordillera Peoples‟
Alliance, et. al., 2009).
Table 1. Summary of Violations of FPIC First Core Principle: Freedom from external manipulation, bribery and coercion
VIOLATION OF FIRST CORE PRINCIPLE: Freedom from external manipulation, bribery and coercion Didipio Copper-Gold Mindoro Nickel Rapu-rapu Project Project Polymetallic Mine Threat/ Coercion a. Community members None None are intimidated, harassed, pressured and forced to give the company access to or sell their land at prices determined by the company.
b. Many community members in Didipio, Kasibu stated that they felt harassed and intimidated by the frequent visits of company representatives, letters, notices and legal processes. TNCs‟ TACTICS 27
a. Intimidation, harassment, pressure and force b. Harassment and intimidation Bribery a. The mining company a. Intex supported a a. One of the employees offered land and community complaints of the money to at least one development project people is the non- council official expressing in Alcate village by fulfilment of opposition to the mine. financing a 10 promises by the million pesos dike to companies. b. Current pro-mining prevent flooding. barangay officials gained b. “Camp employment with the accommodation” is a company and the company benefit of those who paid teachers‟ and are employed in the healthcare workers‟ mining company. salaries at three times the Aside from the pre-existing rate. comfortable accommodation, c. They spoke of how they delicious food is also have either received work considered as bribe. from the mine (such as the construction of roads and bunk-houses) or directly benefited from OceanaGold‟s presence through leasing their land to the company and the provision of infrastructure including dirt roads, a health clinic and improvements to the local school.
a. Land and money a. Infrastructure a. Unfulfilled b. Employment, salary promises c. Employment and b. Employment, infrastructure accommodation and TNCs‟ TACTICS 28
food. Manipulation/ Community members Crew Minerals One former local Cheating explained how the convinced the barangay councillor company required them to Alangan leaders to for Binosawan, Mr sign attendance forms at place their Edwin Boticario, meetings. These attendance thumbprints on a claims that his forms have a large blank document granting signature and that of space at the top and that them permission to three of his council they thought false headings explore the land for colleagues were were later added stating nickel. The people forged in passing a they supported the project. didn‟t know it was resolution supporting an agreement about the mine. mining.
a. Signatures used as a. Thumb marks a. IP’s signatures “consent” without IP’s used as “consent” forged to signify knowledge without IP’s “consent” knowledge
Indigenous peoples through their right to self-determination have a right to free, prior and informed consent. Transnational corporations should not, directly or indirectly, offer, promise, give, or demand a bribe or other undue advantage to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008). The data presented signified that the first core principle of the free, prior and informed consent that is freedom from threat/ coercion, bribery and cheating/ manipulation is grossly violated by mining transnational corporations in three presented case studies: Didipio Copper-Gold Project, Mindoro Nickel
Project and Rapu-rapu Polymetallic project. In all three cases, there was a violation in the indigenous peoples‟ right to freedom from bribery and manipulation/ cheating. In terms of external manipulation, the most common form of tactic employed by mining TNCs experienced by indigenous communities in Didipio and Mindoro is the use of their signature and thumb marks on documents such as attendance sheets as the “consent” or support to mining activities TNCs‟ TACTICS 29 without their knowledge. In the Rapu-rapu polymetallic project, the indigenous peoples‟ signatures were forged to signify support to the mining operations. In all cases, the deception of indigenous members is present. False and involuntary consent is therefore acquired in all cases.
It is noted that provision of employment and infrastructure is the most common manifestation of bribery among the three cases. Employment of pro-mining members in the community was a tactic employed by mining TNCs in Didipio and Rapu-rapu while infrastructure projects such as dikes, roads, health centers and schools were built in Didipio and
Mindoro to influence community members. The difference in the cases is that while the tactics employed in Mindoro and Rapu-rapu appeal to the whole community, there is a variety of strategies applied by the corporation in Didipio as they used bribery to obtain the consent particularly of powerful officials in the community. Obtaining the support of high ranking officials and elders of the community makes it easier for the company to obtain the FPIC of the community. However, in terms of freedom from threat and coercion (with the exception of militarization as a limit of my study), the data presented show that only indigenous residents of
Didipio experience intimidation and harassment to sell their lands to the corporation and secure an FPIC.
Prior to operations commencing.
The second core principle of the FPIC is the acquisition of the consent prior to the commencing of any operations within indigenous territories. This core principle is claimed to be violated by mining TNCs through conducting exploration and development process, among others, without going through the process of the free, prior and informed consent as mandated by TNCs‟ TACTICS 30 law. Mining in the Philippines goes through a process: 1. Exploration, 2. Mine Development, 3.
Extraction, 4. Initial Processing, 5. Refining and Smelting and 6. Fabricating (Martin & Newell,
2007). According to Oxfam Australia, Brgy. Didipio is already in the second stage of the process
- the mine development stage but most of its residents are unaware of its phases. The community has already started to absorb industries harmful effect such as fish kills.
The core principle of seeking indigenous communities consent prior to the commencement of operations is alleged to be fulfilled in the Mindoro Nickel Project. The
National Commission on Indigenous People Fact Finding Team established that the FPIC acquired from Indigenous Peoples in 2008 were prior to the commencement of the project.
According to Lafayette Mining Inc., the barangays closest to the mine and directly affected by their operations are Malobago, Pagcolbon, and Binosawan. Poblacion, Santa Barbara, Linao and
Tinopan. No other barangays are identified as affected communities. Local leaders of the coastal barangays of Sorsorgon complained that even though they share waterways with Rapu Rapu and were later affected by the 2005 fish-kills, they were not consulted in any way prior to the mine‟s commencement (Martin & Newell, 2007). Villages from coastal barangays of Sorsogon, Prieto
Diaz and Bacon all confirmed that there was no prior consultation or consent sought by the company (Mining Ombudsman, 2007).
Table 2. Summary of Violations of FPIC Second Core Principle: Prior to operations commencing
VIOLATION OF SECOND CORE PRINCIPLE: Adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts Didipio Copper-Gold Mindoro Nickel Project Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Project Mine TNCs‟ TACTICS 31 a. The company has not a. Intex did not provide a. In Lafayette‟s meetings presented information about adequate information about a with local communities, the the potential environmental number of important aspects company spoke only of the impacts of the mine in an of the project such as benefits the community would accessible way or language. environmental and social allegedly receive and did not implications. mention the environmental b. The mining TNC failed to and socio-economic risks of give information about b. The Kabilogan and Sadaki the mine. proposed relocations. were informed of potential negative impacts such as relocation, however, it is not clear whether the indigenous groups understood that the land might not be suitable for cultivation after mining. a. Not informed about the a. Not informed about the a. Informed only about the potential environmental environmental and social benefits and not the impacts implications environmental and socio- b. Not informed about b. Informed about relocation economic risks relocations but not about land’s suitability for cultivation after mining
Free, prior and informed consent requires that local communities and indigenous peoples must be informed about development projects in a timely manner and given the opportunity to approve (or reject) a project before it starts (Oxfam Australia). The second core principle that is the acquisition of the FPIC through consultations prior to operations‟ commencement is violated in the Didipio Copper-Gold Project and Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Mine since not all affected TNCs‟ TACTICS 32 indigenous communities were consulted prior to the corporations‟ operations in the ancestral domain. On the other hand, the consultations and acquisition of the FPIC were done in Mindoro by Intex prior to their operations, fulfilling the third core principle of the FPIC.
Adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts.
The third core principle of the FPIC, having “adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts” is also violated by the OceanaGold Philippines, as asserted by the Didipio community members. There have been allegations that the company has not presented information about the potential environmental impacts of the mine in an accessible way or language. The mining TNC is also said to have failed in explaining the technical aspects of the proposed mine in an easily understood form. Community members and barangay officials stated that they had not received information in the Ilocano language and argue the lack of information prevents them from being fully informed about the project (Oxfam Australia, 2007). Didipio community members also asserted that the mining TNC failed to give information about proposed relocations.
In the Mindoro Nickel Project, Intex failed to comply with the standards for disclosure
(ALAMIN, et. al., 2012). According to the Norwegian National Contact Point, Intex through its
Environmental Impact Assessment did not provide adequate information about a number of important aspects of the project such as environmental and social implications. On the other hand, according to the NCIP Fact Finding Mission, the Kabilogan and Sadaki were informed of potential negative impacts such as relocation, however, it is not clear whether the indigenous groups understood that the land might not be suitable for cultivation after mining. In the case of TNCs‟ TACTICS 33 the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project, the principle of adequate disclosure of potential environmental impacts was violated by the Lafayette Mining Corporation. It has been reported that in meetings with local communities, the company spoke only of the benefits the community would allegedly receive and did not mention the environmental and socio-economic risks of the mine (Martin & Newell, 2007).
Table 3. Summary of Violations of FPIC Third Core Principle: Adequate information on potential positive and negative impacts
VIOLATION OF THIRD CORE PRINCIPLE: Prior to operations commencing Didipio Copper-Gold Mindoro Nickel Project Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Project Mine a. According to Oxfam a. The NCIP Fact Finding a. Other affected indigenous Australia, Brgy. Didipio is Team established that the communities confirmed that already in the second stage of FPIC acquired from there was no prior consultation the process- the mine Indigenous Peoples in 2008 or consent sought by the development stage, but most were prior to the company. of its residents are unaware of commencement of the project. its phases. a. Not all affected a. Consultations prior to a. Not all affected communities consulted prior operations communities consulted prior to operations to operations
Sharing information and engaging in consultations about environmental, health and safety consequences with the local community and indigenous peoples is important and a key principle of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (ALAMIN, 2007). In all of the cases, there has been a violation of the core principle that is adequate information or disclosure of potential TNCs‟ TACTICS 34 negative and positive impacts. In Didipio, Mindoro and Rapu-rapu, the affected indigenous communities were not adequately informed of the potential environmental and socio-economic implications. The indigenous residents of Didipio were not also informed about the possible relocation of the community. On the other hand, indigenous peoples in Mindoro were adequately informed about relocations, however, it was unclear whether the community understood that the land can no longer be cultivated after the mining process. Therefore, there has still been insufficient disclosure of all potential positive and negative impacts in all three cases signifying the violation of the second principle.
Consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making.
The fourth and last core principle of FPIC being violated by mining transnational corporations is the consent or rejection of indigenous communities based on the consensus of all community members in accordance with indigenous decision making. In the case of the Didipio
Copper-Gold Project, the OcenaGold Philippines mining company refuse to accept the decision of the community and barangay of Kasibu, Didipio in Nueva Vizcaya. According to Caesar
Marino, a Didipio elder:
“The responsibility of the Barangay Councils has been removed. We do not want the
municipal, provincial, national or the international community to decide on our behalf. It
is the barangays here in Didipio that are directly affected, not the municipality, not the
national level. We must be the ones who decide what happens here in Didipio. If we
don‟t want to be mined, then others must respect this decision (translated) (Mining
Ombudsman Report: Didipio Copper-Gold Project, 2007).”
TNCs‟ TACTICS 35
In the Mindoro Nickel Project, the consensus of all affected indigenous communities has not been fulfilled since the consent of other affected indigenous groups were not acquired.
According to Alyansa Laban sa Mina (ALAMIN) and The Future in Our Hands (FIOH), consultations conducted by Intex Resources ASA with indigenous people are flawed and the project contravenes the wishes of the affected community and peoples. Two organizations of indigenous peoples, the Kabilogan and Sadaki, have given Free, Prior and Informed Consent to mining. However, opposition remains strong among some indigenous peoples, the Alangan and
Tadyawan, with ancestral rights to the land (ALAMIN, et. al., 2012, page 67). However, the
Norwegian National Contact Point does not find evidence that the company has established groups for its own purposes. Kabilogan and Sadaki represent some of the affected indigenous groups but it is not clear that they constitute the legitimate representatives of all affected indigenous peoples.
The core principle of FPIC that is “consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making” was violated by Lafayette in the Rapu-rapu Polymetallic project.
Anti-mining members of the community were somehow “uninvited” from the community consultations of Lafayette:
“A public hearing was held on Rapu Rapu island in December 2000 and public notices
were displayed to inform residents of the meeting. Contrary to best practice, however, the
meeting was held on the proposed mine site, which was less accessible to community
members from more distant barangays who would have been reliant on the company for
transportation and accommodation. The DENR acknowledged that the venue was TNCs‟ TACTICS 36
„secured from groups, particularly to some who were unruly and wanted to disrupt the
proceedings‟” (Martin & Newell, 2007).
Table 4. Summary of Violations of FPIC Fourth Core Principle: Consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making
VIOLATION OF FOURTH CORE PRINCIPLE: Consensus of all community members based on indigenous decision making Didipio Copper-Gold Mindoro Nickel Project Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Project Mine a. The mining company a. Consensus is not achieved a. Anti-mining members of refused to accept the decision since only two organizations the community were somehow of the community and of indigenous peoples, the “uninvited” from the barangay of Kasibu, Didipio Kabilogan and Sadaki, have community consultations of in Nueva Vizcaya. given their consent to mining. Lafayette. Other affected indigenous communities, the Alangan and Tadyawan, opposed mining and did not give their consent. a. Decision of community a. Not consensus, not a. Not consensus, not not accepted by company decided by all affected decided by all affected groups groups
According to IPRA, consensus of all indigenous peoples or indigenous communities should be acquired. In the three cases, the fourth core principle was violated. In Mindoro and
Rapu-rapu, the decision was not carried out by all affected indigenous communities. In the case of Mindoro, despite the presence of indigenous groups who support and decide to give their consent to mining activities, there are still other affected groups who oppose and reject mining - thus, the absence of consensus. In the case of Rapu-rapu, on the other hand, Lafayette did not TNCs‟ TACTICS 37 invite anti-mining members of the community to their consultations, thus, not acquiring the consensus of the indigenous peoples. On the other hand, the consensus of the community in
Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya was not accepted and respected by the mining company.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 38
Chapter Four: Conclusions and Recommendations
In all three cases, majority of the four core principles of the right to free, prior and informed consent were railroaded and violated by mining transnational corporations. Only the second principle that consultations should be conducted prior to the commencement of operations is fulfilled in the case of Mindoro Nickel Project. Since the collective fulfilment of the four core principles is necessary for the acquisition of indigenous right to FPIC, the findings show that there is indeed a violation of the right to FPIC and non-acquisition of the “genuine” consent of indigenous peoples and communities in all the three cases surveyed. The most common strategy or tactic used by mining transnational corporations is the violation of the principle of freedom from external manipulation/cheating, bribery and threat/coercion. This study therefore recommends the review of the FPIC guidelines set by the Indigenous Peoples‟
Rights Act as it does not uphold the core principles and does not fulfil the requirements of the indigenous communities‟ FPIC or “genuine” consent. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), instead of being upheld as a right of indigenous communities to protect their right to self determination and ancestral domain, is railroaded and violated - used as an instrument of the core
(capitalist First World countries) to perpetuate the “development of underdevelopment” of the periphery (Third World developing countries). Confirming the Dependency and World Systems
Theory analysis of this study, there exists today neo-imperialism wherein there is imbalance of trade between the First and Third Worlds and the power of transnational corporations with their roots in the First World to dictate the terms of world trade and investment. There is accumulation of capital and profits by the mining TNCs through the dispossession of ancestral lands and resources from indigenous communities. This confirms Andre Gunder Frank‟s theory of TNCs‟ TACTICS 39 dependency which states that, “Development and underdevelopment are opposite sides of the coin: the development of the industrialized world was and is made possible only by the corresponding underdevelopment of the Third World” (Randall and Theobald, 1985, p. 107).
TNCs‟ TACTICS 40
Bibliography
Alyansa Laban sa Mina, Alyansa Tigil Mina & National Secretariat for Social Action. (2012).
Mindoro Campaign: Protecting Island Ecology Defending People‟s Rights. Calapan City,
Philippines.
Alyansa Tigil Mina. (2011). A Legacy of Disasters: The Mining Situation in the Philippines –
2011. Quezon City, Philippines.
Alyansa Tigil Mina. (2010). CSO Assessment of Medium Term Philippine Development Plan for
2004-2010 Mining. Quezon City, Philippines.
Axford, B. (2001). Politics: An Introduction.
Bayle, et. al. (2010). Dalawang Mukha ng Rapu-Rapu. Retrieved February 1, 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8_XaX5IiI&feature=related
Carino, J. (2002). Indigenous Peoples, Natural Resource Extractive Corporations and Human
Rights. Indigenous Perspectives: The Myth of Sustainable and Responsible Mining
Volume 5, No.1 June 2002. Tebtebba Foundation. Baguio City, Philippines.
Cordillera Peoples‟ Alliance, et. al. (2009). Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples of the
Philippines: Philippine‟s Indigenous Peoples ICERD Shadow Report. International Work
Group on Indigenous Affairs.
Cordillera Peoples‟ Alliance, et. al. (2004). Proceedings of the National Workshop of
Indigenous Peoples on Human Rights: An Agenda to Promote and Protect the Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People Quezon City, Philippines.
Diones-Mamangun, J. (2009). Agpayso A Balitok. Retrieved January 26, 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.kodao.org/taxonomy/term/31/0.
Fiohnor. (2009). The Last Stand for the Alangan. Retrieved January 26, 2012. TNCs‟ TACTICS 41
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aD01nWkZMM&feature=related.
Gariguez, A. (2010). Community Perspective on FPIC: Philippine Experience. National
Secretariat for Social Action- Justice and Peace (NASSA-JP) of the Catholic Bishops‟
Conference of the Philippines.
Gomez, M. (2012). Transparency issues in the Philippine Mining Industry. Toward Tax Justice:
Policy Research Paper. 2012 International Conference on Mining in Mindanao. Davao
City, Philippines.
Goodland, R. (2011). Cotabato‟s Tampakan Mine Project: How to Reduce the Social and
Environmental Impacts and Promote Responsible Mining. Legal Rights and Natural
Resources Center- Kasama sa Kalikasan/ Friends of the Earth- Philippines‟ (LRC-
KsK/FoE-Phils.) Tan-awan 2011. Quezon City, Philippines.
Dyck, R. (2008). Studying Politics: An Introduction to Political Science Third Canadian Edition.
Carleton University. Nelson Education Ltd.
Heywood, A. (2002). Introduction to Politics.
IBON. (2007). Repression and Resistance: The Filipino vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, George
W. Bush, et. al. Permanent Peoples Tribunal Second Session of the Philippines. The
Hague, Netherlands.
Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor. (2008). Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights Yearend
Report 2008. Manila, Philippines.
Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor. (2007). The Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms of the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines January 2003 to November 2007.
Manila, Philippines.
LRC-CDO Regional Office. (2011). Lumad‟s underscore NCIP‟s FPIC Guidelines as facilitator TNCs‟ TACTICS 42
of development aggression. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center- Kasama sa
Kalikasan/ Friends of the Earth- Philippines‟ (LRC-KsK/FoE-Phils.) Tan-awan 2011.
Quezon City, Philippines.
Martin, McLeod & Vettori. (2007). Mining Ombudsman case report: Didipio gold and copper
mine. Oxfam Australia.
Martin & Newell. (2008). Mining Ombudsman case report: Rapu-rapu polymetallic
mine. Oxfam Australia.
Nettleton, G. (2002). Mining the Image: The Global Mining Initiative. . Indigenous Perspectives:
The Myth of Sustainable and Responsible Mining Volume 5, No.1 June 2002. Tebtebba
Foundation. Baguio City, Philippines.
United Nations. (2009) State of the World‟s Indigenous People. Retrieved July 2010.
TNCs‟ TACTICS 43
Appendix
Table 1. Priority Mining Projects Priority Mining Projects Location 1. Batong Buhay Copper-Gold Project Pasil, Kalinga 2. Far Southeast Gold Project Mankayan, Benguet 3. Itogon Gold Project Itogon, Benguet 4. Teresa Gold Project Mankayan, Benguet 5. Padcal Extension Project Tuba, Benguet 6. Didipio Copper- Gold Project Kasibu, Nueva Vizacaya 7. Adlaw-Cagdianao-Tandawa Project Surigao del Sur and Claver, Surigao del Norte 8. Amacan Copper Project/ Hijo Gold Project Mabini, Compostela Valley 9. Diwalwal Direct State Utilization Project Diwata, Monkayo, Compostela Valley 10. King King Copper- Gold Project Pantukan, Compostela Valley 11. Aroroy Gold Project Aroroy, Masbate 12. Boyongan Copper Project Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Norte 13. Canatuan Gold Project Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte 14. Mindoro Nickel Project Victoria, Oriental Mindoro 15. Nonoc Iron Fines Project Nonoc Island, Surigao del Norte 16. Nonoc Nickel Project Nonoc Island, Surigao del Norte 17. Palawan Nickel Project Bataraza, Palawan 18. Pujada Nickel Project San Isidro and Gov. Generoso, Davao Oriental 19. Rapu-rapu Polymetallic Project Rapu-rapu, Albay 20. San Antonio Copper Project Sta. Cruz, Marinduque Cawilan, Tubod, and Siana, Mainit, Surigao 21. Siana Gold Project del Norte 22. Tampakan Copper Project Tampakan, South Cotabato 23. Toledo Copper Project Don Andres Soriano, Toledo City, Cebu