Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Shifting Grounds Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

By Viviane Weitzner July 2008

The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname and The North-South Institute The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

The Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname (VIDS) is an association of Indigenous village leaders from every Indigenous village in Suriname. It was established in 1992 in the aftermath of the internal armed conflict in Suriname. Its goals and objectives are to promote and defend the rights of Indigenous Peoples, to speak for Indigenous Peoples on the national and international levels, and to support sustainable development in Suriname. The VIDS has taken a leading role in promoting Indigenous rights, sustainable development and environmental protection in Suriname. It believes that all three are interrelated and all must be supported and monitored. In 2001, the VIDS established Stichting Bureau VIDS as its fulltime secretariat.

The North-South Institute (NSI) is a charitable corporation established in 1976 to provide professional, policy-relevant research on relations between industrialized and developing countries. The results of this research are made available to policy-makers, interested groups, and the general public to help generate greater understanding and informed discussion of development questions. The Institute is independent and cooperates with a wide range of Canadian and international organizations working in related activities.

The contents of this study represent the views and the findings of the author alone and not necessarily those of The North-South Institute’s directors, sponsors or supporters, or those consulted during its preparation.

Available at: www.nsi-ins.ca.

Final Project Report for Inter-American Development Bank Project:

“Indigenous Peoples and Mining in Suriname – Building Community Capacity and Encouraging Dialogue” ATN/CT-8811-SU

Photo credits: All photos are the property of VIDS and NSI Layout and design: Meaghen Simms

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii

Executive Summary ...... iv Recommendations Affecting All of Suriname ...... vi Recommendations Concerning West Suriname ...... vii Recommendations Concerning the Role of the IDB and Canada ...... x

1: Introduction: Shifting Grounds ...... 2 Objectives ...... 3 2: Project Process, Activities and Methodologies ...... 4 Activities, Methodologies and Outputs ...... 4 3: Issues Scan and Analysis: Reversing the Legacy of Exclusion ...... 8 Issues Affecting All of Suriname ...... 9 Focus on the West ...... 21 Key Community Concerns ...... 24 4: Conclusion: The Nature of Shifting Grounds and Implications ...... 42 The Role of the IDB in Supporting Indigenous Organizations ...... 42 The Role of the Government of Canada and CIDA in Suriname ...... 43 Towards Firmer Ground ...... 46

Appendix 1: Media Coverage ...... 48 Appendix 2: Agreement between the Indigenous Peoples of West Suriname and BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV (Draft 2006) ...... 50 Appendix 3: Policy and Regulations on Consultation and Consent Processes Adopted by the Indigenous Peoples of West Suriname (2006 Draft) ...... 53 Appendix 4: Maps ...... 56 Appendix 5: Recommendations from Robert Goodland’s Assessment of SRK’s Transportation Options Scoping Document ...... 57

References ...... 60 Endnotes ...... 65

Boxes

1. Lessons Learned Implementing this Project ...... 7 2. Select Facts and Figures about Mining in Suriname ...... 8 3. Summarized Urgent Action Decisions by CERD Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Rights and Mining in Suriname ...... 15 4. Recommendations Concerning All of Suriname ...... 19 5. Land Rights and Other Affected Peoples ...... 26 6. Selected Alcoa and BHP Billiton Policies on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples ...... 28 7. Key aspects that need further strengthening to enable better governance and decision-making in Apoera, Section and Washabo ...... 37 8. Recommendations Concerning West Suriname ...... 39 9. Recommendations Concerning IDB Consultancy Contracts ...... 43 10. IAMGold’s Gross Rosebel Mine ...... 45 11. Recommendations Concerning the Role of Canada and Canadian Companies in Suriname ...... 46

i The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASM: Association for Responsible Artisanal Mining ATM: Ministry of Labour, Environment and Technology BF: Bakhuis Forum BHPB: Broken Hill Proprietary & Billiton Corporation BMS: NV BHP Billiton Maatschappij Suriname CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity CANTAP: Canadian Technical Assistance Programme CARICOM: Caribbean Community CERD: UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency CLIM: Committee Land Rights Indigenous Marowijne CSNR: Central Suriname Nature Reserve CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EMP: Environmental Management Plan ESIA: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESIR: Environmental and Social Impact Report FPP: Forest Peoples Programme FPIC: Free Prior Informed Consent FTAA: Free Trade Area of the Americas GDP: Gross Domestic Product HSEC: Health, Safety, Environment and Community (BHP Billiton Management Standards) IACHR: Inter-American Court on Human Rights IBA: Impact Benefit Agreement ICMM: International Council on Mining & Metals IDB: Inter-American Development Bank IDRC: International Development Research Centre IFC: International Finance Corporation IIRSA: Regional Infrastructure Integration in South America/ Integración de la Infrastructura Regional en Sur América IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature Km: Kilometres MAS: Maritime Authority of Suriname MoU: Memorandum of Understanding MRN: Mineração Rio do Norte MW: Megawatt NCE: National Council on the Environment NGOs: Non-governmental organizations NIMOS: Nationaal Instituut voor Milieu en Ontwikkeling in Suriname NMR: Nationale Milieu Raad (National Council for the Environment)

ii Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

NSI: The North-South Institute, Canada OIS: Organization for Indigenous People in Suriname OP: Operational Policy PRI: Private Sector Department SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment SIA: Social Impact Assessment SRK: SRK Consulting Suralco: Suriname Aluminum Company LLC TCP: Technical Cooperation Profile USD: United States Dollars VIDS: Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname (Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname) WWF: World Wildlife Fund

Acknowledgements

This final report owes its existence to the team of people whose work it synthesizes. I cannot under- score enough how thankful I am for the dedication and many hours of hard work put into this project by the staff at Bureau VIDS, particularly project coordinator Carla Madsian, community development specialist Josee Artist and Executive Director, Loreen Jubithana. Caroline de Jong and Ellen-Rose Kambel provided rigorous support and expert advice through their trainings on land rights and community-based research regarding traditional use and occupation. Caroline de Jong’s collaboration with Carla Madsian on collating and editing the traditional use and occupation study led to a document that the communities of West Suriname are very proud of and will use for years to come. Robert Goodland has further endeared himself to everyone in West Suriname through his very clear training on international standards for ESIA, reconnaissance on the likely impacts from the Transportation Options, and ongoing support. At the NSI, Bente Molenaar coordinated this project while I was on maternity leave, and produced a well-researched comprehensive issues report which feeds into this one. Meaghen Simms provided excellent coordination, research and design support. Ann Weston provided project management support and feedback throughout. I am extremely grateful to Fergus MacKay, Ellen-Rose Kambel, Carla Madsian, Bente Mole- naar, Meaghen Simms and Robert Goodland for your valuable comments on the various drafts of this paper. At the IDB, thank you to Kristyna Bishop, for seeing the value in this project and enabling it to become a reality; and to Nancy del Prado for working with us to try to resolve a variety of issues around this project, and for your feedback on the substance of this work. Thank you also to Warren Pedersen of Suralco, John Sew A Tjon of BHP Billiton, and to Chair Marny Daal and other members of the government negotiations team for participating in the presentations and discussions of the preliminary results of this work. Last but not least, “Danki da bong!” to the people of West Suriname. Community-based researchers Marcia Jarmohamed (Apoera), Els Lingaard (Washabo), Dina Romalo (Washabo), Henk James (Section) and Sandra Jeffrey (Apoera) worked hard to document their communities’ traditional use and occupation, and gathered valuable information to help strengthen decision-making processes at the community level. Chiefs David Carlo Lewis (Apoera), Nado Aroepa (Section) and Ricardo Mac-Intosh (Washabo) provided ongoing advice and guidance to the project team. We hope the outcomes meet your expectations.

iii The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Executive Summary

In 2003, Indigenous communities in West Suriname learned a deal had been struck between the Government of Suriname and BHP Billiton and Alcoa for bauxite exploration in 2800km2 of primary forest on their traditional territories. Related activities would include a substantially expanded port in or near the village of Apoera, as well as a potential refinery. A second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed to explore the possibility of large- scale hydroelectricity to fuel a smelter to process the bauxite from the Bakhuys mine. This hydroproject is adjacent to the bauxite deposit and also overlaps with the traditional domain of the Indigenous Peoples. In the face of these developments, and in light of the fact that they were not consulted and had no information, the Chiefs of the affected Indigenous villages of Apoera, Section and Washabo turned for help to the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (Stichting Bureau VIDS).

This report synthesizes the outcomes of a two-year project (2006-2008) undertaken by VIDS in collaboration with The North-South Institute of Canada with funding from the Canadian Technical Assistance Programme (CANTAP) of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to address key concerns of Lokono communities in West Suriname regarding the proposed developments. Objectives of the project included: gathering information regarding the potential impacts of the proposed projects on the Indigenous communities in the area of influence; providing information about the proposed projects to these communities in West Suriname; building capacity among the Indigenous communities to engage in dialogue with the Government of Suriname, Alcoa and BHP Billiton, regarding their rights, needs, concerns and interests.

Key research activities included: documenting traditional land-use and occupation; analyzing current decision-making processes in the communities and how these can be strengthened; assessing the scoping document for the transportation options environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) of the Bakhuys mine; and producing a comprehensive issues paper on Indigenous Peoples and mining in Suriname. Capacity-building activities included training on land rights, community-organizing, international standards for environmental and social impact assessment and community-based research. In addition, Bureau VIDS provided ongoing support to the leadership of the affected communities in their engagement with the companies and government, including presenting to the companies and government the objectives and work plan for this IDB-funded project, as well as the preliminary results and recommendations.

This report highlights the legislative and policy vacuum that currently exists in Suriname with regard to Indigenous and Tribal rights and environmental protection. Even though the companies currently involved in West Suriname have developed progressive policies and instruments with regards to upholding human rights and protecting the environment, these have been disregarded in practice (there was no ESIA for the advanced exploration, the communities were left out of the initial scoping exercise, key reports are kept secret even when specifically requested, and to date the companies have not signed protocols with the communities to clarify how they understand and intend to protect the communities’

iv Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

traditional rights and uphold their right to free, prior and informed consent [FPIC]). Indeed, initial construction-related activities in the villages are already taking place without the villages being consulted, without them knowing or approving final project plans, and even though the government has not issued a permit for exploitation. These construction-related activities have already had human rights and livelihood impacts. In addition, the affected communities have little information about the scope of ‘the project’ the government is negotiating with the companies (whether it will include only mining, transportation and refining or also the proposed hydroelectric dam and smelter), and whether other companies will be involved. This is critical information, especially in light of community fears and opposition to the proposed dam. The people of West Suriname are well aware of the widespread and ongoing damage from bauxite mining in East Suriname as well as the impacts of one of the world’s most damaging hydro-projects (Brokopondo), also located in East Suriname, and are fearful those damages may be repeated in the West.

Among others, key community concerns regarding the proposed developments include: obtaining official recognition for their rights to own and control their traditional territory; ensuring the impacts are assessed appropriately, with due consideration to cumulative impacts; recognition of their right to free, prior and informed consent, including their participation as equal partners in agreement-making processes between the companies and government; receiving appropriate training, meaningful employment and benefit-sharing should they give their FPIC to the project going ahead; and ongoing capacity-building and community-strengthening.

Recommendations woven throughout this report are grounded in the 2007 Saramaka People judgement of the Inter-American Human Rights Court. The binding Saramaka People judgement holds that large-scale mining and associated infrastructure projects must comply with a series of preconditions if they are to be consistent with the rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and therefore with Suriname’s international legal obligations. These requirements include: Indigenous Peoples’ right to effective participation, which is specified as FPIC in the case of large-scale projects with significant impacts; that Indigenous Peoples share in reasonable benefits from the project; and that the project must not deny Indigenous Peoples the right to maintain their multiple relationships with their territory and to continue to benefit from their traditional economy. The judgement also clearly states the government may not authorize mining or related activities in the Indigenous Peoples’ territory until it has first regularized their rights of ownership and control over that territory, unless it obtains FPIC. In the absence of FPIC, regularization of Indigenous property rights in and to their traditional territory constitutes a precondition to the granting of mining and other permits.

In West Suriname the currently involved companies appear to have acknowledged these requirements by stating they will negotiate agreements with the affected Indigenous Peoples. Recent communications with the government and its negotiations team for West Suriname suggests that a shift also may be underway in Suriname to reverse the legacy of exclusion of Indigenous Peoples around mining in their traditional territories, with the proposed negotiated agreements around Bakhuys likely to be precedent-setting. However, the government has yet

v The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

to make a statement about such agreements and, therefore, its official views in this respect are unknown.

The report’s recommendations target issues affecting all of Suriname, issues specifically affecting West Suriname, and issues related to the role of the IDB and Government of Canada, and are presented below.

Recommendations affecting all of Suriname

Concerning Indigenous and Maroon rights The Government of Suriname should fully recognize Indigenous and Maroon rights. The IDB and other donors should consider providing technical and financial support to the Government to: a) Implement the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)’s recommendations (made first in 2004, and urgently reiterated several times since), with priority focus on the recommendation that: “a framework law on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples be elaborated and that the State Party take advantage of the technical assistance available under the advisory services and technical assistance Programme of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for that purpose (Decision 1(67) August 18, 2005, para 5). Adoption of such a law is also required in the orders of the Inter-American Court in Moiwana Village and Saramaka People. The law and any implementing regulations must be developed in full consultation with Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and such consultation must be undertaken, at a minimum, with the aim of reaching an agreement. b) Complete the review and drafting of environmental and mining legislation (including ESIA guidelines) that fully integrates human rights considerations, particularly those related to Indigenous and Maroon Peoples. In order to achieve this: i. Ensure a mechanism is established so that Indigenous and Maroon Peoples: i. May appoint their own participants to review and participate in the redrafting of environmental and mining legislation ii. Have appropriate levels of funding and technical support for their choice to meaningfully participate ii. For all participants in the review process, provide training on: i. Indigenous and Maroon rights ii. International standards and best practice with regards to human rights and environmental protection (e.g., ESIA, Akwe:kon guidelines, Impact Benefit Agreements [IBAs], revenue-sharing agreements, etc.), before and during the review process iii. Maintain a repository of readily accessible information and training tools for consultation by all participants in the review processes c) Provide adequate resources for the responsible agency to: i. Monitor and enforce the resulting environmental and mining legislation

vi Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

ii. Establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information (maps, documents) regarding the location of the communities and traditional territories of Indigenous and Maroon Peoples in Suriname. iii. Develop agreements for collaborative arrangements with affected Indigenous and Tribal Peoples for all aspects of monitoring extractive and other operations and for participation in closure and rehabilitation activities. iv. Ensure that information about concessions, ESIAs and all other aspects of extractive and other operations are publicly available at reasonable or no cost. d) Support the establishment of an effective, participatory body to coordinate, mainstream and provide coherence to Indigenous and Maroon issues in government policy and programmes and to ensure the effective participation of Indigenous and Maroon communities in planning and programmatic decision-making. This body should consist of representatives of Indigenous Peoples, Maroons and government.1 Indigenous and Maroon participants should be appointed by their respective organizations, and should receive adequate financial and technical support to enable their participation. e) Support pro-active integrated land-use planning, and the establishment of effective, participatory bodies at the district level to coherently address and plan for natural resources development and conservation initiatives, taking into consideration and accommodating the values, concerns and rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. These bodies should include – as appropriate to each district – representatives of Indigenous Peoples, Maroons and the government, with Indigenous and Maroon representatives appointed by their respective organizations. Such district level bodies should not preclude the possibility of sub-district – or even cross-district – participatory bodies to be established to target the management of specific natural resource areas, such as watersheds. Clearly, they should also not preclude specifically Indigenous or Maroon land-use planning on their traditional territories, but provide instead a vehicle for Indigenous and Maroon people to make their territorial aspirations known and included in government planning.

Concerning small-scale mining Indigenous and Maroon Peoples involved in small-scale mining, for example the Tapanahony and Sara Creek N’djuka, should consider taking part in the Association for Responsible Mining pilot project towards fair trade certification of artisanal gold mining. This could have a significant impact on increasing the benefits and mitigating the negative impacts of small- scale mining, and be a model for other communities in Suriname to consider.

Recommendations concerning West Suriname

Concerning Land Rights In keeping with the Saramaka People judgement of the Inter-American Court, the Government of Suriname should begin the process of delimitation, demarcation and titling in the short- term and in accordance with Indigenous Peoples’ customs and traditions, and at least in parallel to the mining and related activities. The State could provisionally (until legislation is

vii The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

in place), formally recognize an Indigenous territory in the West as part of the FPIC process for the proposed developments in West Suriname.

Concerning Panel of Experts to review ESIA The Government of Suriname – and particularly the National Institute for Environment and Development of Suriname (NIMOS) – should put in place an independent expert review process of the draft ESIAs. Establishing a Panel of Experts to review the documents is in the best interest of the Government of Suriname and the affected communities to ensure that: a) all impacts are duly considered; b) the final reports and recommendations meet the highest international standards; and c) the subsequent negotiations and agreements between the government, companies and communities are well informed. Convening such a Panel of Experts is also clearly in the best interest of the companies to ensure the review is conducted efficiently and to the highest standards. For these reasons, the Government of Suriname should consider the companies’ offer to finance such a review process. Should Indigenous Peoples wish to participate in and/or identify and nominate experts for the panel, provision should be made for this. Similarly, should Indigenous Peoples wish to convene their own panel of experts, this should also be supported.

Concerning free, prior and informed consent and participation in negotiations towards strong agreements Following international best practice and international human rights standards and jurisprudence –among others, the Saramaka People judgement of the Inter-American Court – the Government of Suriname and the companies should: a) Agree to formal protocols setting out the process for the effective participation of the Indigenous Peoples in West Suriname and for obtaining their free, prior and informed consent for the proposed large-scale developments affecting their traditional territories, following the existing community policies on consultation and consent. Free, prior and informed consent can only be considered once all the environmental, cultural, human rights and socio-economic and cumulative impact studies have been completed (for all components of ‘the project’, namely the mine site, transportation options, dredging and refinery, with due attention to cumulative impacts with regards to the potential hydroelectric dam, Regional Infrastructure Integration in South America (IIRSA) projects and proposed protected areas, among other activities), and understood by the affected communities. b) Formally invite the Indigenous communities of West Suriname to participate as equal partners and rights-holders in negotiations towards agreements between the companies and the government with regards to the environmental, cultural, human rights, socio- economic (including revenue-sharing) and cumulative aspects of the developments. c) Ensure the communities have access to legal counsel of their choice, and have appropriate funding towards strong technical and legal advice. d) Ensure all parties in the negotiations receive training in international standards and best practice with regards to agreements around mining developments affecting Indigenous Peoples.

viii Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Concerning identification of affected communities at the negotiations table With support from Bureau VIDS, the affected Indigenous Peoples of Apoera, Section and Washabo should carefully consider whether other affected communities should be at the negotiations table with the government and companies. In particular, given the significant impacts in the Trio settlement of Zandlanding, a key question that needs to be resolved is whether the Chief of Wanapan and the Trio Granman should be involved directly in negotiations, rather than placing additional pressure on the Chief of Apoera to represent the interests of the Trio People in Zandlanding. Any direct participation of the Trio would clearly keep at the forefront the existing arrangement between the Chiefs of Apoera and Wanapan regarding Trio settlement in Apoera territory. Discussions should also consider participation by other downstream communities on the Nickerie River and along the Corantijn.

Concerning community strengthening Given the asymmetrical power relations between the companies and communities, the IDB and other donors should consider following standard practice by providing funds and enabling further technical assistance to: a) The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname to continue acting as intermediaries for the affected communities in West Suriname, and to provide legal advice. b) The leadership of the affected communities to continue their work in: i. Strengthening their decision-making processes, both internal and external ii. Building their skills and awareness with regards to international standards and best practice in, among other topics, negotiating with multinational companies and government iii. Implementing community-based monitoring of impacts iv. Creating community-based institutions of local experts to advise the leadership and their communities regarding the proposed developments v. Providing access to information for their communities through regular information bulletins, posters, summary reports, access to internet, radio programmes, among others vi. Funds will also be required for: i. Providing ongoing support to the community radio station ii. Transport and office facilities, office supplies and office maintenance iii. Exchanges with other communities in Suriname and internationally

Concerning the Bakhuis Forum An independent evaluation of the Bakhuis Forum should take place to examine, among other things: a) Whether the appropriate players are at the table. Particularly, whether the appropriate government players are at the table, and in general, the role of the government in the BF. b) Whether commitments made at BF sessions are being implemented. c) How the BF can be strengthened, from the perspectives of those currently participating, but also from the perspective of community groups and others who are on the receiving end of information from BF and who do not participate directly.

ix The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

The terms of reference for the evaluation should be drawn up collaboratively, with parties jointly selecting the independent evaluator. Independent funding could be sought for such an evaluation. Parties to the Bakhuis Forum should jointly decide who would be best coordinating the review.

Concerning financing The IDB (and other potential financiers) should not consider financing any aspect of the hydroelectric dam (Kabalebo), the mine (Bakhuys) or the infrastructure to enable an integrated aluminium industry in Suriname with road and other connections to neighbouring Guyana (IIRSA) until: a) The Government has taken concrete steps with regards to recognizing the land rights of the potentially affected communities, as outlined in Saramaka People. b) The cumulative effects (socio-economic, cultural, human rights, ecological) of the proposed developments in West Suriname have been appropriately assessed and understood by the affected communities and the Government. c) The companies and communities have, ‘through a good faith negotiation process’ (as per IDB’s Indigenous Peoples Policy) negotiated agreements, and the communities have given their free, prior and informed consent to the project proceeding. d) IDB’s safeguard policies have been implemented (including provisions regarding transborder Indigenous Peoples, as per below), and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards followed (the latter as per current commitments in ESIA documents).

Concerning Guyana The Governments of Suriname and Guyana should discuss and resolve issues around cross- border impacts of the proposed developments in West Suriname. Consistent with requirements in the IDB’s Indigenous Peoples Policy around Trans-border Indigenous Peoples, the IDB should encourage this dialogue, and further consider: a) Recommending that the governments approach a third party to help convene this dialogue b) Asking for support from companies operating in both countries, such as BHP Billiton, to encourage this dialogue c) Ensuring appropriate representation of affected Indigenous communities in Suriname and Guyana in this process

Should this collaborative effort not be politically feasible, the cross-border impacts of the developments in West Suriname should be addressed in a separate process with the Government and Indigenous Peoples of Guyana, again with IDB encouragement.

Recommendations concerning the role of the IDB and Canada include:

Concerning IDB support to Indigenous Peoples’ research and capacity-building The IDB should actively support research by and capacity-building for Indigenous Peoples (and other community groups), particularly if the IDB is considering financing any aspects of

x Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

projects, plans or laws that will affect these groups. Appropriate care should be taken to protect Indigenous rights in the process and outcomes of this research, particularly those around intellectual property rights and free, prior and informed consent.

Concerning the role of Canada and Canadian companies in Suriname Given the dearth of environmental and human rights legislation and protection in Suriname – specifically that pertaining to Indigenous and Maroon Peoples – Canada should urgently implement the recommendations put forward by the advisory group to Canada’s “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries” in its March 2007 report, and in particular, establish an ombudsperson’s office to investigate complaints by communities affected by Canadian mining and exploration companies that could lead to Canada withdrawing any financing provided to that company should it be found in breach of the standards embraced in Canada’s CSR Framework. This is consistent with CERD’s 2007 observations on and recommendations to Canada.

* * *

Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

“That is the goal …We want to be involved, and to get all the information so that we can know what the future holds for us so we can protect our culture and our lands” – Chief Mac-Intosh, Washabo, at VIDS/NSI launch workshop, June 2006, Paramaribo

“Bauxite is in the national interest, and it is not that the Indigenous Peoples don’t want it, but it has to be done in the right way. It is important to look at employment for Indigenous People, but it is also very important to protect our environment and other issues.” – Chief Lewis, Apoera, at VIDS/NSI launch workshop, June 2006, Paramaribo

“The government is striving to minimize the impacts of this development, in particular the potential harmful effects for the inhabitants of the affected areas. This will be done in cooperation with the local communities.” – Minister Rusland, at VIDS/NSI launch workshop, June 2006, Paramaribo

“One of the things that changed over the years is that the companies consulted with governments, but the governments didn’t consult with everybody. The lesson learned is that the companies consult with stakeholders.” – Warren Pedersen, General Manager of Suralco, at VIDS/NSI launch workshop, June 2006, Paramaribo

1 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

1. Introduction: Shifting Grounds

In 2003, Indigenous communities of West Suriname learned a deal had been struck that would literally shift the grounds on their traditional territories. On January 6, 2003 the Government of Suriname signed a MoU with mining companies BHP Billiton and Suralco (a subsidiary of US-based Alcoa) permitting exploration for bauxite on 2800 km2 of primary forest used by both Indigenous and Maroon2 communities. A second MoU was also signed between the government and Suralco to examine the possibility of large-scale hydroelectric development, a refinery, smelter and a potential deep water harbour on the Corantijn River, where many Indigenous Peoples live.

The affected communities were neither fully informed nor consulted about the exploration and other proposed activities to take place on their territories. While in 2001 a delegation of company and government officials informed the Chiefs of Washabo, Section and Apoera a request to explore the Bakhuys mountain range had been submitted, the delegation did not return – as it had promised – to explain unfolding plans to these Lokono villages and their councils. Instead, the Chiefs found out about the deal through the media: It was 2003 before we [the Chiefs] heard from media outlets that the MoU had been signed…in August of that year a delegation from BHP Billiton along with two contractors came to explain and to recruit workers. We found the process extremely faulty. Considering that we know what happened in the 1970s with our parents when there was a proposal to mine bauxite in the same areas to bring so-called ‘development’ to West Suriname, we were very concerned…We don’t want a repeat! 3

With community members expressing panic about the proposed developments especially given the lack of official recognition of their land rights4, the village Chiefs contacted the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname to get support and advice. Following community workshops to identify priorities, Bureau VIDS reached out to potential allies for technical support and funding.5

This report presents the outcomes of a project undertaken by Bureau VIDS in collaboration with NSI with funding from the Canadian Technical Assistance Programme of the Inter- American Development Bank to address key concerns of Lokono communities in West Suriname. IDB’s interest in this VIDS/NSI project stems from the Private Sector Department (PRI) of the IDB having been approached by Alcoa for potential financing of the hydroelectric power plant, dam and reservoir. While Alcoa would need to undertake its own environmental and social due diligence to obtain IDB funding – including complying with several mandatory IDB policies (e.g., Environment, Involuntary Resettlement and the Indigenous Peoples Policy) – the Bank considered the proposed VIDS/NSI project “a critical first step in providing potentially affected communities and their representative organizations with the tools required for a more equitable and effective engagement with PRI/Alcoa and the Government of Suriname.”6

2 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Objectives As stated in IDB’s Technical Cooperation Profile (TCP)7, the main objectives of the VIDS/NSI project were: • To gather information regarding the potential impacts of the proposed PRI/Alcoa project on the Indigenous communities in the area of influence; • To provide information about the proposed project to these communities in West Suriname and their representative organizations; • To build capacity among the Indigenous communities in this area so they can engage in dialogue with the Government of Suriname, Alcoa and its joint venture partner, BHP Billiton, regarding their rights, needs, concerns and interests. 8 Because of the lengthy negotiations around the terms of the contract9, this IDB project was in effect a follow-up to a previous VIDS/NSI project funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada.10

Organization of Synthesis Report This final report teases out some of the main issues emerging from the work undertaken by VIDS/NSI throughout this project, with a particular focus on issues around Indigenous participation in decision-making. It is organized as follows:

• Section 2 outlines the project process, activities, methodologies, main reports and project team.

• Section 3 presents the issues scan and analysis. It is organized in two parts, namely: Fundamental and systemic issues affecting all of Suriname, including key recommendations. Proposed developments in West Suriname, including key recommendations.

• Section 4 concludes this report, reflecting on the nature of the ‘shifting grounds’ taking place in Suriname around mining and Indigenous Peoples. Discussion centres on the implications of these shifts for key players in the region. It focuses in particular on implications for the two donors to this VIDS/NSI project, namely the IDB and the Government of Canada (funding was from the CANTAP at the IDB). Further recommendations are also presented.

3 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

2: Project Process, Activities and Methodologies

Project Process The project workplan and methodologies were the outcome of a participatory planning process with the Chiefs and their assistants, and built on previous research, capacity-building and information-sharing activities. Several meetings were held to elaborate the workplan, with ongoing communication among the project team to adapt the plan as the project proceeded.

Activities, methodologies and outputs Specific activities and outputs (organized as per the IDB’s TCP) included: a) Research • Reconnaissance to Wayambo/Nickerie communities and preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of transportation options. Together with Bureau VIDS’ project coordinator Carla Madsian11, Robert Goodland12 undertook fieldwork between October 22 and 28, 2006 to observe first-hand and listen to community concerns. His resulting report, “Suriname: BHP Billiton/Suralco’s Bakhuys Bauxite Mine Project, A Review of SRK’s Environmental and Social Assessment Transport and Scoping Document” (2006) is designed to complement Goodland’s 2005 report, “Suriname: Environmental and Social Reconnaissance of the Bakhuys Mine Project.”

• Traditional Land Use. Ellen-Rose Kambel13 and Caroline de Jong,14 together with Carla Madsian of Bureau VIDS, trained a team of five community researchers to gather information about traditional land use in West Suriname. The training took place in Apoera from August 26-29, 2006.15 Following this training, West Surinamese researchers Marcia Jarmohamed (Apoera), Els Lingaard (Washabo), Dina Romalo (Washabo), Henk James (Section) and Sandra Jeffrey (Apoera) undertook community-based research using a variety of methods (focus groups, semi-structured interviews, site visits, village walks). Preliminary findings were discussed and verified in meetings from May 21-31, 2007. The resulting community report, “Our Indigenous Territory on the Corantijn,” was edited by Caroline de Jong and Carla Madsian and is based on 14 months of research.

• Comprehensive Issues Report. Throughout the project, Bente Molenaar16 of NSI conducted desk research on the issues at the crossroads of mining and Indigenous Peoples in Suriname. Supplementing this desk research with information from interviews with key actors in Suriname and field visits in August 2007, Bente Molenaar produced a report entitled “Is there Gold in all that Glimmers? Mining and Indigenous Peoples in Suriname.” b) Focus groups on decision-making • Strengthening traditional decision-making. Together with five community researchers, Carla Madsian of Bureau VIDS undertook several focus groups with the goal of strengthening community decision-making and leadership in West Suriname. A two-day training was delivered by Carla Madsian October 13-26, 2006 on SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis and other methods used in a previous study on strengthening traditional authorities conducted in Lower Marowijne. The

4 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

community researchers then conducted eight focus groups in the three villages, including separate focus groups for men, women and youth (three in Apoera, three in Washabo and two in Section). They also interviewed 16 Elders in the villages. The outcomes of these focus groups and interviews were presented and discussed at workshops between August 30 and September 10, 2007. A community report entitled “Besluitvorming in de Lokono Gemeenschappen van West Suriname” was subsequently produced by Carla Madsian, and is also available in English under the title “Decision-Making in the Lokono Communities of West Suriname.” c) Capacity-building and leadership training for Indigenous communities Besides the training of community researchers and the discussion of recommendations on strengthening internal decision-making emerging from the focus groups described above, capacity-building and leadership training activities undertaken throughout this project included:

• Training sessions in Paramaribo (June 22-23, 2006) with Ellen-Rose Kambel, members of Bureau VIDS and participants of the Committee Land Rights Indigenous Marowijne (CLIM) on: Indigenous rights Mapping Community organizing

A total of 30 participants took part in these sessions, including representatives from West Suriname, Wayambo area and the South. The film “Dealing Full Force” was screened, which details the experience of Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation of Canada in negotiating with mining companies, including BHP Billiton.

• Discussions with community leaders in West Suriname (September 21-23, 2006) regarding the draft FPIC protocol.

• Training sessions in West Suriname by Robert Goodland and Carla Madsian (October 24- 26, 2006) on international best practice and policies with regards to environmental and social impact assessment. Some 21 people attended, including the Chiefs and their assistants.

In addition to the above IDB-funded activities, the companies contributed funds towards site visits by community members to: Coermotibo (approximately 20 community members from the West visited rehabilitation sites in Coermotibo on December 7, 2006) Cerro Matoso in Colombia (3 spaces for community members) Mineração Rio do Norte (MRN) in Brazil (spaces for 2 people were made available).

Travel to Colombia and Brazil took place within one week (including travel time), with only 1 day spent at MRN. Bureau VIDS members participated in the Surinamese site visits, but not the international visits.

5 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

d) Ongoing dialogue with related stakeholders, including government officials, private investors and civil society, regarding community guidelines The project team, and specifically Bureau VIDS, supported community leaders’ interactions with other key players in several ways, and at a number of key events:

• The VIDS/NSI workshop to launch the IDB project. Held on June 26, 2006, the launch meeting in Paramaribo brought together some 60 participants from government, the companies, environmental and other NGOs, and Indigenous organizations, among others. The Chiefs of West Suriname together with members of Bureau VIDS and Robert Goodland presented the results of research in the West to date, focusing specifically on community concerns regarding the proposed mining-related developments, past, current and likely future impacts. Minister of Natural Resources, Gregory Rusland, opened the meeting and stayed for the Chiefs’ presentation and questions following. The meeting also highlighted issues around appropriate consultation and consent procedures, and outlined the objectives and activities of the VIDS/NSI IDB project. Bureau VIDS has produced a draft report of this launch meeting, entitled: “Verslag van de Workshop over inheemse volken en voorgestelde ontwikkelingsprojecten in West Suriname.”

• Bakhuis Forum Meetings. The “Bakhuis Forum” is a group of company, community and government representatives who meet regularly to discuss issues around the proposed mining-related developments. Bureau VIDS’ role has been to meet with the Chiefs before each BF to prepare them for the meeting. In the meetings themselves, members of Bureau VIDS participate and assist by translating from English into Sranan –Tongo, and guiding Marcia Jarmohamed, the local coordinator, in recording the minutes of the meetings. Among other topics, the draft community guidelines for consultation/consent guidelines and draft agreement on traditional rights were discussed at several BF meetings. Critique and discussion of the BF is provided in the analysis below.

• ESIA consultations. The draft guidelines for consultation/consent were brought to the attention of SRK consultants and the companies several times throughout the project with, at best, mixed results to date (discussed in analysis below). Bureau VIDS functions as the intermediary between the communities and SRK. Documents produced by SRK were read and discussed with the Chiefs. Meetings with SRK throughout this IDB project included: December 2006: Four consultation meetings on the scoping document for the Bakhuys Mine Project were held in West Suriname (Apoera, Plan Apoera , Section and Washabo) and there was also a visit to Kwamalasamutu in South Suriname. June 2007: Consultation meetings on the scoping document for the Transportation Options ESIA were held, including one in Paramaribo and five in West Suriname (Apoera, Plan Apoera, Section, Washabo and Zandlanding). November 2007: The first information session was held in Paramaribo concerning dredging of the Corantijn river (together with the Maritime Authority of Suriname).

In addition, Bureau VIDS attended consultations convened by Sunecon/Royal Haskoning consultants on the IIRSA project:

6 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

April 26, 2007: Information-sharing meeting in Paramaribo on the Strategic Environ- mental Assessment (SEA) being conducted for Suriname-Guyana regarding IIRSA. June 27, 2007: Presentation in Paramaribo of the SEA and Gap analysis on Millennium Development Goal 7.

This description of activities and reports produced highlights the enormous amount of work that went into this project, as the project team stretched the funds to cover as many of the priorities the communities identified as possible.

Box 1: Lessons Learned Implementing this Project

While the rich, substantive outcomes from this collaboration are woven throughout this report, among some of the key lessons learned in implementing this project are the importance of: • Iterative, participatory planning including methodological guidance from the leaders and their assistants of the participating communities. • Identifying and training community-based researchers to conduct the work as a means of building awareness of the importance of conducting community-based research to support decision- making and strengthening of community processes. • Constant field presence for Bureau VIDS, and ongoing communications with the Chiefs, leaders and community-based researchers. • Frequent communications among the project team, and the need to build in plenty of time for ongoing troubleshooting and advice. • Ensuring that project results and recommendations are carefully verified and corrected by the Indigenous leaders, their assistants and community researchers, and that they feel comfortable with all materials to be presented and disseminated as a result of the work. • Ensuring that Indigenous participants in the research are well-supported to present effectively the results to participating communities, and government and company officials. • Sufficient funds to carry out the activities. As mentioned above, a multitude of activities took place under this project, with all project team members donating significant in-kind time. This is clearly not sustainable over the long-term. • Sufficient time. Given the pressure the communities are under with regards to the proposed developments for West Suriname, and the confusion created by the various other studies taking place in the communities by the company consultants, it is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the project team and VIDS that the activities unfolded and were completed in as timely a fashion as they did. • Media work. Bureau VIDS invited the media to several events, and a number of print articles, radio programmes and TV spots resulted, raising awareness in Suriname with regards to Indige- nous concerns and aspirations around the proposed developments in the West (see Appendix 1). • Ensuring the final products submitted through a consultancy where the funder has copyright contain only that information that Indigenous Peoples feel comfortable making publicly available. These issues were the subject of much discussion among the project team and IDB staff, and are discussed in more detail in the discussion on the role of the IDB in the conclusion of this paper.

7 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

3. Issues Scan and Analysis: Reversing the Legacy of Exclusion?

Indigenous Peoples have traditionally been excluded from decision-making around extractive industries in Suriname. With the strengthening of Indigenous and Maroon Peoples’ organizations,17 and growing awareness in government and among companies of concepts such as human rights and corporate social responsibility, there is increased pressure for the Government of Suriname and companies operating in this country to Box 2: recognize and incorporate the rights Select Facts and Figures and concerns of Indigenous and Related to Mining in Suriname Maroon Peoples in decision-making. This pressure is mounting as mining- Bauxite: related activities in or near traditional • Represents 15% of Suriname’s GDP, 70% of ex- Indigenous and Maroon territories port earnings* increase.18 From the closure of • Existing reserves in the East will be exhausted in bauxite mines in the East, to planning 2010** for the opening of the largest bauxite • The Bakhuys deposit contains virtually all Suri- mine in Surinamese history in the name’s existing reserves** West, Indigenous and Maroon • Suriname is estimated as the 9th most important Peoples are demanding that their right source of bauxite in the world (on account of to participation and to free, prior and Bakhuys)** informed consent is respected by the • Bauxite Reserve Base in Suriname (Bakhuys): 600,000 (in 1000 metric dry tons).** Government and the private sector. • Production at Bakhuys is estimated at 47 years, With mining slated to continue to be starting 2010/11** the backbone of the Surinamese Sources: economy for the next few decades * PRS Group (2004:16); Buursink (2005: 4). (see Box 2) and the Government **SRK Consulting (2008: 1-4/5; 5-2/3). increasingly looking to the interior for its valuable resources, it is clearly in Gold: the best interest of the Government, • Suriname’s 1st large-scale gold mine opened in the companies and the affected 2004, by Canadian company Cambior (now communities to reverse the legacy of IAMGOLD) • In 2003, gold was Suriname’s second most valu- Indigenous and Maroon exclusion in able export after alumina (alumina exports were decision-making affecting their valued at $335.8 million USD; gold at $140.3 traditional territories. This is the million USD) critical first step in ensuring the social • Gold mining in Suriname is slated to increase and environmental costs of mining are significantly minimized, and the benefits • Small-scale gold mining is significant although maximized at the local and national not regulated (see discussion in analysis) levels. Sources: Central Bank in Suriname; Bauxite Insti- tute; National Planning Office; and IMF estimates A recent IDB Policy Note on (all cited in Bernhard Fritz-Krockow et al. (2005). Suriname stresses these points,

8 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

warning that “public and private sector investments may be put at risk if they take place on indigenous and maroon lands without prior resolution of land tenure rights and meaningful participation in decision making.”19

The following issues scan highlights the opportunities and challenges of including meaningful Indigenous and Maroon participation in decision-making around mining in Suriname in a way that respects the right to free, prior and informed consent. It begins with a brief consideration of fundamental systemic challenges, and then examines those issues around participation and free, prior and informed consent that have emerged in the case of the proposed integrated aluminium project for West Suriname, namely the Bakhuys bauxite mine, the Kabalebo dam and the IIRSA project. Each sub-section includes relevant recommendations. While results of the VIDS/NSI project funded by IDB are woven throughout this synthesis, its scope cannot do justice to the richness and depth of each of the project reports, and readers are encouraged to consult these for further analysis and information.

Issues Affecting all of Suriname20 The fundamental issues underpinning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ participation in decision-making on mining relate to a legislative and policy vacuum in Suriname around Indigenous rights, environmental protection and mining, and the lack of government capacity and resources to enforce regulations that do exist. While these issues have been analyzed in detail elsewhere,21 the following provides a brief snapshot.

• Lack of recognition of Indigenous and Tribal rights to collective land ownership Suriname is party to a variety of international instruments protecting Indigenous rights. It recently supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), among others. While the protections offered through these international instruments are in theory enshrined and made enforceable in Surinamese law through article 105 of the 1987 Constitution,22 in practice these rights are unrecognized in Suriname, and are not protected in domestic law.23

In fact, Suriname is notorious for being the only country in the Western hemisphere that does not recognize – to any extent – Indigenous Peoples’ ownership rights to their ancestral territories.24 There is no Surinamese law that explicitly recognizes or protects traditional land tenure systems or collective land title, and all land and natural resources are considered to be owned by the State. Indigenous and Maroon persons do have access to individual titles in the form of land leases (under the 1982 L-Decrees).25 The L-Decrees, the primary legislation in Suriname concerning state land, acknowledge customary rights but provide no effective protection.26 While the lack of explicit protection for traditional land tenure systems may not have been problematic in the past, the government’s issuance of increasing numbers of mining and logging concessions on or near traditional territories, and its establishment of protected areas, has severely affected the integrity of these systems. In some cases the

9 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

government has also issued overlapping concessions for the same areas of traditional lands (for example, in the case of Bakhuys, mining and forestry).

• Lack of effective domestic legal remedies for Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Indigenous and Tribal Peoples lack effective legal remedies in Suriname. As Kambel explains: Under Surinamese law, indigenous and tribal peoples and communities lack legal personality and are therefore incapable of holding or enforcing rights. Moreover, the judiciary may not order that the Government adopt or amend legislation as a remedy. This is considered the exclusive prerogative of the Government and the National Assembly. Attempts by indigenous peoples to use the court system have therefore failed. In the most recent case, a complaint filed against the State by the indigenous community of Pierrekondre (district Para) concerning a sand mining concession, was rejected by the judge, who stated that the community lacked ‘competence’ to bring the claim and referred the community back to the Ministry of Natural Resources to seek a political settlement.27

As a result, Indigenous and Maroon Peoples are increasingly turning to international courts and bodies to seek protection for their internationally guaranteed rights, particularly collective rights to their traditional territories. Recent decisions include the Moiwana Village (2005) and Saramaka People (2007) judgements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The latter, which concerned logging and mining concessions, confirmed Kambel’s views quoted above, ruling that there are no available and effective remedies in Suriname law by which Indigenous and Tribal Peoples can seek protection for their property and related rights, especially in the context of resource extraction or other activities that the State may classify as being in the ‘public interest’.28 The Court specifically identified this absence of effective remedies as a key factor in awarding $600,000 USD in compensation for moral damages, emphasizing the Saramakas’ “frustration with a domestic legal system that does not protect them against violations of [their] rights…”29

There has also been a series of decisions by the United Nations Committee for the Elimination for Racial Discrimination in response to submissions by a coalition of Indigenous and Maroon organizations, the latest targeting Suriname’s discriminatory draft mining law (see discussion under mining legislation below, and Box 3).

Suriname has committed itself to implementing the judgements of the Inter-American Court and with regard to the Moiwana Village case it has complied with the majority of the Court’s orders.30 One of the notable exceptions is the order that the State regularize the community’s traditional ownership rights.31 Suriname has not, however, given the same attention to the UN recommendations, which have since been elevated to urgent action decisions and referred to the UN Secretary General and the Human Rights Council for further follow-up.

These judgements and rulings are important to the IDB and its support to the Government of Suriname particularly because the 2006 IDB Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples states that IDB-funded projects must comply with applicable international obligations, including the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court.32

10 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

• Lack of legislation requiring environmental and social impact assessment Suriname has no environmental legislation in place, which has enabled companies such as BHP Billiton and Alcoa to get away with advanced exploration in 2800km2 of primary rainforest without first conducting standard practice environmental and social impact assessment.

To begin to address environmental issues, in 1998 the Government of Suriname established the National Council for the Environment (NMR) as a policy making body within the Office of the President, and the National Institute for Environment and Development of Suriname as the operational arm of the NMR. Both bodies jointly received a grant of $2.24 million USD from the IDB and the European Union for institution-building, including the development and promulgation of a framework and other national environmental legislation.

However, because of limitations in their authority, and lack of human and material resources, these bodies have not produced results, other than the development of draft guidelines for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and a draft Framework Law on Environment. Known as the 2001 draft Environment Act in English, the Framework has not yet been approved by the Council of State and the Council of Ministers - approval by both is required before it can be submitted to Suriname National Assembly for enactment. Furthermore, in 2002, the Ministry of Labour, Environment and Technology (ATM) was established, which created several institutional changes (including ambiguities with regards to the role of the National Council on the Environment), apparently contributing to delays in the approval processes with regards to draft legislation.33

The 2001 draft Environment Act, which purports to be a comprehensive environmental policy and management bill, contains guidelines for environmental protection and planning, pollution control, environmental and social impact assessment and public participation in such assessments, and attributes to NIMOS the role of environmental authority while maintaining the current responsibilities of line ministries. However, since 2001 this draft Act has undergone a series of revisions, and by late 2004 the proposed revisions reportedly represented some major steps backwards. According to a report commissioned by IDB, regressive changes included restrictions to public participation in environmental impact assessment, as well as restrictions to NIMOS’ environmental authority, roles and competences.34

On a positive note, NIMOS’ originally proposed draft regulations for ESIA include administrative and public participation procedures for ESIA; criteria for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening, scoping and review; and project implementation and monitoring procedures. Guidelines have also been developed for assessing proposed projects, produced with technical support from Canada.35 The 2005 guidelines include: A discussion of social impact assessment looking particularly at EIAs that have included Indigenous Peoples and have resulted in the postponement or rejection of projects on account of the impacts they would have on these communities (e.g. Justice Berger’s seminal Mackenzie Valley Pipeline ESIA conducted in the 1970s in Canada).

11 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Reference to International Association of Impact Assessment guidelines and those under the US National Environmental Protection Act, which have as major components provisions related to public participation. Mention of Indigenous Peoples in the checklist NIMOS uses to review environmental assessments, and in other places in the guidelines. There are no real references to Suriname’s Tribal Peoples, the Maroons, and a key question is whether “Indigenous” also encompasses Maroons in the current guidelines. Provisions that “during all the EA steps, the project proponent must provide opportunities for interested members of the public, particularly those from local communities affected by the project, to access information on the project. The proponent must identify, record and take into account public concerns and comments.”36 Procedures that can lead to public hearings should there be sufficient public interest to warrant this,37 and an appeals process, should the public, applicant or other government agencies disagree with a decision by NIMOS regarding approving/rejecting an EIA.38

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the NIMOS guidelines could be strengthened with regards to the involvement of Indigenous and Maroon Peoples and the assessment of project impacts on Indigenous and Maroon territories.39 This was underscored by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Saramaka People judgement, which stated that a prior ESIA is one of four mandatory requirements for any project that may affect Indigenous or Tribal Peoples’ territories.40

Recent communications with NIMOS indicate a revision process is currently underway.41 According to NIMOS officials, the ‘update’ will address several ‘mistakes’ in the mining and other guidelines, and mining companies and others are being asked to follow only the ‘generic’ volume of guidelines in the meantime.

However, the timing is alarming and the process flawed. With regards to timing, official EIA rules are shifting at a time when the largest mine in Surinamese history is being negotiated. What procedures will be followed with regards to a potential public hearing are now completely vague (the generic volume provides far fewer details than the mining guidelines, although the latter were also far from clear on the procedure). In terms of process, it appears there has been no public involvement at all in the ‘update’,42 with VIDS and NSI finding out about this revision almost by accident.

In short, clearly there is a need to ensure that both the draft Environment Law and NIMOS’ guidelines are fully consistent with Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ rights (particularly as expressed in the Saramaka People judgement and by CERD), that the general public’s rights to participate and have access to information are guaranteed, and that such measures are given the force of law without further undue delay. This can occur only with open and transparent public participation processes that include strong Indigenous and Maroon participation.

12 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

In terms of substance, the revision should draw on procedures already identified by the state parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Suriname ratified in 1996, and which requires parties to undertake ESIAs.43 Parties to the CBD negotiated an excellent set of guidelines, namely the Akwé:kon Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities.44 The work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues with regards to standard-setting around free, prior and informed consent procedures, and recommendations from the World Bank-initiated 2000 World Commission on Dams45 and the 2004 Extractive Industries Review46 provide international standards that Suriname should feed into its own legislation. Additional guidance could come from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Global Reporting Initiative.

• Lack of appropriate protections for Indigenous and Maroon rights in existing legislation pertaining to mining, and discriminatory provisions in draft mining legislation Indigenous and Maroon rights are not recognized in current and proposed mining legislation. The 1986 Mining Decree regulates large- and small-scale mining, as well as mining for building materials, but its provisions erode previous guarantees pertaining to the rights of “bushnegroes and Indians” enshrined in Surinamese mining law.47 Current law requires only that companies list Tribal communities located in or near the area to be explored in order to obtain an exploration permit. Violators of this requirement – for example Golden Star resources and Canadian company Cambior (which has since been bought by another Canadian company IAMGOLD) with the village of Nieuw Koffikamp – have gone unpunished.

In effect then, under the 1986 Decree, Indigenous and Maroon Peoples have to accept mining activities on their lands. The Inter-American Court’s findings in Saramaka People further clarify the failure of the 1986 Decree to protect Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, noting that, among other shortcomings, it “fails to give domestic legal effect to the rights to property that the members of the Saramaka people have as a result of their communal property system.”48 The Court reached the same conclusion with regard to the 1992 Forest Management Act and the L-Decrees.

In 2002, the Government of Suriname issued a draft revised mining act that will eventually replace the 1986 Mining Decree. The Draft Act mandates large-scale mining companies to undertake environmental impact assessments and put in place environmental management systems. However, it does not include provisions for occupational health and safety, or public safety. Moreover, it was developed without consulting small-scale miners, and “as a result, suggested policies do not provide for effective management of small-scale mining in a way that reflects the actual situation.”49 In addition, the Draft Mining Act did not involve consultations with Indigenous and Maroon organizations, and the original Draft Act and its subsequent revisions have been severely criticized for discriminating on a number of counts against Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Among other things, criticisms are that the Draft Act:

13 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Denies Indigenous and Tribal Peoples access to judicial remedies available to all other Surinamese. Fails to guarantee rights to participate and consent or withhold consent in decision- making. Fails to otherwise provide meaningful procedural and substantive guarantees for Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ rights in relation to mining activities. Actively discriminates against Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ property rights, with the government failing to identify, delimit and demarcate Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ traditional lands and territories.50

Citing the imminent adoption of this Draft Act as is, Maroon and Indigenous organizations filed an urgent action request to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in January 2004. CERD adopted “Concluding Observations on Suriname” in March 2004, highlighting: Both de jure and de facto discrimination with regard to rights to lands, territories and resources, particularly the failure of the State to recognize, guarantee and secure those rights (paras 11, 12, 23 and 30). The absence of meaningful and effective procedural and other guarantees in relation to natural resource exploitation and the resulting negative cultural, health, social and other consequences (paras 13-15 and 18). The absence of adequate and effective domestic remedies to assert and seek protection for indigenous and tribal rights in domestic venues (para 14). The discriminatory draft Mining Act (para 14).

In November 2004, VIDS submitted a formal petition to the Government requesting meaningful consultation on the revised Draft Mining Act and the inclusion of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ rights. To date this petition has gone unanswered, and recommendations by CERD unheeded. This silence has resulted in further submissions to CERD, and the adoption of two urgent action decisions by CERD to Suriname, with no progress to date (see Box 3).

While there are several other pieces of mining legislation, such as the1989 State Decree (which focuses on provisions for mining installations placed on or above the sea), as well as special legislation related to bauxite extraction, namely the 1919 De Bauxiet Wet and the Brokopondo Agreement, these do not explicitly provide protection for Indigenous and Maroon rights.

Finally, it should be underscored that agreements made between the government and mining companies can also contain protections for Indigenous and Maroon Peoples, and in the case of conflict between these agreements, where they have been enacted as laws in their own right by the National Assembly and existing legislation, the Agreement between the government and mining companies most often prevails. However, even the one agreement of this type in Suriname that provides limited recognition of customary rights – namely the 1994 Mineral Agreement with Golden Star – has been violated in practice, according to Kambel and MacKay. 51

14 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Box 3: Summarized Urgent Action Decisions by CERD concerning Indigenous and Tribal Rights and Mining in Suriname

18 August 2005: Decision 1 (67):

• Drew attention of the State party to its General Recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, urging the State party to ensure the compliance of the revised draft Mining Act with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as with the Committee’s 2004 recommendations. In particular, the Committee urges the State party to: Ensure legal acknowledgement of the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples to possess, develop, control and use their communal lands and to participate in the exploitation, management and conservation of the associated natural resources; Strive to reach agreements with the peoples concerned, as far as possible, before awarding any concessions; Ensure that indigenous and tribal peoples are granted the right of appeal to the courts, or any independent body specially created for that purpose, in order to uphold their traditional rights and their right to be consulted before concessions are granted and to be fairly compensated for any damage (para 4) • Recommended once again that a framework law on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples be elaborated and that the State Party take advantage of the technical assistance available under the advisory services and technical assistance Programme of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for that purpose (para 5). • Recommended to the State party that it extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (para 6)

18 August 2006: Decision 1 (69):

• Reiterated “deep concern about information alleging that the State party has authorized additional resource exploitation and associated infrastructure projects that pose substantial threats of irreparable harm to indigenous and tribal peoples, without any formal notification to the affected communities and without seeking their prior agreement or informed consent.” (para 1) • Requested “detailed information on the above-mentioned issues be included in the eleventh to thirteenth periodic reports of the State party, to be submitted in a single document on 14 April 2007. The Committee also wishes to receive, as previously requested, detailed information on the current status of the revised draft Mining Act and its compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as the Committee’s 2004 concluding observations.” (para 3) • Drew “the attention of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the competent United Nations bodies, in particular the Human Rights Council, to the particularly alarming situation in relation to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Suriname, and invites them to take appropriate measures in this regard.” (para 4)

Sources: CERD (2005), CERD (2006)

15 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

• Lack of government awareness, capacities and resources regarding Indigenous and Maroon rights While the current legislative and policy vacuum is a major challenge for Indigenous and Maroon Peoples working to have their rights recognized and upheld in Suriname, this is compounded by the lack of government awareness, capacities and resources around Indigenous and Maroon rights and international best practice and standards with regards to integrated land use planning, natural resources extraction, conservation and ESIA processes. Discussions with government officials have highlighted, among other things: The effectiveness of NIMOS’ guidelines even as they now stand is severely hampered by the scarce human and financial resources to appropriately review, monitor and enforce the implementation of mitigation and other measures proposed in ESIAs approved by the agency. The dearth of readily accessible information and maps at NIMOS and relevant line ministries detailing the location of Indigenous and Maroon communities and their traditional territories. The lack of funds for NIMOS staff to participate in ESIA-related workshops at the community level and to learn first-hand about community concerns. Lack of information on international standards and best practice with regards to Indigenous Peoples and ESIA. Lack of awareness of the problems inherent in the Draft Mining Act.52 Awareness of the importance of settling land rights issues in Suriname, but fear of its implications in terms of government ‘losing power’. Awareness that previous negotiations with mining companies have not resulted in the best deals for Suriname – let alone for Indigenous and Maroon communities – and that future negotiations should learn from the past. Lack of information and capacities with regards to international standards addressing participation of Indigenous Peoples in management decision-making around conservation areas, and new IUCN categories of conservation areas such as Community Conserved Areas and Indigenous Protected Areas, which recognize that Indigenous and Tribal Peoples themselves can establish, own and manage protected areas within their traditional territories (alone or in cooperation with the State).

Recent developments such as the establishment of the Presidential Committee on Land Rights,53 the inclusion of human-rights based development as the new paradigm in President Venetiaan’s 2005-2009 multi-year plan,54 and the election of Maroon and Indigenous politicians to seats of power in Government and the National Assembly, are harbingers of a potential shift towards increased recognition of Indigenous and Maroon rights in Suriname.55 In addition, since 2007 a committee appointed by Indigenous and Maroon traditional authorities has been meeting to elaborate potential legislative and other proposals to help catalyze concrete progress and actions.

Nonetheless, as outlined above, much work remains to be done to make this potential shift a reality, particularly with regards to drafting appropriate legislation, capacity-building on Indigenous and Maroon rights, and institutional-strengthening of government departments.

16 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

The 2007 Saramaka People judgement will no doubt catalyze action in this regard, with implications for Indigenous and Tribal Peoples across Suriname. Specifically, the judgement requires that by 2010, the Government of Suriname: Have in place laws and other measures to recognize, protect, guarantee and give legal effect to the rights of the Saramaka people to hold collective title to the territory they have traditionally used and occupied, which includes the lands and natural resources necessary for their social, cultural and economic survival; and to manage, distribute, and effectively control such territory, in accordance with their customary laws and traditional collective land tenure system. Adopt laws and other measures to recognize and ensure the right of the Saramaka people to be effectively consulted, in accordance with their traditions and customs, or when necessary, the right to give or withhold their free, informed and prior consent, with regards to development or investment projects that may affect their territory, and to reasonably share the benefits of such projects with the members of the Saramaka people, should these be ultimately carried out. Adopt laws and other measures to provide the Saramaka people with adequate and effective judicial and other recourses against acts that violate their right to use and enjoy their territory. Allocate $675,000 USD to a community development fund created and established for the benefit of the Saramaka in their traditional territory. An implementation committee composed of three members will be responsible for deciding how the projects will be implemented. Recognize the Saramaka people as a people with collective juridical capacity in order to ensure the full exercise and enjoyment of their rights to communal property and collective access to justice.56

Implementation of these requirements will benefit all Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Suriname. Additionally, the judgement requires that the State abstain (unless it first obtains their consent) from issuing concessions within Saramaka territory until it has completed the legal regularisation (delimitation, demarcation and titling) of their territorial rights. This should be understood as applying in principle to any un-regularized Indigenous or Tribal territory. Additionally, concessions may not be issued where they would deny Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ right to maintain their multiple relationships to their traditional territories or deny the right to continue to benefit from their traditional economy.

• Lack of up-to-date information about, and regulation of, small-scale mining in Suriname’s Interior, and State violation of human rights. Small-scale gold mining in Suriname’s Interior began in the 1980s, mostly in the South East, and increased rapidly in the 1990s due to the end of Suriname’s interior war in 1992, high gold prices, and the Government of Suriname’s issuing one-year permits for $200 USD between 1997 and 1999. There is an estimated 10-20,000 small-scale miners in an area of some 20,000 km2 in East Suriname, with many of these being Maroons. Between 6-8,000 are small-scale miners – garimpeiros – from Brazil.57 Small-scale mining purportedly “supports a large share of poor households and substantially maintains the economy of the interior.”58 It also contributes to severe social, health and environmental impacts, with an estimated 20-30

17 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

tons of mercury used by small-scale miners in Suriname each year.59 While gender impacts are among the most severe in areas affected by small-scale mining, very little work has been undertaken in Suriname to get a detailed picture of the extent of these impacts.60 There is more awareness about the environmental impacts of small-scale mining, with several studies examining mercury contamination. In addition, the WWF has a gold abatement programme to raise the profile of using retorts and reducing the use of mercury. However, this programme has not specifically targeted Indigenous or Maroon Peoples to date, and retorts technology is a hard sell to miners living in poverty as it currently costs more than conventional methods using mercury.

Besides the lack of full information about how many small-scale miners are currently operating in Suriname, and the severe social and environmental impacts that result, a critical issue is that the current way the Government of Suriname issues small-scale mining concessions violates Indigenous and Tribal rights. In Saramaka People, the Inter-American Court ruled that the State: failed to comply with the three safeguards when it issued small-scale gold mining concessions within traditional Saramaka territory. That is, such concessions were issued without performing prior environmental and social impact assessments, and without consulting with the Saramaka people in accordance with their traditions, or guaranteeing their members a reasonable share in the benefits of the project. As such, the State violated the members of the Saramaka peoples’ right to property under Article 21 of the [American Convention on Human Rights], in conjunction with Article 1(1) of such instrument.61

While a clear Surinamese legislative and policy framework on Indigenous and Tribal rights will help mitigate these rights violations with regards to small-scale mining, another key set of issues is appropriate working conditions and remuneration for gold and gems mined in this way. Currently, the Association for Responsible Artisanal Mining (ASM) is spearheading a pilot project in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru to try to mitigate impacts and provide ‘fairer’ conditions for trading gold from community-based small-scale mining.62 Given the tremendous negative environmental and social impacts, and the poverty that exists among these miners, small-scale mining communities in Suriname could stand much to gain much from partaking in this pilot.

18 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Box 4: Recommendations Concerning Issues affecting all of Suriname

Concerning Indigenous and Maroon rights The Government of Suriname should fully recognize Indigenous and Maroon rights. The IDB and other donors should consider providing technical and financial support to the Government to: a) Implement the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommendations (made first in 2004, and urgently reiterated several times since), with priority focus on the recommendation that: “a framework law on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples be elaborated and that the State Party take advantage of the technical assistance available under the advisory services and technical assistance Programme of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for that purpose (Decision 1(67) August 18, 2005, para 5). Adoption of such a law is also required in the orders of the Inter-American Court in Moiwana Village and Saramaka People. The law and any implementing regulations must be developed in full consultation with Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and such consultation must be undertaken, at a minimum, with the aim of reaching an agreement. b) Complete the review and drafting of environmental and mining legislation (including ESIA guidelines) that fully integrates human rights considerations, particularly those related to Indigenous and Maroon Peoples. In order to achieve this: i. Ensure a mechanism is established so that Indigenous and Maroon Peoples: i. May appoint their own participants to review and participate in the redrafting of environmental and mining legislation. ii. Have appropriate levels of funding and technical support of their choice to meaningfully participate. ii. For all participants in the review process, provide training on: i. Indigenous and Maroon rights. ii. International standards and best practice with regards to human rights and environmental protection (e.g., ESIA, Akwe:kon guidelines, Impact Benefit Agreements [IBAs], revenue-sharing agreements, etc), before and during the review process. iii. Maintain a repository of readily accessible information and training tools for consultation by all participants in the review processes. c) Provide adequate resources for the responsible agency to: i. Monitor and enforce the resulting environmental and mining legislation. ii. Establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information (maps, documents) regarding the location of the communities and traditional territories of Indigenous and Maroon Peoples in Suriname. iii. Develop agreements for collaborative arrangements with affected Indigenous and Tribal Peoples for all aspects of monitoring extractive and other operations and for participation in closure and rehabilitation activities.

19 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

iv. Ensure that information about concessions, ESIAs and all other aspects of extractive and other operations are publicly available at reasonable or no cost. d) Support the establishment of an effective, participatory body to coordinate, mainstream and provide coherence to Indigenous and Maroon issues in government policy and programmes and to ensure the effective participation of Indigenous and Maroon communities in planning and programmatic decision-making. This body should consist of representatives of Indigenous Peoples, Maroons and government.63 Indigenous and Maroon participants should be appointed by their respective organizations, and should receive adequate financial and technical support to enable their participation. e) Support pro-active integrated land-use planning, and the establishment of effective, participatory bodies at the district level to coherently address and plan for natural resources development and conservation initiatives, taking into consideration and accommodating the values, concerns and rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. These bodies should include – as appropriate to each district – representatives of Indigenous Peoples, Maroons and the government, with Indigenous and Maroon representatives appointed by their respective organizations. Such district level bodies should not preclude the possibility of sub-district – or even cross-district – participatory bodies to be established to target the management of specific natural resource areas, such as watersheds. Clearly, they should also not preclude specifically Indigenous or Maroon land-use planning on their traditional territories, but provide instead a vehicle for Indigenous and Maroon people to make their territorial aspirations known and included in government planning.

Concerning Small-scale Mining Indigenous and Maroon Peoples involved in small-scale mining, for example the Tapanahony and Sara Creek N’djuka, should consider taking part in the Association for Responsible Mining pilot project towards fair trade certification of artisanal gold mining. This could have a significant impact on increasing the benefits and mitigating the negative impacts of small- scale mining, and be a model for other communities in Suriname to consider.

20 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Focus on the West The weak governance context in Suriname, and specifically, the lack of protections for both Indigenous and Maroon rights and the environment, comes into stark relief when examining individual cases, such as the proposed large-scale developments in West Suriname. Following a very brief description of current proposed plans for the West, this bottom-up analysis synthesizes key community concerns and recommendations, with a focus on: land rights; participation in decision-making and free, prior and informed consent; community strengthening and capacity-building; and social and environmental impacts.

At the outset, it should be noted that Indigenous Peoples’ consent in connection with the large-scale bauxite mining, associated infrastructure and a possible dam project in West Suriname is legally required pursuant to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of the American Convention in Saramaka People. These projects separately and cumulatively will have significant, adverse impacts over large parts of the Indigenous Peoples’ territories (both those of the Lokono and the Trio). This requirement is also triggered under the 2006 IDB policy on Indigenous Peoples, both directly and as a result of the requirement that IDB projects respect applicable international obligations, including the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court.

A New Vision of Old Plans: An Integrated Aluminum Industry for the West The proposed developments for West Suriname are new visions of old plans. In the 1970s, the Government of Suriname had proposed an integrated aluminum industry in West Suriname that went hand-in-hand with its plan of making “Apoera City” the second largest city in Suriname, after Paramaribo (this plan was known as “West Suriname Plan”). Back in the 1970s, the government built infrastructure to enable this vision to become a reality, including a railway line to transport bauxite from the Bakhuys mountain range to a port in Apoera, roads from Apoera to the mine concession and roads to the proposed Kabalebo dam.

At that time, there was no consultation with the Indigenous Peoples living in the area, and their agricultural plots were bulldozed to make way for Phase I of the West Suriname Plan, namely the establishment of Apoera City and the brick roads that connected its residences.

However, both the Apoera and West Suriname Plans were eventually shelved by the government. No companies were interested in mining Bakhuys on account of low bauxite prices, among other considerations, and the West Suriname Plan was abandoned following Suriname’s 1980 military coup. The upshot was that workers eventually left to go back to Paramaribo, and the Indigenous People in the area moved into the residences that had been built as part of the Apoera Plan.64

In recent years, as bauxite reserves are being exhausted in the East, the government has renewed its interest in an integrated aluminum industry for the West, and in 2003 concluded MoUs with BHP Billiton and Alcoa towards this end.

21 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Bakhuys Project An advanced exploration programme took place in the 2800 km2 concession of primary forest in the Bakhuys Mountains between 2003 and 2005, with some 650km of drill lines cleared, 330km of laterite roads and tracks developed, and 7,700 boreholes dug.65 The outcome of the exploration phase is that the companies are interested in exploiting all ‘plateaus’ over 250m, some 25 per cent of the concession area. The companies envision the mine could be operational in 2010 or 2011, with construction starting in 2008. Bauxite will be transported via train from the concession site to an upgraded and expanded port in Apoera, which will include a new jetty. The bauxite will then be barged down the Corantijn to the Atlantic, along the coast and up the Suriname river for processing at the refinery at Paranam, which will be expanded and upgraded.66 In the short-term, the refined alumina will be sent for smelting outside Suriname. Current indications are that the mine will be fully self-financed by BHP Billiton.67 Unknowns include: • Whether eventually there will be a refinery in West Suriname, and if so, where it will be located (near Apoera, nearer to Nickerie or in Bakhuys); • Where the bauxite will be smelted in the long-term. If government plans for a smelter in Suriname go ahead, options include building in the West, which would also require the building of a hydroelectric dam (i.e., the Kabalebo Project).

The companies hired SRK Consulting of South Africa to undertake the Mine ESIA, which began in 2003 and the draft of which was officially released for public comment May 21, 2008. A separate ESIA was conducted for the Transportation Options, which commenced in October 2006 and a draft of which was also released May 21, 2008. Further separate ESIAs will be conducted for the dredging of the Corantijn (the first public information session took place in November 2007), and for the upgrading of the refinery.

Kabalebo Project With regards to the Kabalebo Project,68 there are mixed signals from Alcoa as to whether indeed this is being seriously considered. The project as it was first proposed in the 1960s and 1970s included projected outputs ranging from 800-1346 MW, and flooded areas of around 3,000km2. However, it was deemed unfeasible for a variety of political and economic reasons. The current proposal is for an output of some 600-650 MW, with three reservoirs, and a total flooded area ranging from 1,600km2 to 2,500km2. Costs are estimated at $900 million USD for the dam, and some $900 million USD for the smelter. The project would be accessed by roads and airstrips, and there would be a transmission line to take the power to Paranam, as well as eventually to wherever a new smelter is located. While some of the electricity would be used for Suriname, the estimated total increase in demand for power that Suriname will see over the next decade is in the order of 50 MW. Discussions have taken place about meeting this need through diverting the Jai Kreek and Tapanahony Rivers in the East (both areas are traditional territories of Maroon peoples), so extra capacity can be generated at Afobaka, although there has been political pushback against this initiative particularly on account of the large social and environmental impacts it would generate.69 Unknowns for the Kabalebo project include: the area of rainforest and Indigenous Territory likely to be flooded; the height of the dam(s); the length of rivers that would dry up due to diversion; the location of the smelter (current options include Paranam, Apoera or near Nickerie); and the project

22 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

financiers (IDB has been approached). As Suriname has not been an active borrower of the World Bank Group for several decades, World Bank financing seems unlikely at present.

In August 2007, a delegation of Chinese officials interested in undertaking the Kabalebo Project visited the villages of Washabo, Section and Apoera, and the government subsequently announced it had signed draft MoUs.70 Members of the delegation included Sino-Hydro, a company with experience constructing dams, and the Chinese Development Bank, who may be positioning itself to be a potential financier. Chinese interest in this project goes back to the mid-1990s, when Desi Bouterse, representing Suriname, visited China, and national newspapers reported Chinese interest in a potential collaboration with Brazil and Suriname on the Kabelebo Project.71

To date Kabalebo has not been discussed by any ESIA consultants or potential proponents at the community level, nor did Alcoa present an update at the June 2006 VIDS conference to launch this IDB-funded project. At that time, Suralco’s General Manager Warren Pedersen stated there was no news to be shared.72 Nonetheless, the communities are very much concerned that Kabalebo is becoming more of a reality following the Chinese delegation’s visit, and in the face of numerous media reports highlighting Kabalebo as integral to the government’s plans for an integrated aluminum industry in the West. In addition, recent discussions with the Director of the Bauxite Institute indicate the dam is very much still a ‘live’ option, and that the government is shopping around the project.73 While this shopping around may be a negotiating tactic by the Government, it may also pressure Alcoa into considering the Kabalebo Project even though current plans do not meet World Commission on Dams standards in terms of output for amount of area flooded. Moreover, because Suralco now reports to Brazil, there may be more likelihood of considering the Kabalebo Project, particularly as Brazil is a key driver of the IIRSA project.

IIRSA Plans to expedite an integrated aluminum project in West Suriname further include large- scale infrastructure, namely a road system that will ultimately link Brazil to74 Venezuela through the Guyanas as part of the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America, an initiative that is also seeking IDB backing. The infrastructure will help to achieve one of IIRSA’s goals, namely to “exploit complementarities” and “integrate productive chains across borders,” in particular the bauxite-aluminum chain, and the oil/gas- petrochemicals-fertilizers chain. As part of what it has termed “Proyecto Ancla” (the centrepiece ‘anchor’ project), IIRSA plans for Suriname include revamping the railroad connecting Bakhuys to Apoera (which has already begun), upgrading of the East-West connection, which includes the road from Zanderij to Apoera, upgrading the road from Apoera to Nieuw Nickerie, and improving connections with French Guyana and Guyana. One proposal to enable a major connection between Suriname and Guyana is a bridge to be located between Apoera and Orealla.75

The IDB has contracted Consortium Royal Haskoning of the Netherlands to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the IIRSA-related infrastructure in Suriname and Guyana. While some interviews and workshops have been conducted with key players in

23 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Paramaribo, they have not taken place at the community level, and conclusions of the draft SEA have not yet been shared at this level either. The SEA is envisioned to help inform decision-making by policy makers in both countries, and is premised on the assumption that project level ESIAs for each of the proposed IIRSA developments will take place with further workshops at the community level.76 However, draft SEA project documents produced to date reveal that social and human rights impacts are not considered as rigorously as environmental impacts, and that grassroots Indigenous Peoples have been excluded despite protests.77

Other Activities In addition to all these plans, the Indigenous Peoples in West Suriname are currently dealing with multinational companies interested in logging their forests, as well as conservation NGOs and Government agencies seeking to establish protected areas in the West. Statistics from September 2005 indicate the high level of interest in the natural resources in the West, where the following concessions for natural resources extraction had been given by the Government (without the consultation or consent of the leadership): eight logging concessions, two aggregate mining operations (gravel), and the Bakhuys mine concession involving two large-scale mining companies.78 Additionally, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Government of Suriname are proposing several protected areas, including the Kaboerikreek Protected Area, which would absorb an integral part of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional territory and a main source of subsistence resources.

Given the above plans for their territories, the Indigenous Peoples in West Suriname have a variety of deep concerns. The following highlights those issues that came to the fore during the research for this project, but further concerns – particularly regarding past, current and future impacts – are documented in previous reports79 available at the VIDS office in Paramaribo, the Information Documentation Centre in Section (West Suriname), and at www.nsi-ins.ca.

Key Community Concerns

Community Concern #1: Land Rights

Currently, Indigenous Peoples’ ownership rights in and to their traditional territories remain unrecognized by the Government of Suriname. Instead, under the West Suriname Plan, certain collectively owned and used lands of Indigenous Peoples were bulldozed to make way for Apoera City. The Plan also saw the Government introduce a system of individual titles. While, several Indigenous families have received private, individual property rights for their residences in Apoera, this process undermines the traditional system, which relies on a mixture of individual and collective rights as per customary law, in these areas. There is also the potential for an escalation of conflict in Apoera, as people from Paramaribo immigrate and buy or obtain from the state individual titles and residences, potentially forcing out Indigenous families who have made their homes in the once-abandoned residences. However, the fact that some titles have been or may in the future be granted in these areas does not by itself negate Indigenous Peoples continued ownership rights to these same lands. Indeed, in such cases, the Inter-American Court’s judgements in Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa recognize

24 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

a right of restitution where Indigenous lands have been granted to private individuals and where Indigenous Peoples continue to maintain some form of a relationship with these lands.

Aside from the Government-introduced system in Apoera City, the Indigenous Peoples in West Suriname hold a mixture of individual and collective property rights, following their own customary law and traditional systems. Archival research has uncovered evidence that this area is a true ancestral domain as it has been home to Indigenous Peoples for centuries. For example: • Kaurikreek is one of the oldest areas ever inhabited in Suriname, with reliable charcoal dating showing it goes back between 2200 and 1750 BC, although it could also be older than this. • An old village near Wonotobo falls, located close to the present day Trio village Wanapan, was established around the beginning of the Christian Era (approximately 2000 years ago). • At Kabalebo, Matappikreek, the Avanavero Falls and the Frederik Willem Falls, pottery remains have been found from the Koriabo Culture, who came to Suriname around 1200 BC (and were present at the time of European contact). • Pre-Columbian petroglyphs have been found in the Corantijn river. • Apoera first appears on maps in 1784 (the Heneman map), and Washabo in 1836 (the Schomburgk map).80

Land-use mapping and documentation with villagers in Apoera, Section and Washabo undertaken for this VIDS/NSI project, highlights the scope of Lokono traditional territories, which covers areas currently in the Bakhuys concession area, areas off the road leading to the concession area, the proposed port area in Apoera, land that will be flooded or affected by the proposed Kabalebo project, areas upstream and downstream on the Corantijn River, as well as the area the government and the World Wildlife Fund propose for the Kaboerikreek Protected Area.81 These are all areas that are integral to the cultural and livelihoods systems of the Indigenous Peoples in the West. In addition, a key aspect of the traditional use and occupation study that needs to be highlighted is the importance of the watershed – the river and creek systems – to the Indigenous Peoples in the West. The research documents time and again reference supporting statements, such as calling the Corantijn is “the lifeline” of the Indigenous Peoples.82

Given the above, receiving official recognition for their territories is the primary concern of the communities of West Suriname, particularly in light of the proposed developments slated for their homelands. However, discussions to date with the government and companies regarding land rights have been extremely disappointing, with responses to community requests falling far short of Suriname’s international obligations, and in the case of the companies, their own policies.

In the case of government, officials have indicated that recognition of land rights before mining takes place could be a distinct possibility.83 However, no concrete steps have been taken in this regard, aside from initiatives by the communities themselves. Community initiatives have included the preliminary mapping of their traditional territories, community-based research to document land use, and archival research. In addition, the community leadership has made two

25 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

petitions to the President of Suriname Box 5: addressing the issue of land rights Land Rights and (September 18, 2006) and obtaining free, Other Affected Peoples prior and informed consent before an agreement is negotiated between the The issue of land rights is clearly a priority for Government and Bauxite companies all Indigenous Peoples who will be affected by (March 22, 2007). To date, however, there the proposed developments in the West. While has been no response from the land-use mapping was not undertaken with the Government. Nonetheless, the Minister of Trio people of Zandlanding, it is important to Natural Resources has responded to a highlight that they also use the Lokono tradi- September 2007 letter from the captains tional territory, as per their arrangements with and Bureau VIDS (following a meeting the Chief of Apoera, and their use of this area with him), noting that the Government will be clearly affected by the mining and looks favourably upon the suggestion of transportation activities, particularly plans for the upgraded port in Apoera, which could lead regular meetings to open dialogue to relocation. In addition, Trio traditional terri- between the communities and government tories upstream will be affected by the pro- concerning the proposed developments in posed Kabalebo dam. Indigenous Peoples West Suriname.84 living downstream of Bakhuys along the Nick- erie River will also be affected, and VIDS has In the case of the companies, community recently started a land-use mapping project in leaders have pressed BHP Billiton and the Wayombo area. Alcoa to consider the Indigenous Peoples of West Suriname as the rightful owners of their traditional territories even though the Government of Suriname has not yet officially recognized this, and have asked the companies to negotiate a draft protocol setting forth a mutual understanding of what it means to respect their traditional rights (see Appendix 2). Company reactions have been mixed, however. On the one hand, the companies have stated in that “until such time as traditional rights are recognized by the Republic of Suriname and incorporated into Surinamese law, formal endorsement by BHP Billiton and Alcoa of such claims would be premature.” 85 They add that they would like to work towards an acceptable outcome through dialogue and consensus building “rather than being forced to align with either indigenous people [sic] or government positions to the exclusion of the other’s.” 86 On the other hand, while the companies have rejected signing the communities’ protocol on respecting traditional rights, they have agreed orally to proceed as if the communities are the landowners and have recognized traditional rights.87

These company reactions are problematic for several reasons. They highlight lack of understanding that rights are inherent, and not conferred by or dependent on State recognition for their existence (although official State recognition is of course helpful for all involved, provided that such recognition is fully consistent with the rights regime in question). Traditional rights in particular, which are recognized and require protection under BHP Billiton’s company policies, are grounded in and arise from Indigenous Peoples customary laws and tenure systems, so by definition, cannot be said to depend on state recognition. The company reactions create a polarization in positions between the government and the

26 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Indigenous Peoples, when this is not necessarily the case.88 The companies could instead take the opportunity to bridge understanding between the government and communities on traditional and other rights issues – including land rights – and “contribute to the development of public policy, relevant legislation and educational initiatives” on these issues that would contribute towards sustainable development (as per BHP Billiton HSEC (Health, Safety, Environment and Community) 7.4). This role would be consistent with company commitments to “understand, promote and uphold fundamental human rights within our sphere of influence, respecting the traditional rights of Indigenous Peoples and valuing cultural heritage” (BHP Billiton Sustainable Development Policy); it would also work towards implementing the International Council on Mining & Metals’ (ICMM) position statement on mining and Indigenous Peoples which emphasizes the need for member companies to implement ICMM’s Sustainable Development Framework even in the context of countries that lack appropriate legislation. Rather than promoting human rights, or even undertaking human rights impact assessments that the companies have developed themselves and are promulgating internationally,89 the companies have taken a hands-off approach and appear instead to be hiding behind the Government of Suriname’s lack of legislation on Indigenous rights.90 Failure to negotiate an agreement with the communities on what is meant by ‘traditional rights’ in the context of West Suriname means the companies have far less clarity with regards to fulfilling their company policies and the communities’ internationally recognized rights.

But perhaps most importantly for Suriname, the companies’ position fails to respect the Government of Suriname’s international obligations and commitments, such as those under the American Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, among others. Indeed, following the 2007 Saramaka People judgement, the companies can no longer state they will act as if the communities of West Suriname have rights to own, control and peacefully enjoy their traditional lands, territories and resources; the Inter-American Court has ruled that they do have said rights, regardless of the State’s non-recognition.

In fact, in light of Saramaka People, both government and company responses to the land rights issue require rethinking and substantial modification. The judgement clearly outlines the nature of Suriname’s obligations with regards to land rights and proposed developments on Indigenous and Maroon lands. In this case, the Inter-American Court ordered that no activities may take place in Saramaka until it has been demarcated and titled in accordance with Saramaka custom, unless the Saramaka provide their free, prior and informed consent.91 This same logic applies in the case of the West Suriname Indigenous Peoples, requiring that the State begin the process of delimitation, demarcation and titling in the short-term and in accordance with Indigenous Peoples’ customs and traditions, and at least in parallel to the mining and related activities. In light of Saramaka People, the State could provisionally (until legislation is in place), formally recognize an Indigenous territory in the West as part of the FPIC process for the proposed developments in West Suriname.92 It follows from this, that the companies have no option but to negotiate an agreement with the communities that respects their rights, including so-called traditional rights, among other issues.

27 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Box 6: Select Alcoa and BHP Billiton Policies on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples

From ICMM Principles and Sustainable Development framework (Alcoa and BHPB are members) Principle 3: Uphold fundamental human rights and respect cultures, customs and values in dealings with employees and others who are affected by our activities • Ensure that all relevant staff, including security personnel, are provided with appropriate cultural and human rights training and guidance • Minimise involuntary resettlement, and compensate fairly for adverse effects on the community where they cannot be avoided • Respect the culture and heritage of local communities, including indigenous peoples Principle 9: Contribute to the social, economic and institutional development of the communities in which we operate • Engage at the earliest practical stage with likely affected parties to discuss and respond to issues and conflicts concerning the management of social impacts • Ensure that appropriate systems are in place for ongoing interaction with affected parties, making sure that minorities and other marginalised groups have equitable and culturally appropriate means of engagement Principle 10: Implement effective and transparent engagement, communication and independently verified reporting arrangements with our stakeholders • Report on our economic, social and environmental performance and contribution to sustainable development • Provide information that is timely, accurate and relevant • Engage with and respond to stakeholders through open consultation processes.

From ICMM Draft Position Statement on Mining and Indigenous Peoples Issues (March 2006) “Interactions between mining and metals industry representatives and Indigenous Peoples should follow the same general principles for engagement as apply to our dealings with all communities. They should also be guided by national policies and legislative frameworks already in place, preferably legal frameworks developed in consultation with Indigenous Peoples which have equitable and clear processes, including processes in which Indigenous Peoples have the opportunity to participate in decisions which affect their lives. Where these do not exist ICMM members reaffirm their commitment to the ICMM Sustainable Development Framework and this position statement. (emphasis added).”

From BHP Billiton’s Sustainable Development Policy (September 2005) We aspire to Zero Harm to people, our host communities and the environment and strive to achieve leading industry practice….Wherever we operate, we will develop, implement and maintain management systems for sustainable development that drive continual improvement and ensure we: • Understand, promote and uphold fundamental human rights within our sphere of influence, respecting the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples and valuing cultural heritage • Engage regularly, openly and honestly with people affected by our operations, and take their views and concerns into account in our decision-making • Develop partnerships that foster the sustainable development of our host communities, enhance economic benefits from our operations and contribute to poverty alleviation

From BHP Billiton’s HSEC Management Standards (September 2005) Standard 5: Awareness, Competence and Behaviour 5.8 Appropriate cross-cultural training is undertaken for employees and contractors who interact with people from different cultures, including indigenous peoples. Standard 8: Business Conduct, Human Rights and Community Development Intent: Activities and operations are conducted in an ethical manner that supports fundamental human rights and respects traditional rights, values and cultural heritage… 8.5 Local and indigenous communities, and their traditional and cultural heritage values potentially affected by BHP Billiton operations are identified, and strategies developed to address their concerns.

Sources: ICMM (2003); ICMM (2006); BHP (2005); BHP HSEC (2005).

28 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Community Concern #2: Participation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent in decision-making regarding projects affecting Indigenous Territories

With regards to the proposed developments in West Suriname, to date the Government of Suriname and companies have excluded Indigenous Peoples from all decision-making affecting their lands.

The Indigenous Peoples were not consulted about the issuing of the exploration concession granted to BHP Billiton and Alcoa. The communities were also not involved in the process leading up to the MoU negotiated and the permits granted to explore 2,800 km2 of forest on their traditional territories. They were further excluded from participating in any environmental and social impact assessment for the advanced exploration of the Bakhuys concession, as -- contrary to the companies’ own policies, to NIMOS draft guidelines93 and to international standards, -- the companies did not undertake any ESIA for the two-year advanced exploration phase.

The Indigenous Peoples were also almost left out of the subsequent ESIA process for the Bakhuys Mine Project altogether. Indeed, Indigenous communities of West Suriname were not part of the initial scoping phase consultations. Their inclusion resulted only after they pushed to be recognized as rights-holders who will be directly affected, and therefore legitimate and primary ‘stakeholders’. Yet, they have had to ask repeatedly for community- level information-sharing sessions about company plans and the commissioned ESIAs. Leaders in West Suriname also made the companies aware that several other downstream Indigenous and Maroon communities who would be affected by the proposed plans were not as yet included in the process, namely Indigenous and Maroon communities in the Wayambo area, and Indigenous communities living on the Guyanese side of the Corantijn.

When information-sharing sessions at last started to take place at the community level in the West, several difficulties surfaced relating to, among other things: • Lack of translation of the information into formats and language the communities could understand. Community members have noted that the presentations have been too technical for them to fully comprehend. • Lack of appropriate timeframes for turnaround of comments. Given the technical nature of the documents and the fact that this is the first time communities have encountered these types of mining-related activities, the timeframes for comments have been extremely tight, with Indigenous leaders scrambling to undertake appropriate internal consultations, and therefore not in accordance with their traditional methods of doing so.94 • Lack of respect of Indigenous governance structures and processes. Initially, company people seemingly parachuted into the communities and expected to tell their leaders what the corporations wanted and planned to do, without either appropriate notice of their arrival or consent given from the community leaders for such a visit.

Further, the ESIA studies for the mine site started well before communities could provide their comments. The result was lack of attention to social, cultural, health, labour and human rights impacts, and to the appropriate incorporation of traditional knowledge and Indigenous

29 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

experts in data gathering. In the months that followed, the companies tried to rectify this somewhat by using Indigenous researchers for a traditional resource use study by one of SRK’s consultants. This involvement was subsequent to community leaders’ requests. Had the companies considered the Indigenous Peoples as joint partners in planning for the ESIA (which is best practice internationally), and had they acted on recommendations in NIMOS’ guidelines with regards to establishing an independent Panel of Experts to guide the ESIA process, this type of oversight would likely not have occurred.

While the relationship between the communities in West Suriname and the companies got off to a rocky start, there have been some recent improvements:

• Bakhuis Forum: Since September 2006 the parties meet in what is known as the “Bakhuis Forum”. The inclusion of the general managers of the companies in the discussions has been particularly helpful. Besides company representatives, the Chiefs and their assistants, participants include the District Commissioner of Sipaliwini and members of Bureau VIDS. To date there has not been an evaluation of the BF process, although informal comments indicate that this mechanism has enabled more positive relationship- building among the companies and the leaders in West Suriname.95 Nonetheless, there has been concern to ensure that the BF is not seen as a replacement for the consultation and consent processes the leaders in West Suriname must undertake to arrive at collective decisions supported by their communities, and that it provide sufficient time and resources to support downwards accountability to the communities. In addition, Indigenous and company participants clarified at an August 2006 meeting that the BF was not the right forum for resolving major issues – such as negotiating an agreement – which would take place in another setting. Indigenous participants are increasingly realizing that not only has the BF failed to address major issues, but promises made and actions agreed to at the sessions routinely fail to be implemented. A full-scale independent evaluation, including community people not involved in the BF, would be extremely valuable, particularly if this type of Forum is to be replicated elsewhere in Suriname. The role of the government in this process would also be useful to evaluate, especially given that the government is not always a participant in other fora (for example the Tintaya Table established around a former BHP Billiton Mine in Peru). In the BF, indications are that the State’s role in the process has been extremely limited.

• Information and Documentation Centre (IDC). Although dismissed as totally impossible for several months by the proponents, the companies eventually complied with the request of community leaders to put in place a documentation centre in West Suriname to enable ongoing access to information about the proposed plans for the area, among other documents, as well as Internet access and computers. However, there have been misunderstandings about who owns this information centre and how it is to be used, including what information may be displayed. These issues remain unresolved.

• Improved efforts to produce non-technical information. The consultants have improved efforts to produce non-technical information. They have also started to disseminate this material in ways that are more appropriate, for example, through house-to-house visits.

30 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

• Community development projects. Several small community development projects have been implemented, which may help to strengthen community-company relations. However, at the communities’ insistence, there is a clear understanding that these initiatives are separate from the proposed Bakhuys Mine Project and any benefits that might flow from it. As such, these small projects should not be seen as meeting benefit sharing requirements.

• Consolidation of ESIA standards. Previous VIDS/NSI research has highlighted inconsistency in which standards and/or guidelines the ESIA consultants were using, with the Chiefs asking for the use of human rights norms, Akwe:kon guidelines and IFC standards. Since the beginning of the Transportation Options ESIA, the consultants have stated they will be using IFC’s Performance Standards and guidelines. It will be critical to compare the actions of the companies/consultants and contents of the ESIA documents against these standards, particularly Performance Standard 7 (PS7) on Indigenous Peoples.

Despite these improvements, there are several critical outstanding issues with regards to participation in decision-making around the large-scale developments in West Suriname. These include:

• No negotiated agreements regarding consultation/consent and traditional rights. The companies have consistently brushed aside the communities’ requests for the companies to consider and sign the communities’ draft protocol regarding consultation and free, prior and informed consent (see Appendix 3), and their draft agreement on the definition of ‘traditional rights’ (as discussed above). This despite a public statement in May 2005, that BHP Billiton would recognize the communities’ right to FPIC and negotiate an agreement on traditional rights. Instead, the company consultants consistently draft their own plans for consultation asking the communities for comment, and using rhetoric around obtaining a social license, to operate rather than agreeing to uphold the communities’ right to free, prior and informed consent. The companies thus seek to maintain a firm grip on the modes of participation and have rejected Indigenous Peoples’ attempts to explain how they believe that participation should best take place. This directly contradicts the Saramaka People ruling, which requires effective participation “in conformity with [indigenous peoples’ customs and traditions…,” and that this includes a duty to actively consult with the Saramaka, again “according to their customs and traditions.”96 According to the judgement, FPIC must also be obtained “according to their customs and tradition.” 97

• No Panel of Experts. All ESIAs to date have as yet failed to incorporate an independent Panel of Experts to help bring the processes up to international standards and best practice, especially around the involvement of Indigenous Peoples. Instead, there has apparently been a secretive ‘peer review’ process, with the outcomes of the evaluations and peer review not distributed to affected communities and their organizations, despite numerous requests.

31 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

• Lack of participation in negotiations. The communities have formally requested to participate in negotiations around the mine as equal partners, and that any agreement negotiated between them and the government or companies be included as an integral part of any agreement with the government and companies. However, this request has gone unanswered, and negotiations between the government and companies continue. Nonetheless, there are indications this may change. At a recent meeting between the Chiefs and the negotiations team,98 members on the government side took note of the Chiefs’ request, and indicated the government may be willing to include the Chiefs in drafting the agreement with the companies. Should this occur, this will be precedent- setting for Suriname, and will result in a far stronger, and more realistic, mutual and effective agreement than Suriname has ever negotiated in the past.

• Lack of ongoing resources. Ongoing resources and capacity-building to enable the communities to stand on firmer ground with regards to upcoming negotiations around an agreement, including agreement on impacts and benefits, is a critical issue, as is programme funding to enable Bureau VIDS to continue assisting and acting as interlocutors for the communities (discussed further below).

• Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples. The scope of the work under the ESIAs still does not include all communities in the project’s watersheds and airsheds. Indeed, Indigenous communities in Guyana have been left out altogether, despite promises made by BHP Billiton at the VIDS/NSI IDB-Project launch meeting in Paramaribo that the Guyanese would be included in the Transportation Options ESIA, especially if barging was going to be considered.99

It should also be noted that some 26 per cent of the Bakhuys concession area comprises the catchment area of the Kabalebo river, which feeds into the Corantijn River along which Guyanese Indigenous communities live (for a map of West Suriname see Appendix 4).100 Downstream Indigenous communities in the Wayambo area have also not been fully incorporated as the companies state the Nickerie River – the water source upon which the Wayambo communities depend – will not be affected by the mine.101 This is hard to believe given that 54 per cent of the concession area comprises the catchment area of the Nickerie River.102 In addition, the companies indicate they plan not to mine the area around the Adampada Creek, a creek which feeds into the Central Suriname Nature Reserve (CSNR), in order to ensure that this creek is not polluted with runoff and that the CSNR remains pristine. Not only will the catchment area of this creek be ‘sterilised’ (i.e., not mined), the companies are also planning a buffer area.103 Given these measures, it is difficult to imagine that the main rivers whose catchment areas will be actively mined will not be affected, along with the communities depending on these water sources for their livelihoods. These measures show that nature conservation is valued far higher in company and consultants’ plans than protecting the livelihood systems on which Indigenous and Tribal Peoples depend. While Guyanese and downstream Indigenous communities have been excluded, Maroon Peoples were eventually considered in studies regarding the transportation options.

32 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

It should be noted that dealing with transborder Indigenous Peoples and impacts is a key element of IDB’s Indigenous Peoples Policy’s safeguards (par 4.4, (f)), and needs to be addressed should IDB consider supporting any aspect of the projects currently being proposed for the West.

• Lack of participation in land-use planning for the West. There have been no concerted efforts to embark on integrated land-use planning in West Suriname, and no efforts to include meaningful participation of affected publics –especially directly affected Indigenous and Maroon Peoples – towards this end.

Besides countering international best practice, company policies and NIMOS’ draft guidelines for ESIA, as noted above, the experience in West Suriname contrasts markedly with the Inter-American Court’s judgement in Saramaka People where the Court explained that effective participation includes a duty to actively consult with affected communities, “according to their customs and traditions,” and in relation to any proposed development or investment. This duty to consult in turn includes:

• a duty on the State, and those authorized by it, to both accept and disseminate information, as well as the obligation of constant communication between the parties. • that consultations must be undertaken in good faith, through culturally appropriate procedures and with the objective of reaching an agreement; • that the Saramaka must be consulted, “in accordance with their own traditions, at the early stages of a development or investment plan, not only when the need arises to obtain approval from the community, if such is the case. Early notice provides time for internal discussion within communities and for proper feedback to the State.” • that the State must ensure that the Saramaka people are aware of possible risks, including environmental and health risks, so that the proposed project is accepted knowingly and voluntarily. • that consultation should take account of the Saramaka people’s traditional methods of decision-making.104

In Saramaka People, the Inter-American Court has clarified that consultation and consent are inextricably related with regards to large-scale developments that significantly affect traditional territory. Besides undertaking consultation following the above guidelines, in the case of West Suriname, the State will also need to obtain the Indigenous Peoples’ consent before issuing any permit for exploitation, following the orders given by the Inter-American Court in Saramaka People: Additionally, the Court considers that, regarding large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact within Saramaka territory, the State has a duty, not only to consult with the Saramakas, but also to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions (par 134, emphasis added).

It is clearly in the best interest of the State – and the companies – to follow these rules and orders carefully, which will mean, among other things, reaching agreement with the communities regarding the appropriate process for FPIC.

33 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Community Concern #3: Social and Environmental Impacts, Transportation Options ESIA and ESIA Process

Previous research by VIDS/NSI has highlighted community concerns regarding previous, current and likely impacts of the Bakhuys and Kabalebo Projects, as well as the ESIA processes currently underway. These range from impacts of the exploration phase on the rights and livelihoods of the Indigenous Peoples, to fears that the hydroelectric dams will cause cultural and ecological death and forced relocation, to current impacts resulting from interactions with the companies and negotiations around community projects that are apparently not linked to the large-scale developments, among a host of other issues.105

It should be noted that there is no support for the Kabalebo Project among Indigenous Peoples participating in this VIDS/NSI project,106 no support for a smelter in the West, and no support for a ‘beneficiation’ plant in the West.107 There is openness to the potential of a well- managed mine that integrates international standards with regards to human rights and environmental protection.

With regards to the Transportation Options ESIA for the Bakhuys Mine Project, the communities have expressed several deep concerns. These include:

• Loss of cultural identity and Indigenous way of life • Impacts on the farm plots (kostgrondje) and livelihoods • Resettlement/displacement of Zandlanding and the Trio and Lokono people who live there • River erosion • Environmental impacts on fish and water quality • Safety of villagers due to increased train/road/river traffic • Increased drug and alcohol abuse • Family breakups • Prostitution • Health (increased STDs, HIV/AIDS, respiratory diseases, etc.) • Dust from uncovered barges, train cars, trucks • Noise • Number of jobs for Indigenous people108

Protecting cultural integrity and Indigenous ways of life emerges as the priority concern, as was evident in discussions at a January 2008 community workshop presenting the preliminary contents of this final report.109 The question of where construction workers working on the railway, roads and port infrastructure will be housed is also creating fear with regards to cultural erosion and social impacts. Another concern is that construction-related activities have started to take place even before the government and communities have negotiated agreements, and before the government and communities have given the project a ‘go’. These activities are taking place without any information-sharing or community consultation at all. Roads to farm plots have been destroyed, creating severe disruptions for Indigenous users. Trees have also been cut down. These issues have been the subject of a

34 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

recent letter from the VIDS and Chiefs to the companies, and compensation “The best way of predicting an ESIA is to go measures are the subject of current and look at somewhat similar projects as near discussion between the parties.110 as possible to the new proposed one. Suriname is very lucky, you have just that. There is a track record of the Brokopondo hydrodam, and With regards to the ESIA process, the Coermotibo bauxite mines. You could learn besides the issues noted in the a lot by looking at those sites. That is the good discussion above regarding participation news. The bad news is that both of them are and consent, an ongoing concern for the disastrous. It is really frightening that those communities is the fragmented nature of poor Maroon people were kicked out of their the ESIA process, and the lack of a homes for the Afobaka reservoir; some of them comprehensive cumulative assessment more than once. They are still in terrible de- of the various projects potentially cline. They are not being looked after as affecting the West. While the Mine Site human beings. All of their communities are in a very sorry state, and all their communities and Transportation Options ESIAs are are dysfunctional. It has not been rectified in currently the subject of consultations at the last 50 years. the community level, the ESIA for the dredging of the Corantijn river and People tend to say that was 50 years ago and upgraded port area is at the very early of course we wouldn’t do anything as bad as stages. To date there has been only that today. But if you look at the recent track preliminary discussions regarding the record of some big bauxite corporations, those dredging (at a meeting in Paramaribo in sorts of things have not changed very much. November 2007), and no community- The town of Adjoemakondre and several others level information-sharing workshops in Eastern Suriname are being traumatized by bauxite proponents today. It is not that differ- have taken place as of yet.111 At the ent today from what it was 50 years ago. I preliminary meeting, participants were hope this project will be different and that is told the ESIA studies were well why we are here today. We are going to strug- underway, and would take one year to gle to maximize the benefits, particularly of the complete. It was not until February 2008 people and their life support systems, the envi- that the VIDS and community Chiefs ronment on which they depend. And we’re received the scoping report, with going to try to minimize the negative impacts.” information-sharing sessions at the – Robert Goodland, VIDS/NSI community-level now planned for late IDB-Project Launch Workshop, Paramaribo, July, 2008.112 All of this once again June 2006 raises questions about whether the companies have learned from previous missteps when studies proceeded without the communities having opportunity to comment on scope and terms of reference.113

Given the companies’ desire to begin construction by July 2008, there is concern the government will finalize an agreement with BHP Billiton and Suralco before it has the full information from the ESIA studies (including the Refinery ESIA), and that the construction of the mine may begin even before these ESIA studies are completed. The communities will be placed at a serious disadvantage if they are forced to negotiate the impacts and benefits sections of an agreement without full information regarding all the impacts – including the

35 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

cumulative impacts. Their position will be “The construction will not take weakened even further if these negotiations take place until we have completed the place after construction activities have started. If ESIAs, as well as the reports that go this does occur, the communities may also feel along with them, as well as the ne- they have no option other than to seek legal gotiations with the government.” recourse against the government, throwing the – Eddie Sholz, BHP Billiton, at project as a whole into question. VIDS/NSI launch workshop, June 2006, Paramaribo With regard to cumulative impacts, it should be noted that plans for hydroelectricity and the infrastructure projects proposed under IIRSA have not yet been discussed by project proponents in community workshops in West Suriname, even though these are key to plans for an integrated aluminum industry in the West.

Another ongoing concern is the lack of a Panel of Experts to help guide the ESIA process. Robert Goodland’s report reviewing the scoping document for the Transportations Options ESIA highlights a series of recommendations (included in Appendix 5). One key recommendation made by Goodland in his earlier report on the Mine Project ESIA, and which is echoed in his review of the Transportation Options scoping document, is the establishment of an independent Panel of Experts, as per international best practice. There is still time to establish such a Panel, particularly to help NIMOS review the draft ESIA documents and provide sound advice to the Government and affected communities. This Panel could also promote public participation and obtain more inclusive input through official “public hearings” following the submission of the draft ESIA documents, which is referred to in NIMOS’ ESIA guidelines.114

Community Concern #4: Capacity Strengthening and Decision-Making

Since 2004, VIDS/NSI have been working with the communities in West Suriname to increase their awareness around a variety of issues related to land rights, international standards and best practice in ESIA, research on Indigenous lands, mining impacts, and negotiations with mining companies. For the IDB-funded project, the emphasis was on international standards with regards to ESIA, and strengthening internal decision-making processes and leadership. It should be noted upfront that because the Chiefs and their Assistants in West Suriname identified a number of more pressing priorities, including, for example, land-use documentation and strengthening traditional decision-making internally, the capacity-building activities targeted to ESIA and the further development of a consultation/consent protocol were cut back accordingly.

The training on ESIA that did occur indicated that much more needs to be done to further increase the knowledge of the Chiefs, their assistants and others in the communities with regards to international standards around ESIA.115 In particular, the Chiefs have asked for more help with respect to negotiating agreements, including impact benefit agreements, with the companies, as well as with community-based monitoring of impacts.

36 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

With regards to strengthening decision-making and traditional leadership, the focus was on assessments by different groups in the community as to: 1) What the key changes have been in the leadership and its structure since the years pre-1997, when there was one Chief who governed, to now, when there are three villages and three Chiefs; 2) How the leadership and internal decision-making process could be strengthened, as a pre-requisite to improved community-external actor decision-making Box 7: processes. These assessments focused on the Key aspects that need further changing pressures affecting the villages strengthening to enable better today, and the need for different types of governance and decision-making leaders to deal more effectively with these in Apoera, Section and Washabo new pressures. There were several recommendations for how the current • The traditional leadership and com- leadership and internal decision-making munication processes among the processes could be strengthened (see Box 7). Chiefs and basyas • The work of the traditional leaders While the Chiefs have asked for help in for the well-being of the community further developing their community policies • Information for every community and protocols regarding consultation and member consent processes with outsiders, it should be • Community participation in deci- noted that they are already using the draft sion-making regulations and process (in Appendix 3). For • Community meetings and volunteer example, these were recently given to work logging companies that approached the • Direct contact between the leader- communities, although the companies have ship and community members not followed these guidelines. There is • Leadership involvement in village concern that the local government officials activities are advising the central government concerning the activities of companies in the Source: VIDS (2008). area, without consulting the Chiefs. This undermines the traditional leadership and the potential implementation of the community protocol.

One suggestion for follow-up is establishing a working group to support the community leadership with any requests from outside actors regarding activities taking place on or near traditional territories. Which community advisers would sit on this working group, and how it would work, still needs to be fleshed out. However, since mid-2007 a group of interested community members has been meeting regularly to support the leadership and strengthen community decision-making.

In terms of further awareness with regards to mining impacts and the activities of BHP and Alcoa abroad, the companies themselves organized for the Chiefs of the communities of West Suriname to visit mine sites in Colombia (Cerro Matoso) and in Brazil (Mineração Rio do Norte). A key concern is to what extent the Chiefs were able to communicate with locally

37 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

affected communities, and to what extent the site visits were ‘scripted’. The Chiefs have said that while the trips helped them learn more, there was not enough time spent in the affected communities. In the future, it would be far more effective to provide funding to local community groups affected by the particular mines to be visited, so they can coordinate the visit of Surinamese Indigenous Peoples to ensure they are seeing all sides of the issues, and particularly those most important at the community level. In addition, it would be beneficial to have members of Bureau VIDS participating in the site visits. The trip to Colombia was open to three people, and the Chiefs of the three villages selected themselves to participate; the companies offered only two spaces for the visit to Brazil, and again, two Chiefs visited, although clearly it would have been beneficial to have another space for the third Chief, as well as for Bureau VIDS staff. Notably, the site visits were only to locations where community relations appear to be quite smooth. The Chiefs would have heard some very different experiences had they visited, for example, the El Cerrejon coal mine in Colombia, and had their trip been coordinated by local Wayuu or Afro-Colombian affected peoples. As Oxfam Australia’s mining ombudsperson has pointed out, it is critical for community members to visit a diversity of sites, not only places where things appear to be going well.116

While not funded by IDB, two other important international capacity-building activities took place in 2007. A member of Bureau VIDS, Josee Artist, travelled to Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation in Canada’s Northwest Territories in June 2007 to learn first-hand about how it is dealing with mining developments, as well as the establishment of a protected area.117 Josee Artist also observed Indigenous Canadians interact with government, companies and other Indigenous groups and NGOs in a public hearing for the renewal of a water license of a diamond mine operated by Rio Tinto. This visit was extremely short, was piggy-backed onto another activity, and did not involve a visit to a mine site, which could have enabled further learning.

Similarly, Chief Carlo Lewis of Apoera and Chief Ricardo Mac-Intosh of Washabo travelled to Cibodas, Indonesia in early April 2007 to present their own experiences in West Suriname at a forum for Indigenous Peoples to explore issues around free, prior and informed consent,. This forum provided valuable learning for the Chiefs, and prompted communities from around the world to ask them to share their draft protocol on FPIC.

What comes out very clearly is that there is far more long-term work to do. This work includes strengthening the decision-making processes in the villages and their processes with outsiders. It also includes strengthening awareness and capacities around Indigenous rights, international standards and best practice with respect to ESIA involving Indigenous Peoples; the impacts of mining and its related activities – hydroelectric development, and large-scale infrastructure such as that proposed by IIRSA – as well as strategies for negotiation. Among other things, the Chiefs have specifically asked for help in: • Developing a vision statement and plan for the future • Trainings in negotiations and IFC Standards • Community-based monitoring • Further developing their community policies, protocols and organizational structures regarding consultation and consent processes with outsiders • Further strengthening of traditional leadership

38 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Box 8: Recommendations Concerning West Suriname

Concerning Panel of Experts to review ESIA The Government of Suriname – and particularly NIMOS – should put in place an independent expert review process of the draft ESIAs. Establishing a Panel of Experts to review the documents is in the best interest of the Government of Suriname and the affected communities to ensure that: a) all impacts are duly considered; b) the final reports and recommendations meet the highest international standards; and c) the subsequent negotiations and agreements between the government, companies and communities are well informed. Convening such a Panel of Experts is also clearly in the best interest of the companies to ensure the review is conducted efficiently and to the highest standards. For these reasons, the Government of Suriname should consider the companies’ offer to finance such a review process. Should Indigenous Peoples wish to participate in and/or identify and nominate experts for the panel, provision should be made for this. Similarly, should Indigenous Peoples wish to convene their own panel of experts, this should also be supported.

Concerning free, prior and informed consent and participation in negotiations towards strong agreements Following international best practice and international human rights standards and jurisprudence – among others, the Saramaka People judgement of the Inter-American Court – the Government of Suriname and the companies should: a) Agree to formal protocols setting out the process for the effective participation of the Indigenous Peoples in West Suriname and for obtaining their free, prior and informed consent for the proposed large-scale developments affecting their traditional territories, following the existing community policies on consultation and consent. Free, prior and informed consent can only be considered once all the environmental, cultural, human rights and socio-economic and cumulative impact studies have been completed (for all components of ‘the project’, namely the mine site, transportation options, dredging and refinery, with due attention to cumulative impacts with regards to the potential hydroelectric dam, IIRSA projects and proposed protected areas, among other activities), and understood by the affected communities. b) Formally invite the Indigenous communities of West Suriname to participate as equal partners and rights-holders in negotiations towards agreements between the companies and the government with regards to the environmental, cultural, human rights, socio- economic (including revenue-sharing) and cumulative aspects of the developments.

39 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

c) Ensure the communities have access to legal counsel of their choice, and have appropriate funding towards strong technical and legal advice. d) Ensure all parties in the negotiations receive training in international standards and best practice with regards to agreements around mining developments affecting Indigenous Peoples.

Concerning community strengthening Given the asymmetrical power relations between the companies and communities, the IDB and other donors should consider following standard practice by providing funds and enabling further technical assistance to: a) The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname to continue acting as intermediaries for the affected communities in West Suriname, and to provide legal advice b) The leadership of the affected communities to continue their work in: i. Strengthening their decision-making processes, both internal and external ii. Building their skills and awareness with regards to international standards and best practice in, among other topics, negotiating with multinational companies and government iii. Implementing community-based monitoring of impacts iv. Creating community-based institutions of local experts to advise the leadership and their communities regarding the proposed developments v. Providing access to information for their communities through regular information bulletins, posters, summary reports, access to internet, radio programmes, among others vi. Funds will also be required for: Providing ongoing support to the community radio station Transport and office facilities, office supplies and office maintenance Exchanges with other communities in Suriname and internationally

Concerning the Bakhuis Forum An independent evaluation of the Bakhuis Forum should take place to examine, among other things:

40 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

a) Whether the appropriate players are at the table. Particularly, whether the appropriate government players are participating, and in general, the role of the government in the BF. b) Whether commitments made at BF sessions are being implemented. c) How the BF can be strengthened, from the perspectives of those currently participating, but also from the perspective of community groups and others who are on the receiving end of information from the BF and who do not participate directly.

Concerning financing The IDB (and other potential financiers) should not consider financing any aspect of the hydroelectric dam (Kabalebo), the mine (Bakhuys) or the infrastructure to enable an integrated aluminum industry in Suriname with road and other connections to neighbouring Guyana (IIRSA) until: a) The Government has taken concrete steps with regards to recognizing the land rights of the potentially affected communities, as outlined in Saramaka People. b) The cumulative effects (socio-economic, cultural, human rights, ecological) of the proposed developments in West Suriname have been appropriately assessed and understood by the affected communities and the government. c) The companies and communities have, ‘through a good faith negotiation process’ (as per IDB’s Indigenous Peoples Policy) negotiated agreements, and the communities have given their free, prior and informed consent to the project proceeding. d) IDB’s safeguard policies have been implemented (including provisions regarding transborder Indigenous Peoples, as per below), and IFC Performance Standards followed (the latter as per current commitments in ESIA documents).

41 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

4. Conclusion: The Nature of Shifting Grounds and Implications

There is no doubt that the grounds are shifting in Suriname with regards to mining on or near Indigenous and Tribal lands. As plans forge ahead for Bakhuys and other projects, however, it is critical to make sure that the grounds that are shifting are not only those containing the minerals. Efforts need to be urgently stepped up to gain legislative and policy protections to ensure that everyone – the communities, the government and the companies – stand on far firmer ground with regards to socio-economic, environmental and human rights protections. There must also be a concerted effort to ensure that these measures are effective in practice.

While Suriname has committed to adhering to international standards through ratifying international instruments such as CERD, the CBD and supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, its ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights provides one of the strongest and clearest mechanisms for translating international commitments into action. Specifically, the Inter-American Court’s binding judgement in Saramaka People provides a blueprint of very clear steps that the Government of Suriname must take in order to protect the rights of Indigenous and Maroon Peoples with regards to development projects proposed for their traditional territories.118

The recommendations woven throughout this final report are grounded in the Saramaka People judgement and recommendations issued by CERD, emphasizing concrete steps that must be taken to address systemic issues affecting all of Suriname around mining-related activities on or near Indigenous territories. In addition, specific recommendations are provided targeting the proposed developments in West Suriname, indicating specific measures to help balance power asymmetries underpinning current relations between Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, companies and government, among other issues.

In closing, however, it is important to reflect on the implications of this VIDS/NSI project with regards to the role the two funders of this project – the IDB and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) -- can play in enabling positive outcomes with regards to Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the minerals sector in Suriname.

The role of the IDB in supporting Indigenous organizations The IDB is a very powerful actor in Suriname and regionally. Besides providing financial support for large infrastructure and extractive projects, it has a key role in supporting good governance and institution-building within the Government of Suriname towards increased environmental and human rights protections, among other goals. Indeed, the IDB has in the past embarked on institution-building with regards to environmental policies and governance, and is currently supporting an ambitious project in the Interior, which is examining a number of issues around enabling conditions for recognizing collective land rights and traditional authorities. In addition, IDB is to be commended as the first donor to directly consult with communities and traditional authorities in the Interior on its country strategy, as evidenced in Kambel’s (2006) Policy Note for the IDB, and IDB’s consultation report on that strategy.119

42 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

The IDB has also developed safeguard policies – including an Indigenous Peoples Box 9: Policy – that are, as of 2006, binding for Recommendations Concerning IDB’s any projects the Bank finances. Role in Supporting Community-Based Research and Capacity-Building However, one key issue that remains for discussion is the IDB’s role with regards to The IDB should actively support research by supporting Indigenous and Tribal and capacity-building for Indigenous Peoples organizations themselves, and particularly (and other community groups), particularly if research and capacity-strengthening. the IDB is considering financing any aspects of projects, plans or laws that will affect these groups. Appropriate care should be taken to The experience of this VIDS/NSI project is protect Indigenous rights in the process and that the IDB is keen to support Indigenous outcomes of this research, particularly those organizations. However, the current IDB around intellectual property rights and free, contract and process presents a double- prior and informed consent. edged sword for Indigenous Peoples and those providing technical support to them in that all consultancy products are deemed the property of the IDB, and can be disseminated only with the ‘non-objection’ of the host Government. On the one hand, this puts communities who have documented information they do not want disseminated at a disadvantage, in that legally these outputs are deemed ‘products’ of the consultancy; on the other hand, participating Indigenous communities may want to disseminate widely certain products from the consultancy that the host government may object to, and quell from dissemination. These issues were at the heart of long negotiations with the IDB for this consultancy, but were eventually addressed. In light of this experience, the IDB should consider redrafting its standard contract for consultancies so it is aligned with IDB’s Indigenous Peoples Policy and rights to FPIC around research.

It is critical that the IDB continue funding Indigenous Peoples and other community groups to undertake their own research and capacity-building concerning plans, projects and laws that will affect their livelihoods, particularly if the IDB is considering financing any aspect of these projects. Appropriate care should be taken to protect Indigenous rights in the process and outcomes of this work.

The role of the Government of Canada and CIDA in Suriname With the exception of the Canada Fund, Suriname is not currently a focus, or recipient, of Canadian aid.120 However, its natural resources are of increasing interest to Canadian mining companies. Currently, several Canadian mining companies are active in Suriname, mostly in gold mining. These include:

• IAMGOLD Corporation. IAMGOLD is the owner of Suriname’s first large-scale gold mine, the Gross Rosebel mine, formerly owned by Cambior.121 Recently, the government commissioned an evaluation of its agreement with the company, recognizing the conditions negotiated were not as strong or favourable for Suriname as they might have been.122

43 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

• Canarc Resources Corporation (exploration project) • Reunion Gold Corporation (exploration project) 123

Canada-based sources of financing for activities in Suriname include Export Development Canada (project financing, political risk insurance, credit insurance, contract bonding); CIDA’s Industrial Cooperation Program (investment-related project development and/or training support); and Cordiant Capital (capital mobilization through participations in Multi- lateral Development Bank loans).124

While there are already substantial mining interests in Suriname, these will likely increase as Suriname enters into regional free trade agreements.125 Through its membership in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which expects to have in place a fully operational regional free trade market by 2008, Suriname supports and is participating in negotiations towards a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).126

With its current policy and legislative vacuum around environmental and human rights protections, Suriname presents an investment environment that likely leads to Canadian companies adopting lower standards than they use at home. Indeed, Canadian companies operating in this region have made headlines globally for environmental catastrophes that will have lasting impacts for years to come (namely, the 1995 cyanide spill at Cambior’s Omai mine in Guyana).127 Already IAMGOLD’s operations in Suriname are causing concern, not only because the company has inherited from its predecessor a negative social legacy with regards to the Maroon village of Niew Koffiekamp (see Box 10), but also because there have been reports of at least two environmental incidents at the mine, with one spill very recently.128

It is precisely because of the weak governance and laws in many developing countries where Canadian companies operate, as well as increasing reports of Canadian companies whose operations have led to environmental catastrophes and/or human rights violations, that a national debate has been taking place in Canada on how to respond to this situation (the United Nations is also examining these issues internationally through its special rapporteur John Ruggie). A parliamentary debate in 2005 that included expert presentations and testimonies from mining-affected Southerners led to a landmark report by Canadian Members of Parlia- ment expressing “concern that Canada does not yet have laws to ensure that the activities of Canadian mining companies in developing countries conform to human rights standards, including the rights of workers and indigenous peoples.”129

In October 2005, the Canadian government issued a response130 acknowledging that almost 60 per cent of the world’s exploration and mining companies are listed in Canada, and that improvements are needed in order for the Canadian industry to achieve “positive financial, social and environmental results” abroad.131 However, it failed to adopt many of the recommendations made by the Canadian parliamentarians regarding conditioning support or establishing clear legal norms to hold companies to account. One concrete action the government did commit to was holding a series of roundtables across Canada to develop a set of clear recommendations for action by government, industry and civil society on ways in which the Canadian extractive sector could improve its CSR performance when operating overseas.132

44 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Box 10: IAMGOLD’s Gross Rosebel Mine

Gross Rosebel Gold Mine is located some 80 km south of Paramaribo, and commercial production at the 170 km2 concession started in early 2004. Canadian company Cambior has been involved in Rosebel since 1994. In 2002 Cambior bought Golden Star Ltd. interests in the mine, bringing its interest in the mine to 95%. While gold was the focus, diamond deposits have also been found in the concession. In 2006, Canadian company IAMGOLD acquired Cambior.

The concession for the site was originally granted to Golden Star in 1992. Although an Aucaner (or N’djuka) Maroon village, Nieuw Koffiekamp, is located in the southern block of the concession, traditional authorities were not consulted. The community opposed the exploration and the consequences associated with a large-scale operation that encroaches on the village. The villagers feared that relocation would be inevitable due to the nature of the operations around their community. In addition to the lack of any form of consultation prior to the granting of the concession to Golden Star, communities have faced intimidation and violations of a number of internationally recognized rights. For example, in 1995 villagers complained “they were surrounded by armed guards and that their subsistence activities, including small-scale mining, were restricted and sometimes banned by Golden Star security personnel and armed police units […] They also complained that Golden Star personnel and police were firing live ammunition to intimidate them and keep them from areas in which Golden Star was working” (VIDS et al. 2002, at para 63) There is a long history of alleged heavy-handed security measures, intimidation and harassment of community members by Cambior staff. Additionally, environmental damage was caused by the prospecting operations, threatening hunting and traditional subsistence, and since operations have started, there have been reports of apparently innocuous spills.

IAMGOLD also holds rights to concessions in the same area (Headley’s Reef and Thunder Mountain) that incorporate numerous Maroon communities, including some Saramaka Maroon communities. These communities have expressed deep opposition to industrial mining and have not been part of any decision making regarding the concessions or mining-related activities in these areas.

Sources: Adapted from Molenaar (2008); MacKay, Pers. Comm., 2008; VIDS et al. (2002).

An advisory committee including members of industry, government, civil society and academia was established to help guide the process and to draft a final report.

The advisory group published its final report in March 29, 2007.133 The ground-breaking report is a consensus document that includes a series of concrete recommendations towards developing and implementing a Canadian CSR framework. One key recommendation for Canadian industry-affected communities overseas is the establishment of an ombudsperson in Canada who would have the power to investigate complaints, and recommend that the Canadian government withdraw any financial or political risk insurance support to Canadian companies violating the CSR framework. While the government has yet to issue an official response to the report and its recommendations, uptake of the full slate of recommendations would make Canada a world leader on CSR, as the Prime Minister himself touted at the 2007, G-8134 meeting.

45 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Research has shown that even the most progressive companies with regards to environmental and human rights policies fail to live up to their own company standards in Suriname.135 Among other things, this shows that voluntary policies simply do not work, and that there is a role for far stronger governance and regulation both in the host country but also in the countries that are home to the mining companies operating in Suriname. In the long-term, Canada could clearly play a role in helping to enable stronger governance with regards to environmental protection, human rights and the natural resources sector in Suriname. But it can begin by adopting Canadian standards to which its companies should abide while they operate abroad. This is consistent with CERD’s 2007 observations on Canada, and its recommendation to Canada that: In light of article 2.1 d) and article 4 a) and b) of the Convention and of its general recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Committee encourages the State party to take appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent acts of transnational corporations registered in Canada which negatively impact on the enjoyment of rights of indigenous peoples in territories outside Canada. In particular, the Committee recommends to the State party that it explore ways to hold transnational corporations registered in Canada accountable. The Committee requests the State party to include in its next periodic report information on the effects of activities of transnational corporations registered in Canada on indigenous peoples abroad and on any measures taken in this regard.136

Towards firmer ground This IDB-funded project brings home that in order to move towards stronger outcomes regarding Indigenous Peoples and the mining sector, long-term support is needed for all players, but particularly for those who suffer the greatest power imbalances. Bureau VIDS, with support from the NSI and other allies, will continue to support the communities in West Suriname – and by extension the Government of Suriname and the companies – towards strengthening current planning, and negotiating precedent-setting agreements regarding

Box 11: Recommendations concerning the role of Canada and Canadian companies in Suriname

Given the dearth of environmental and human rights legislation and protection in Suri- name – specifically that pertaining to Indigenous and Maroon Peoples – Canada should urgently implement the recommendations put forward by the advisory group to Canada’s “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Industry in developing Countries” in its March 2007 report, and in particular, establish an ombudsperson’s office to investigate complaints by communities affected by Canadian mining and exploration companies that could lead to Canada withdrawing any financing provided to that company should it be found in breach of the standards embraced in Canada’s CSR Framework. This is consistent with CERD’s 2007 observations on and recommendations to Canada.

46 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

proposed developments in West Suriname. Already, follow-up projects are being developed and funding sought.

Hopefully there will be political will and openness among the government and companies to work collaboratively with the Indigenous and Maroon Peoples to shift the grounds in Suriname so that for the first time in Suriname’s history, Indigenous and Maroon Peoples’ rights are recognized, and the environment is duly protected. Recent letters and communications with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Government negotiations team indicate that a shift might be underway, with the government expressing, in writing, openness to more dialogue with the affected Indigenous communities, and the negotiations team actively considering how to include the affected Indigenous communities as equal partners in negotiations. This type of collaboration is the only way forward to enable Suriname’s future generations to stand on far firmer ground with respect to protecting their environment and human rights, and maximizing local and national socio-economic benefits from the mining sector.

***

47 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

Appendix 1: Media Coverage

The following are just two of a number of examples of media coverage around the VIDS/NSI IDB-funded project concerning the proposed developments in West Suriname:

Ontwikkelingsvisie bauxietsector voldoet niet aan standarden door Eliézer Pross 28/01/2008

Paramaribo - De overheid dendert voort met een ontwikkelingsvisie voor de bauxietsector die niet voldoet aan de internationale standaarden en vereisten betreffende het respecteren van mensenrechten.

Binnen de afspraken die nu al zijn gemaakt voor West-Suriname, zijn er grove fouten gemaakt die internationale repercussies kunnen hebben voor Suriname. Het is bekend dat de inheemse gemeenschap van West-Suriname, met name van de dorpen Washabo, Section en Apoera, haar afkeuring heeft uitgesproken over de wijze waarop de overheid te werk gaat bij de bauxietonderhandelingen voor dat gebied. De inheemsen strijden al geruime tijd tegen herhaling van de fouten die zijn gemaakt in met name de jaren ‘60. Toen is er geen rekening gehouden met de rechten van de marrongemeenschap bij het bouwen van de stuwdam te Brokopondo.

Afgelopen weekend presenteerde de Vereniging van Inheemse Dorpshoofden in Suriname (VIDS) een sociale effectenstudie (ESIA’s) over de bauxietontginningen in West-Suriname te Washabo aan de general managers van Suralco en BHP Billiton, respectievelijk Warren Pederson en John Sew A Tjon. Op de bijeenkomst waren ook vertegenwoordigers van de IDB en het ministerie van Natuurlijke Hulpbronnen aanwezig. De studie is gedaan met ondersteuning van buitenlandse deskundigen en de IDB. Pederson en Sew A Tjon zeggen onder de indruk te zijn van de professionele wijze waarop de plaatselijke gemeenschap te werk is gegaan.

“In Suriname zijn er zoveel grijze vlakken en onduidelijkheden in de wet dat je gewoon niet weet waar je aan toe bent waardoor je dit soort problemen krijgt. Wij kunnen niet bemoeien tussen de overheid en de gemeenschap, maar hopen dat er dialoog komt. Het maakt niet uit welke wetten komen, wij zullen altijd opereren conform de wet, zolang er duidelijkheid is,” aldus Pederson en Sew A Tjon in gesprek met de Ware Tijd.

De dorpskapiteins van de Washabo, Section en Apoera zitten samen met de VIDS deze week om de tafel met de bauxietonderhandelingscommissie om hun bevindingen te presenteren De gemeenschap van West-Suriname krijgt sterke ondersteuning van de internationale gemeenschap. Het vonnis van de Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten (OAS) in de zaak van de 12 Saramaccaanse Lo’s is in het voordeel van de totale binnenlandse gemeenschap bij haar streven om haar grondenrechten gewaarborgd te krijgen.

48 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

De OAS heeft namelijk de overheid tot 2011 de tijd gegeven om de totale wetgeving op het gebied van grondenrechten voor zowel marrons als inheemsen te herzien. Hun grondenrechten moeten erkend worden en er mogen geen concessies meer in hun leefomgeving worden uitgegeven zonder hun toestemming. Ook moet de overheid de Saramaccaanse gemeenschap voor een bedrag van 600.000 US dollar vergoeden voor het feit dat hun rechten over de jaren heen zijn vertrapt en niet wettelijk beschermd.

In West-Suriname wil de overheid een geïntegreerd mijnbouwproject met een stuwdam te Kabalebo en een smelter. Daarover is de plaatselijke gemeenschap niet geconsulteerd. Haar objecties worden ook nog genegeerd. De bouw van een stuwdam te Kabalebo wordt verworpen vanwege de negatieve gevolgen voor hun leefgemeenschap. Daarnaast wil de plaatselijke gemeenschap betrokken worden bij de bauxietonderhandelingen. Een definitieve overeenkomst zal hun zegen moeten dragen. Er zijn ook pijnpunten op het gebied van verstoring van hun cultuur en gezondheidsrisico’s op land en zee.-.

January 30, 2008

49 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Appendix 2: Agreement between the Indigenous Peoples of West Suriname and BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV (Draft 2006)

Considering that BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV have signed Memoranda of Understanding with the State of Suriname which grant rights in relation to bauxite deposits in the Bakhuys area of West Suriname as well as the development of hydro power in the Kabalebo River and surrounding area, and that these companies have made considerable investments to define the nature and the feasibility of mining these bauxite deposits;

Considering also that BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV are presently negotiating with the State of Suriname to define and secure rights and permits to mine and otherwise exploit the Bakhuys area bauxite deposits, including for the construction of associated infrastructure, and Kabalebo hydro power potential, and that an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment in relation to the bauxite mining has commenced;

Further considering that the Bakhuys area is part of the traditional territory of the indigenous peoples of West Suriname on which they depend for their cultural, spiritual and physical sustenance and well-being, and that mining and associated infrastructure plans will affect them as well as indigenous peoples in the Wayambo region;

Acknowledging that the rights of indigenous peoples to own and control their traditional lands, territories and resources and to participate in and consent to decisions that affect them are not explicitly recognized in the laws of Suriname, and that this absence of effective legal protections for the rights of indigenous peoples exposes BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV to reputational, commercial and legal risk, and undermines the effective exercise and enjoyment of the rights of indigenous peoples;

Observing that, while indigenous peoples’ rights are not explicitly recognized in the laws of Suriname, these rights are nonetheless guaranteed and protected by international human rights law, which is binding on the State of Suriname, and applicable in relation to the acts and omissions of the State and those authorized by the State by virtue of international law and via Article 103, 105 and 106 of the 1987 Constitution of Suriname;

Observing also, consistent with Inter-American human rights law, that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 23 June 2006137 provides, in Article 26, that 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or

50 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. and, in Article 30, that 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of their mineral, water or other resources. 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

Acknowledging also that BHP/Billiton’s Sustainable Development Policy, states that BHP/Billiton will “ensure [that] we understand, promote and uphold fundamental human rights within our sphere of influence” and respect “the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples and valu[e] cultural heritage;”

Further acknowledging the BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV have publicly stated their desire and intention to ensure that the development of mining in West Suriname represents a ‘win-win’ situation for all involved, and that the indigenous peoples of West Suriname have affirmed that this cannot be achieved without full respect for their rights and interests and the development and maintenance of relationships based on mutual respect;

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL AND BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP AND TO REDUCE THE RISKS TO THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS, the indigenous peoples of West Suriname, as represented by their traditional authorities who exercise their authority pursuant to the consensus of their respective communities in accordance with their customary laws (hereinafter ‘the indigenous peoples’), and BHP/Billiton and Suralco NV, as represented by their undersigned duly authorized officers (hereinafter ‘the companies’) –

HEREBY AGREE AND COMMIT TO THE FOLLOWING:

Article 1 – Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional and Human Rights 1. The terms ‘traditional rights’ and ‘fundamental human rights’ shall be understood in accordance with international human rights law, in particular as defined by the Inter- American Commission and Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and by the indigenous peoples’ customary laws. 2. As stated in BHP/Billiton’s Sustainable Development Policy, the traditional rights of indigenous peoples and their fundamental human rights shall be respected. Adequate and

51 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

effective safeguards and guarantees protecting these traditional and human rights shall be included in all instruments, plans, and operations pertaining to mining in the Bakhuys area, including those pertaining to any associated infrastructure and in relation to development of hydro power potential in the Kabelebo area. 3. The companies shall promote the traditional and human rights of indigenous peoples in all negotiations with the State of Suriname in connection with bauxite mining in the Bakhuys region and any associated infrastructure, and hydro power generation, and shall strive to ensure that adequate and effective protections for these rights are included in all agreements with the State of Suriname and in any permits issued by the State.

Article 2 – Adherence to Indigenous Peoples’ Regulations 1. Pursuant to and in the exercise of their traditional rights, the indigenous peoples have adopted a policy and regulations that broadly define the manner in which they shall engage in consultation processes and express their consent in relation to activities, plans and proposals that may affect them. The policy and regulations are set forth in the Annex to this agreement and are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be deemed an integral part of this agreement. 2. The companies confirm that they will adhere to and comply with the indigenous peoples’ policy and regulations as the basis for their engagement with the indigenous peoples. 3. The indigenous peoples shall not amend or otherwise alter the policy and regulations without providing a minimum of 90 days notice to the companies. 4, In the case of a significant amendment to or revision of the policy and regulations that may materially affect the interests the companies, the indigenous peoples shall consult the companies with a view to obtaining their agreement to the proposed amendment or revision at least 90 days prior to enacting the amendment or revision.

Article 3 – Dispute Resolution 1. In the event of a dispute concerning any aspect of this agreement, the indigenous peoples and the companies shall establish a committee composed of three (3) persons representing the companies and three (3) persons representing the indigenous peoples. This committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the parties and shall attempt to resolve the dispute through dialogue and negotiation. 2. This committee shall adopt mutually acceptable and written terms of reference and procedures to govern its attempts to resolve the dispute. 3. Unless the parties decide otherwise, the committee shall examine and attempt to resolve each dispute under consideration within a 120 day period. 4. The parties shall not pursue legal or other remedies without first seeking to resolve the dispute in accordance with sub-paragraphs 1-3 above.

Signed on this the ____ day of _____, 2006;

On behalf of the Indigenous Peoples:

On Behalf of the Companies: ADD NAMES

52 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Appendix 3: Policy and Regulations on Consultation and Consent Processes Adopted by the Indigenous Peoples of West Suriname (2006 Draft)

1. Principle and Rationale: In accordance with international law and human rights instruments ratified and binding on the State of Suriname, the indigenous peoples and communities of Western Suriname are the legitimate owners of the lands, resources, waters and territories traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used by us in accordance with our customary laws. This is confirmed by, among others, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Moiwana Village v. Suriname, which stated that: this Court’s holding with regard to indigenous communities and their communal rights to property under Article 21 of the Convention must also apply to the tribal Moiwana community members: their traditional occupancy of Moiwana Village and its surrounding lands – which has been recognized and respected by neighboring N’djuka clans and indigenous communities over the years (supra paragraph 86(4)) – should suffice to obtain State recognition of their ownership.138

Despite this, Suriname’s policy and laws have denied the indigenous peoples our right to control and manage our traditionally owned territory and resources. As a result, we have considerable concerns regarding the nature and extent of development within our territory and the effect such development may have on our cultural integrity and the exercise and enjoyment of our indigenous and human rights. As a first step to prevent further damage and expropriation, this policy and regulations, adopted by us in XXXX 2006, is intended to ensure that consultation processes and other activities that may affect us are understood and undertaken in a way that is respectful of our inherent rights, is culturally appropriate, and respects our obligations to our past, present and future generations.

2. Permission to Consult: This policy and regulations cover only permission to consult with us and the general principles pertaining to consultation, which is a prerequisite to obtaining our free, prior and informed consent regarding activities affecting our traditionally owned lands, waters and territories. In order to be fully informed of the impacts of a project we require a process of culturally appropriate engagement and information sharing, a full environmental and social impact assessment and a formal role in the impact assessment process and any measures adopted to implement the results of the assessment through out the life of the project.

3. The FPIC Process: We can only consider giving our free, prior and informed consent to large-scale projects following an environmental and social impact assessment and negotiation of a legal Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) and/or other necessary agreements.

4. Application to Consult: All persons or groups wishing to work, research or start a project in Western Suriname must complete an “Application for permission to consult” which must be approved by the Indigenous Peoples’ representatives in advance. The Association of Indigenous

53 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Village Leaders in Suriname (VIDS) may be asked if there is any doubt whether a specific project needs to complete this application form. In general, the “Application for Permission to Consult” is directed primarily at private sector projects that may have negative impacts, such as mining, logging, artisanal mining, road building or significant upgrading, bridge building, ports, factories and significant infrastructure.

5. Application Form: The form to apply for permission to consult can be obtained from the three community Captains or from VIDS, Paramaribo. The application form should be completed and three copies, one for each of the three Captains, in Dutch (copies in English appreciated). The three applications should be delivered to the three Captains or to their representatives or to the Council, in person, or to VIDS. The completed application forms should be accompanied by a processing fee commensurate with the size of the proposed work. (total project costs, number of expected employees).

6. International Standards: The applicant is required to confirm and provide supporting information demonstrating that the proposed project will fully comply with specified international standards and best practice, including international human rights norms. Information pertaining to an environmental and social assessment must confirm that the ESA will fully meet international standards, such as FPIC, IBA, and the Akwe:Kon Guidelines (which are the product of discussions by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Suriname), and that the ESA will be undertaken jointly with the Indigenous Peoples..

7. Legal Entity: The applicant must show they are a legal entity, registered by the government of Suriname.

8. Logistics: The communities offer to find suitable buildings, chairs, tables, refreshments, and lunch etc for each presentation upon request from the proponent. The communities will bill the proponent for provision of such services. Portable generators are not available in the communities. The Captains or their representatives are responsible for inviting representative numbers of each community to attend the presentations. Reasonable compensation for opportunity costs related to attending the meeting is expected. A visit by representatives of the communities to the site of the proposed project and/or a similar existing project is required.

9. Decisions: After the presentations, discussions by the communities and site visits, if the communities agree that consultation may begin, that decision will be communicated promptly. If there is uncertainty about the proposed project, the communities will request clarification. In cases of uncertainty, decisions must be expected to take longer.

10. Elements of the Consultation Process: If an application for permission to consult has been accepted, the following are fundamental elements of an acceptable and effective consultation process – additional and more specific elements may be required depending on the nature of each application:

a) The proactive dissemination of all relevant information at least four (4) weeks prior to scheduled meetings. Copies shall also be submitted to the VIDS. The information must

54 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

be in non-technical, simple language, and be sufficient to provide the basis for meaningful discussion. Audio-visual materials are often useful aids in explaining projects and other matters. b) Meetings, which will always be presided over by the Captain of the village, unless otherwise stated, should be conducted in Sranan Tongo139 and shall be of sufficient duration to ensure that those in attendance can understand the subject matter and the underlying rationale for the proposed activity. If necessary, periodic evaluations should be held throughout the meeting to verify that people understand the material. The use of graphics, maps, posters, and video is recommended rather than sole reliance with the written word. The duration of the presentations shall be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed project. An average presentation would be about half a day (3 hours). The presentations shall be in Sranan Tongo. c) The proposed agenda for any meetings must be submitted to the communities no later than four (4) weeks prior to the scheduled date and the communities shall have the rights to add to the agenda or otherwise propose modifications. Such proposals shall be accepted unless they are manifestly unfounded or irrelevant. d) Unrealistic deadlines from the proponent will automatically be rejected. The communities must not be required to make a decision at the end of a meeting, unless they so decide. Cultural characteristics and differences must be accounted for. Indigenous decision-making processes are usually diffused and consensus based. Extended discussions at the community, extended family and household levels often take place before consensus can be reached and this process must be respected. e) There must be adequate feed back to the communities subsequent to consultation so that they may see to what extent their views have been accounted for and to ensure that their views have been understood correctly. It is not unusual for comments to be misconstrued and faulty assumptions to be based on those misunderstandings. This is often the cause for conflict at a later date.

55 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Appendix 4: Maps Bakhuys

Source: Adaptation of Glaser (May 2005) presentation, showing Indigenous (with white dots) and Maroon villages (with black dots). Kabalebo Dam

Source: Glaser (May 2005) presentation.

56 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Appendix 5: Recommendations from Robert Goodland’s Assessment of SRK’s Transportation Options Scoping Document

Panel of Environmental and Social Experts • SRK should follow standard procedures and appoint an appropriate PoE as soon as possible. Although this should have been appointed about three years ago, the sooner this is rectified, the better.

Draft Consultation Protocol • SRK and others should respond in writing to the request for comments on the draft consultation protocol. • The Indigenous Peoples’ consultation protocol should be used

Social Impact Assessment • The Captains and the societies they represent and VIDS urge SRK to accord appropriate weight to social impacts assessment as they already do to biophysical impacts assessment. • NIMOS and BHPB/Suralco should insist that SRK accord appropriate attention to SIA as is already achieved with biophysical impacts. • SRK’s sole social impact assessment among the eleven biophysical studies needs to be promptly and fully disaggregated, such as in the 13 topics outlined above, and each accorded appropriate attention. • SRK’s Social Impacts Assessment needs to be accelerated in order to catch up with the biophysical assessment studies now nearing completion.

Rail and Barge Impacts • SRK should clarify to the potentially affected people if the rail component will be more like a 24-hour a day operation or a once a day schedule. • Ascertain the ‘safe’ wave amplitude and establish prudent speed rules. • Fines from exceeding speed limits should accrue to the impacted people. • Organize a visit for Indigenous Peoples to see the barge operations at Coermotibo. • SRK should clarify if barge loading may be low impact once a day operation or more like a 24-hour a day impact

New Apoera Port • A design that does not depend on displacement of humans should be selected. Displacement of humans impoverishes and is traumatic. All displacement should be prevented to the fullest extent possible. In the case of the vulnerable ethnic minority of Trios at Zandlanding, this is especially crucial. • If humans are to be displaced, the involuntary resettlement precautions must make the dis placed promptly better off after their move whether they are Surinamers or Guyanese • The children’s walk from the Trio village to school needs stringent safety precautions. • The impacts of the new rail (noise, vibrations, dust, lights, traffic safety), and its fencing on land use (farming, fishing, hunting) either side of the rail from the road to the Corantn needs special attention. • Safety precautions including early warning of approaching trains are essential.

57 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

• The following questions should be answered: will the ore wagons be covered to reduce dust? How will the ore be switched from wagon to barge? Will there be noisy and dusty stockpiles of ore awaiting barges?

Local Job Creation • SRK should advise the proponents on the need to reduce impacts by fostering local employment and to create jobs in the impacted community. Job creation is one of the best forms of compensation. SRK need not take the old-fashioned view that job creation is not part of ESIAs. • Training for Bakhuys’ construction and operation phases should be designed now and put into effect about a year before construction begins in 2008. • The Gender Analysis will show females are as good at operating heavy machinery as males. This needs to be taken into account during recruitment and training. • Best Practice is for government to mandate an initially modest but and increasing fraction of procurement to be local. • BHPB/Suralco contracts should all contain clauses mandating preference to local people and local procurement of services and goods (e.g., vegetables, poultry). Labour specialists need to be asked to keep checking that appropriate clauses are so inserted and that training is adequate beforehand.

The HIV/AIDS Risk • Health Impact Assessment should be an integral part of ESIA from now on. • Educational and awareness campaigns on how to prevent AIDS should be integrated in all levels of community and corporate work, and repeated continually. • It is in BHPB/Suralco’s self-interest to galvanize such campaigns and to ensure that they work effectively. • Condoms are dispensed free in many similar projects nowadays, often with the weekly wage envelope, together with written AIDS prevention messages and cartoons. • PAHO & WHO are generally willing and able to support such fundamental activities upon request, as such work is part of their duties.

Greenhouse Gas Production • If it is to come close to standard international practice, SRK’s ESIA should assess the impacts of GHG production. • Accounting GHG production is the first step. • GHG production should be minimized. • GHG production should be offset by compensatory plantings and other methods.

The Documentation Center • The Bakhuys Forum should promptly resolve the issue of ownership and management of the Documentation Center. • There will be many more similar decisions in the next few years. BHPB/Suralco/SRK should make it a formal policy to consult with affected stakeholders before making decisions, such as this one, that affect stakeholders. • BHPB/Suralco should clarify they will maintain the center adequately, keep it provisioned with all helpful documents, diskettes etc, and add internet hook-up as soon as practicable

58 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Beneficiation • SRK needs to revamp its ESIA plans to include focus on beneficiation. • SRK needs to assess the impacts of water abstraction, water storage lagoons, mud containment lagoons, and water flowing from stockpiled wastes. • Assessment and abatement of noise and dust are standard. • Select sites for spoil disposal where the spoils are useful or at least lowest impact.

The Missing Scoping Phase/Impacts on Wayambo • SRK should accelerate the production of and full stakeholder agreement on the potential area of impact, together with maps showing which regions are included in the ESIA. • SRK commendably include all villages along the Zander to Apoera path to be upgraded to a construction highway; the same should be done for the Wayambo and all hitherto still excluded but potentially impacted communities. • Rectify the Scoping Phase: SRK should accelerate the production of and full stakeholder agreement on the potential area of impact, together with maps showing which regions are included in the ESIA. • Area of potential influence’ maps based on watersheds and airsheds are standard ESIA practice at the scoping stage. Such maps are more than three years overdue.

59 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

References

Artist, Josee. Bureau VIDS. Personal Communication. January 2008.

The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (VIDS). 2004. “Proposal to the North- South Institute for Suriname Component of “Through Indigenous Eyes” Project.” Unpublished.

______. 2007. “West Suriname: Wat Betekent een gentegreerde Aluminum Industrie voor de Inheemse Gemeenschappen?” Available from www.nsi-ins.ca.

______. 2008. “Our Indigenous Territory on the Corantijn: Community Report.” Inter-American Development Bank.

______et al. 2004. “Request for the Initiation of an Urgent Action and a Follow Up Procedure in Relation to Imminent Adoption of Racially Discriminatory Legislation by the Republic of Suriname.” Submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. January 6.

BHP Billiton. 2005. “BHP Billiton’s Sustainable Development Policy.” September.

______. 2005. “Health, Safety, Environment and Community Management Standards.” Issue no 3, September. Available from www.bhpbilliton.com.

Buursink International Consultants. 2005. “Draft Report: Country Environment Assessment (CEA) – Suriname.” Commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank. February.

CNEC. 2005. “Environmental Impact Statement of the Kabalebo Complex, Phase I – Consolidation of Secondary Data.” January.

Colchester, Marcus, Jean la Rose and Kid James. 2002. “Mining and Amerindians in Guyana.” Ottawa: The North-South Institute. Available at www.nsi-ins.ca.

Consortium Royal Haskoning. 2007. “Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Transport Infrastructure Initiatives (among others IIRSA) in Suriname. Prepared for the IDB: revised Draft Report.” 25 June.

Court, Charles. Canadian High Commissioner to Guyana. Personal Communication, June 2008.

De Jong, Caroline. 2007. “Inheemsen aan de Corantijn 1900 voor Chr.- 19000 na Chr.” Ottawa: The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders of Suriname and The North-South Institute.

De Ware Tijd. “Intentieverklaringen China in pijplijn.” August 25, 2007.

______. “Staat voert vonnis Inter-Americaans menserechtenhof uit. Gesprekken grondenrechtenvraagstuk gaan voort.” January, 9, 2008.

60 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Echevarria, Christina. “Project Engage: Getting to Fair Trade Gold and Jewellery. Association for Responsible Mining. The Association for Responsible Mining.” Available at: www.communitymining.org.

Forest Peoples Programme (FPP). 2003. Extracting Promises: Indigenous peoples, extractive industries and the World Bank. Tebtebba and FPP, UK.

______. March 6, 1997. “Update.” Available at: abyayala.nativeweb.org/suriname/suriname3.html.

______and Tebtebba Foundation. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Extractive Industries and Transnational and Other Business Enterprises: A Submission to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” 29 December.

Fritz-Krockow, Bernhard et al. 2005. “Suriname: Selected Issues.” IMF Country Report No. 05/42. April.

Glaser, Michael. 2005. Presentation on Bakhuys Exploration Programme at VIDS Workshop in Paramaribo. May.

Goodland, Robert. 2006. “Suriname: Environmental and Social Reconnaissance The Bakhuys Bauxite Mine Project, with notes on the proposed Kabalebo Hydroproject & Comparisons with Alcoa/BHP/Billiton’s recent track record.” Ottawa: The North-South Institute. Available at: www.nsi- ins.ca.

______. 2006. Internal report. “Suriname: The Bakhuys Bauxite Mine Project: The Purpose of the Social and Environmental Assessment Training for the Impacted Indigenous Peoples.” Unpublished.

______. 2007. “Suriname. BHPBilliton/Suraclo’s Bakhuys Bauxite Mine Project. A Review of: SRK’s Environmental and Social Assessment Transportation and Scoping Document.” Ottawa: The North-South Institute. Available at www.nsi-ins.ca.

Government of Canada. 2005. “Government response to the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.” Available at: http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/index.php/CNCA_Roundtables.

______. Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). September 2004. “Sources of Project Financing – Suriname.” Available at: www.infoexport.gc.ca/ie-en/DisplayDocument.jsp?did=38447.

______. Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (SCFAIT). 2005. “Report on socially and environmentally responsible conduct by Canadian companies. 14th report of the committee.” Available at: www.halifaxinitiative.org/index.php/CNCA_Roundtables.

Government of Suriname. Nationaal Instituut voor Milieu en Ontwikkeling in Suriname (NIMOS). 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volume I: Generic. Paramaribo: NIMOS, Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. March.

61 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

______. 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volume II: Mining. Paramaribo: NIMOS, Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. March.

______. 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volume III: Forestry. Paramaribo: NIMOS, Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. March.

______. 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volume IV: Social Impact Assessment. Paramaribo: NIMOS, Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. March.

______. 2005. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Volume V: Power Generation and Transmission Projects. Paramaribo: NIMOS, Office of Environmental and Social Assessment. March.

Halifax Initiative. 2007. “Selected Issues on International Financial Institutions: Monthly Issue Update - June 30.”

Heemskerk, Marieke. July 2000. “Gender and Gold Mining: The Case of the Maroons of Suriname.” Women and International Development, Michigan State University, working paper # 269.

Hoffman, Andy. “New Rio Tinto investors Eye Alcan assets: Move by China and Alcoa to buy stake aimed at breaking up world’s third-biggest miner and dividing the spoils, sources say.” Globe and Mail, Saturday February 2, 2008: B7.

Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA). “Guiana Shield Hub Groups.” Powerpoint presentation. Available at www.iirsa.org.

International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM). 2003. “ICMM Principles and Sustainable Development Framework.”

______. 2006. “Draft Position Statement: Mining and Indigenous Peoples Issues.” March.

______. November 2007. “Third submission to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights and Business: ICMM supports the development of additional practical measures to strengthen business & human rights outcomes.”

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 28 November 2007. Series C No. 172, at para. 97-117 and 176-86. Available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_172_ing.pdf.

______. Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007. Available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/moiwana_21_11_07_ing.pdf.

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2004. “Technical Cooperation Profile, Indigenous Peoples and Mining in Suriname – Building Community Capacity and Encouraging Dialogue.” SU-T1005. July 14.

______. June 2007. “IDB Country Strategy with Suriname (2007-2010).” Available at: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1377642.

62 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

______. Indigenous Peoples and Community Development Unit. 2006. “Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples.” February 22.

Jubithana, Loreen. Executive Director, Bureau VIDS. Personal Communication. 2005.

Kambel, Ellen-Rose. 2004. “I Sit Here in Panic.” Het recht op informatie van inheemse volken b de ontwikkelingen in West-Suriname. Verslag van een VIDS Bezoek aan West-Suriname.

______. 2006. “IDB Consultation Meeting with the Traditional Authorities of the Indigenous Peoples and Maroons of Suriname, 6-7 December 2005, North Resort, Paramaribo, Suriname.” Reported prepared for the IDB. January 6.

______. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname. Economic and Sector Studies Series.” RE3-06-005. Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

______and Fergus MacKay. 1999. “The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname.” Copenhagen: The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs and the Forest Peoples Programme. IWGIA Document No. 96.

______and Caroline de Jong. 2006. “Documenting Traditional Land Use of Indigenous Peoples in Suriname: A Training for Community Researchers.” Report prepared for NSI and VIDS. 14 December.

Leeuwin, Wilfred. “Iamgold woordvoerder: Spilling Carbondioxide Marshalkreek niet Gevaarlijk.” De Ware Tijd, February 18, 2008.

Lexpert Financial. “IAMGOLD acquires Cambior.” January 01, 2007. Available at: www.lexpert.ca/deal.php?id=3540.

Madsian, Carla. Researcher, Bureau VIDS. Personal Communication. March 2008.

______. May 2008.

______. July 2008.

______. 2008. “Decision-Making in the Lokono Communities of West Suriname: Community Report.” Paramaribo: VIDS. Copyright the Inter-American Development Bank. Available at: www.nsi- ins.ca.

MacKay, Fergus. Coordinator, Legal and Human Rights Programme, FPP. Personal Communication. March 2008.

______. 2002. “Mining in Suriname: Multinationals, the State and the Maroon Community of Nieuw Koffiekamp” in Human Rights and the Environment: Conflicts and Norms in a Globalizing World, edited by Lyuba Zarsky. The Nautilus Institute.

Martin, Shanta. Acting Advocacy Manager, Oxfam Australia. Personal Communication. January 2008.

63 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Mehta L, Stankovitch M. “Contributing Paper: Operationalisation of Free Prior Informed Consent.” Institute of Development Studies, UK. Prepared for Thematic Review 1.2: Dams, Indigenous People and vulnerable ethnic minorities. Available at www.dams.org/docs/kbase/contrib/soc209.pdf

Molenaar, Bente. 2008. “Is there Gold in All that Glitters? Indigenous Peoples and Mining in Suriname.” Ottawa: The North-South Institute (copyright the Inter-American Development Bank). Available at: www.nsi-ins.ca.

Nelom, Cedric and Quan Tjon-Akon. Office of Environmental and Social Assessments, NIMOS. Personal Communication. November 2007.

PRS Group. 2004. “Suriname Country Forecast: Political Risk Services.” November 1.

Salim, E. 2004. “Extractive Industries Review Final Report: Striking a Better Balance.” Available at http://go.worldbank.org/380ODLX6N0.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. “Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities.” Montreal, 25p. (CBD Guideline Series).

SRK Consulting. 2008. “Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Mining Aspects of the Proposed Bakhuis Bauxite Project, Draft Environment and Social Impact Report Volume 1.” Report No 346217/11. January.

Stueck, Wendy. “Cambior Fallout Brings Guyanese Suit.” Globe and Mail (Report on Business), May 24, 2003. Available at: www.eprf.ca.

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). 2004: “Concluding Observations on Suriname.” CERD/C/64/CO/9/Rev.2. 12 March. Dec. 3. 9 March.

______. 2005: Decision 1 (67): Suriname. UN Doc. CERD/C/DEC/SUR/2. 18 August.

______. 2006. Decision 1 (69): Suriname. Prevention of Racial Discrimination, Including Early Warning measures and Urgent Action Procedures. CERD/C/DEC/SUR/3. 18 August.

______. 2007. “Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Canada.” CERD/C/CAN/CO/18. 25 May.

United Nations. “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” 2007. A/61/L.67. September 7.

Vaseur-Madhoeban, Rita. Director, Bauxite Institute. Personal Communication. January 26, 2008.

Weitzner, Viviane. 2007. “Determining our Future, Asserting Our Rights. Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname.” Ottawa: NSI and VIDS. Available at www.nsi-ins.ca.

64 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Whitcomb, Andy. Manager Environment, NV BHP Billiton Maatschappij Suriname. Personal Communication. January 2008.

World Commission on Dams. 2000. “Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision- Making.” Earthscan, UK. Available at www.dams.org//docs/report/wcdreport.pdf.

World Wildlife Federation. Summary of the Proceedings of a Conference on Mercury and Small-Scale Mining held in Paramaribo, March 30, 2000. Available at: www.wwfguianas.org/gfecp05.htm.

65 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

Endnotes

1 This recommendation was made first by Ellen-Rose Kambel in her 2006 Policy Note to the IDB. 2 Suriname is commonly described as being home to four Indigenous Peoples: the Kali’na, Lokono, Trio, and Wayana. See Kambel (2006). However, looked at through the lens of linguistics it is more correct to say there are eight Indigenous ethnic groups in the country. Carlin and Boven cited in VIDS (2007). The 2004 census indicated that 3.7 per cent of the population is Indigenous (representing 18,037 persons), and 14.7 per cent Maroon (representing 72,553 persons). See Kambel (2006). 3 From ‘Foreword’ by Chiefs Carlo Lewis, Nado Aroepa and Ricardo Mac-Intosh, in Weitzner (2007). 4 One Lokono woman from Apoera stated: “I sit here in panic. As an Amerindian I love the land. I’m glad somebody is here to help us, we [as Amerindians] are not counted. We need our rights, especially for our culture. At our age, we are so much concerned about our culture. I’m grieving about the developments. My children won’t miss it, they’re used to what they get from the store. But I love my fish, my meat, my farm. I don’t like what the government gives us. If we have our land, we protect it. The mining company is good, because we get benefits. But they must not interfere with our things. If we can own our land, then they can come.” Quoted in Kambel (2004). 5 Several projects resulted, including: preliminary mapping of Lokono traditional use areas (funded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature - Netherlands); raising awareness about Indigenous rights and mining (funded by Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples); research to gather information about the proposed developments; begin identifying and documenting existing and likely impacts; opening dialogue between the companies, government and the communities; building capacities in the communities regarding their rights and international best practice around mining; and undertaking archival research on Indigenous occupation in West Suriname (funded by the International Development Research Centre of Canada). 6 IDB Technical Cooperation Profile for project SU-T1005, para. 1.4 7 Ibid., para. 2.1 8 Ibid., para. 2.1 9 Negotiations took place over a two-year period (2004-2006), with the final contract signed January 9, 2006. The VIDS and NSI were concerned with IDB requirements around ownership of products and copyright. IDB contracts are standard, and specify that all products resulting from the project are owned and copyrighted by IDB. Because the project was dealing with topics such as documentation of traditional land use and internal decision-making processes, these specifications were considered problematic. In addition, VIDS and NSI wanted to be sure this project would not replace any environmental and social due diligence required of the companies to obtain financing. 10 See Weitzner (2007) and VIDS (2007) for IDRC final reports. 11 Carla Madsian is trained as an anthropologist and has worked with VIDS and Indigenous communities in West Suriname for more than three years. 12 Robert Goodland, Group Environmental Adviser to the World Bank between 1978 and 2001, was the Technical Director to the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review (2001-2004). In the last few years, he has been assessing the social and environmental impacts of mining in India, Suriname, Guyana, Ecuador, Peru, Mauritania, Chad, Cameroon and the Philippines. He can be contacted at [email protected]. 13 Kambel was trained as a lawyer and obtained a PhD in Social Sciences at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. She has over 10 years experience working with Indigenous Peoples and Maroons and has written several books and articles on Indigenous rights in Suriname. 14 Caroline de Jong is a historian based in the Netherlands. She has worked on a variety of projects for the VIDS, including gathering historical evidence of traditional land use and occupation of Indigenous communities in Suriname. 15 See Kambel and de Jong (2006). 16 Bente Molenaar is a researcher with The North-South Institute. She is a specialist in community-based forestry, and holds a Master’s degree from Cambridge University.

66 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

17 These include: The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname; Committee for Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Lower-Marowijne; Stichting Sanomaro Esa Stichting (Sanomaro Esa Foundation); Organization for Indigenous People in Suriname (OIS); Association of Saramaka Authorities. For descriptions of the Indigenous organizations listed above, see Molenaar (2008). 18 It has been estimated that nearly 40 per cent of mining concessions overlap with Indigenous and Maroon communities, and that logging concessions affect 60 per cent of Indigenous and Maroon communities. See Buursink (2005), p. 9. 19 Kambel (2006). 20 This section is adapted from Weitzner (2007). 21 See, for example, Weitzner (2007), Kambel and MacKay (1999) and Molenaar (2008). Buursink (2005) provides a detailed analysis particularly around environmental legislation and policy. 22 “The Surinamese Constitution of 1987 provides that ratified international treaties ‘which may be directly applicable to anyone shall have this binding effect as from the time of publication’ (art. 105) and, that international instruments which are directly applicable shall supercede conflicting national laws (art.106). These ratified international treaties can be invoked in national courts as authority.” Kambel and MacKay (1999), p. 152. 23 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007). 24 Weitzner (2007), p.2. 25 These can be issued for a maximum period of 40 years, and are subject to being revoked by the Minister of Natural Resources if the annual fee is not paid in time or if the land is not used in accordance with the initial request. This type of land lease can be held by any Surinamese, and the majority of Indigenous communities – some 80 per cent – have rejected this option. See Kambel (2006). 26 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para 106-14; L-Decrees state that when domain [state] land is allocated, the rights of Maroons and Indigenous people to their villages, settlements and agricultural plots must be respected, “unless there is a conflict with the general interest” (Decree Principles on Land Policy, Article 4.1). The general interest is then defined as including “the execution of any project within the framework of an approved development plan” (Article 4.2). Activities such as mining, logging, tourism or infrastructure projects that are considered in the “general interest” therefore are exempt from ensuring that customary rights are respected. In practice then, economic activities in the general interest trump customary rights. A further issue is that the L-Decrees do not extend customary rights beyond the boundaries of villages and agricultural plots, leaving out the rest of the traditional territories Indigenous and Maroon peoples use for hunting, gathering and other activities. See Weitzner (2007). 27 Kambel (2006), p. 10. 28 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. 176-85. 29 Ibid., para. 200. 30 On January 9, 2008 the Paramaribo newspaper De Ware Tijd reported that Minister Felisi of Regional Development had publicly declared that the Government would fully implement the Court’s judgement in the Saramaka People case and would do so in accordance with the time frame set out therein. The President reiterated this declaration during a meeting with Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ representatives in early February 2008. 31 IACHR, Moiwana Village (2007). 32 IDB (2006), I para. 1.2. 33 Buursink (2005: 4) notes that “until now the [National Council for the Environment] has not been functioning very well due to the incoherent environmental institutional structure, mainly after the creation of ATM.” 34 This analysis is made by Buursink (2005) in a draft report the IDB has not made available on its website. Among some of the regressive changes Buursink (2005:11) outlines are restrictions to public participation in environmental impact assessment, as well as restrictions to NIMOS’ environmental authority, roles and competencies. 35 These were published in March 2005 and include five volumes: Volume I: Generic; Volume II: Mining; Volume III: Forestry; Volume IV: Social Impact Assessment; Volume V: Power Generation and Transmission Projects. See Government of Suriname. 36 Government of Suriname. NIMOS Volume II, Mining (2005), p. 26.

67 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

37 Once an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been submitted to NIMOS, the Institute must publish a note in newspapers. The public then has 30 days from this point to submit written comments. Should there be high public interest, as demonstrated by comments received, NIMOS may hold a public hearing. If a public hearing is held, NIMOS has 30 days following the hearing to review the EIS and submit its comments. The details are rather vague on this procedure. 38 This appeal must be made within 30 days of NIMOS having issued its decision, and could result in the chair of the National Council on the Environment (NCE) appointing an expert panel to review the Environment Assessment (EA) procedures/process results. The Minister of the Environment makes the final decision based on advice from the chair of NCE, who considers the recommendation of the expert panel. See Government of Suriname. NIMOS Volume I, Generic (2005), Annex 5. 39 For example, while International Association for Environmental Assessment guidelines are mentioned and the Berger Inquiry, the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) guidelines are very weak on consultation. They outline that a minimum of two consultation points are necessary – to present alternatives and results of preliminary assessment, but there is no mention of the involvement of local peoples in the SIA. In addition, NIMOS assesses the adequacy of the SIA and whether adequate consultation has taken place, without verifying whether the communities consulted consider the consultation adequate. 40 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. 129. 41 Personal Communication. Cedric Nelom and Quan Tjon-Akon, Office of Environmental and Social Assessments, NIMOS. November 2007. 42 In recent communications (email December 2007, and at a meeting in January 2008) NIMOS officials refer to this revision as an ‘update’. 43 As Kambel and MacKay (1999: 117) argue, by ratifying the CBD, Suriname is in fact mandated to conduct EIAs and to recognize and protect Indigenous and Maroon intellectual property rights. 44 Secretariat CBD (2004). 45 See WCD (2000) and Mehta and Stankovitch. 46 See Salim (2004) and FPP (2003). 47 Kambel and MacKay (1999), p. 101-102. 48 The Mining Decree of 1986 (cited in IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. C.4.c) 49 Buursink (2005), p. 61. 50 VIDS et al. (2004). 51 Kambel and MacKay (1999), p. 102. 52 Discussions with officials at the Geological and Mining Department revealed that many thought the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons were protected through provisions in the Draft Act. See Weitzner (2007). 53 Which is now largely defunct. Personal Communication. Fergus MacKay, Coordinator, Legal and Human Rights Programme. Forest Peoples Programme. March 2008. 54 Meerjarenontwikkelingsplan 2005-2009, the Government of Suriname’s multi-year strategic development plan. 55 See Kambel (2006). 56 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. 194. 57 Fritz-Krockow et al. (2005), p. 38-39. According to VIDS (2004) “very few Indigenous people participate in mining in Suriname. Those that do are primarily from Kawemhakan, Apetina and Tepoe (Wayana and Trio communities in the south).” 58 Buursink (2005), p. 4. 59 Summary of the Proceedings of a Conference on Mercury and Small-Scale Mining held in ParamariboDocument1. See WWF (2000). 60 See Colchester et al. (2002) for more detailed information of the effects of small-scale mining on Amerindian communities in Guyana. In Suriname, Heemskeerk (2000) has conducted studies on the gender impacts of small-scale mining among Maroon communities, particularly in the Stella Creek area. Interestingly, she found that women earned more than men in this area, because of the nature of their work, which includes sex work. See Molenaar (2008) for further discussion of these issues. 61 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. 156. 62 For more information on this project, see Echevarria. Also http://www.communitymining.org/qseng.htm. 63 This recommendation was made first by Kambel in her 2006 Policy Note to the IDB. 64 See VIDS (2007) and Weitzner (2007) for fuller accounts of these plans.

68 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

65 This information is based on presentations made by BHP Billiton and Suralco. Cited in Weitzner (2007). Clarifying information was also presented by BHP Billiton at the launch meeting for this IDB project in June 2006, and at a variety of different fora since then. However, it should be noted that further exploration activities have been taking place in 2008, with additional boreholes drilled. Personal Communication. Madsian, VIDS researcher. May 2008. 66 Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Reports indicate that beneficiation had been “ruled out” as an option in September 2007. See SRK Consulting (2008). 67 Personal Communication. Andy Whitcomb. Manager Environment, NV BHP Billiton Maatschappij Suriname. January 2008. Also stated in SRK Consulting (2008). 68 This information is from Weitzner (2007), and draws on information-sharing meetings with Alcoa. 69 Personal Communication. Madsian. April 2008. 70 De Ware Tijd (August 25, 2007). 71 FPP (March 6, 1997). 72 In fact, a very reasonable environmental and social compilation was recently drafted by CNEC consultants, a Brazilian engineering and hydro consortium, bringing the literature up-to-date and outlining a course of action. 73 Personal Communication. Rita Vaseur-Madhoeban, Director, Bauxite Institute. January 26, 2008. 74 Weitzner (2007), p. 68. 75 IIRSA. Available at http://www.iirsa.org/BancoMedios/Documentos%20PDF/mer_bogota04_presentacion_eje_del_escudo_ guayanes.pdf. 76 Consortium Royal Haskoning (2007). 77 Members of Bureau VIDS have reiterated to the consultants the need to include Indigenous Peoples in the SEA, both at meetings at Bureau VIDS and at the public consultations. This issue – and other critical concerns of IIRSA for Indigenous Peoples – have not yet been incorporated in resulting documentation. Personal Communication Madsian. March 2008. 78 Madsian (2008), p. 2. 79 See, for example, VIDS (2007) and Weitzner (2007). 80 De Jong (2007). 81 See Madsian (2008). 82 It should also be noted that there are agreements between Indigenous communities along the Corantijn in Suriname and Guyana to use lands on either side of the river for livelihood activities, and consequently some of the traditional use recorded in the community-based research includes lands in Guyana. 83 For example, a meeting with the previous District Commissioner for Sipaliwini, Strijk, in February, 2006. 84 Letter from Minister Gregory Rusland to Bureau VIDS and the Chiefs of West Suriname, dated February 21, 2008. 85 November 4, 2006 letter to the Captains from BHP Billiton and Suralco. 86 Ibid. 87 This oral agreement occurred at a pivotal meeting between the parties and their lawyers that took place on May 20, 2007. Cited in Madsian (2008). 88 See Weitzner (2007) for further elaboration on this point. 89 For example, BHP Billiton has developed a Human Rights and Security Self-Assessment Tool. See ICMM (2007). 90 FPP and Tebtebba Foundation (2006). 91 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), C.1, para 194 a). 92 Personal Communication. MacKay. March 2008.

69 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

93 According to NIMOS’ draft mining guidelines, an environmental management plan (EMP) should be prepared for advanced exploration (page 18, paragraph 6.1.1), and: “The more intensive the exploration project, the more rigorous should be the EMP. EMP for exploration projects should address some or all of the following (other factors may also need to be taken into consideration at certain sites): • Place environmental conditions on the exploration license; • Current land use of the locality; • Documentation of pre-exploration environmental baseline (qualitative and quantitative); • Current land tenure, landholder and land-user details; • Conservation value of the land, presence of rare or endangered flora or fauna species; • Significant features of the locality (e.g. waterways, wetlands, cliff lines, heritage sites, important food producing areas); • Significant seasonal variations in climate; • Access, presence of existing tracks and roads; • Any particular diseases in the human, animal or vegetation populations; • Presence of noxious weeds or wild animals; • Fire precautions or other emergency provisions required; • Site of temporary campsite away from environmentally sensitive areas; • Communications and community relations.” (p. 19). The NIMOS mining guidelines also refer to the screening process, noting that for exploration permits, one of the key criteria that would trigger an EA is if “more than 10 ha of the tenement land is at any one time significantly disturbed land because of mining activities carried out under all relevant mining tenements in the project.” (Appendix A, under 2: Criteria for exploration permits). In the case of the Bakhuys exploration then, an EA should have been triggered. See Government of Suriname. NIMOS Volume II, Mining (2005). 94 Deadlines needed to be extended regularly, as the communities sometimes received documents with only a handful of days to comment. 95 See Molenaar (2008). 96 IACHR, Saramaka People (2007), para. 129, 133. 97 Ibid., para. 134. 98 The Chiefs of West Suriname, together with members of Bureau VIDS and NSI, met with members of the negotiations team on January 29, 2008 in Paramaribo. Following presentations on the West, as well as on how mining agreements are negotiated in Canada, there was fruitful discussion. 99 Intervention by Eddie Scholz, General Manager BHP Billiton, VIDS/NSI launch meeting, June 2006. Paramaribo 100 SRK Consulting (2008), p. 6-26. 101 Personal Communication. Josee Artist, Bureau VIDS. January 2008. 102 SRK Consulting (2008), p. 6-8. 103 Ibid., p. 5-11. 104 Ibid., p. 133. 105 These concerns are synthesized in Weitzner (2007). 106 The few individuals who expressed support were non-Indigenous people living in Apoera City who had political aspirations. 107 Beneficiation is a “process by which the grade of bauxite (or other ore) is increased by removing ore of lower grade and discarding it.” See SRK (2008), p.vii.

70 Shifting Grounds: Indigenous Peoples and Mining in West Suriname

108 The January 2008 Draft Mine ESIR indicates there will be very few jobs for local Indigenous Peoples. During construction of the mine, BMS will hire around 90 people, while the contractor Bechtel will hire a maximum of 325. Once the mine is fully operational workers will number approximately 330. The catch is that BMS “already employs workers with most of the skills that will be required for its own workforce during the construction and operations phase of the Bakhuis mine. Also, Suriname labour laws and organisations afford stringent protection to existing company employees, limiting opportunities for new recruitment of BMS employees. As such, existing BMS workers with the required skills will be given the opportunity to join the BMS workforce at the outset of the mine in mid 2008. Another pool of BMS workers will become available when the Successor Mines operations close in 2010/11….the recruitment of contract workers will take place outside of the existing BMS workforce.” See SRK Consulting (2008), p. 5-48. The only potential work for the Indigenous Peoples therefore will be through Bechtel, the contractor, and this largely during construction. During operations, it appears that even the contractor will be looking to the pool of existing BMS workers to fill vacancies. While some training will be given to local people, this training does not guarantee employment. See SRK Consulting (2008), p. 5-49. 109 Workshop in Washabo, January 26, 2008, to present the preliminary results of this project. 110 March 3, 2008. 111 NIMOS and MAS are the two government agencies monitoring this ESIA. 112 It should be noted that a consultation was organized for stakeholders in Paramaribo for July 2008. However, VIDS and the communities made separate arrangements for community level information- sharing workshops to take place. Personal Communication. Madsian. July 2008. 113 Personal Communication. Madsian. March 2008. 114 While NIMOS guidelines provide for public hearings (should there be sufficient public interest following the submission of ESIRs), conversations with the NIMOS ESIA unit staff reveal there is great confusion around the difference between a public hearing and ongoing consultation processes throughout the course of the ESIA. More institutional strengthening at NIMOS needs to take place to build awareness and capacities with regards to these differences. The Bakhuys Mine Project and related developments provide the perfect opportunity for learning by doing, and for holding Suriname’s first formal public hearing on a large-scale project. 115 Internal report by Goodland (2006). 116 Personal Communication. Shanta Martin, Acting Advocacy Manager, Oxfam Australia. January 2008. 117 Two members from Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation had visited West Suriname in 2005 to share their experiences negotiating with mining companies, including BHP Billiton, as well as with community- based monitoring of impacts. 118 The implementation plan for the Saramaka People judgement will be the subject of discussions between the Saramaka People and the Government of Suriname in the near future. This report has focused specifically on the implications of this judgement for West Suriname. 119 See Kambel (2006) “IDB.” 120 The Government of Canada administers a small amount of funding – $80,000 Canadian per year – for local projects through the local Canada Fund. The Canadian Embassy in Guyana oversees this Fund. Personal Communication. Charles Court, Canadian High Commissioner to Guyana. June 2008. 121 See Lexpert Financial. January 01, 2007. 122 Personal Communication. Loreen Jubithana, Executive Director, Bureau VIDS. February, 2006. The evaluators contacted Bureau VIDS as they conducted their interviews in Suriname. 123 The Northern Miner (www.northernminer.com). Accessed 6/23/2008. 124 Government of Canada. DFAIT (2004). 125 Discussions in June 2008 with the Canadian High Commissioner in Guyana, whose mandate also covers Suriname, indicate that Canadian mining companies are indeed expressing increased interest in Suriname. Personal Communication. Charles Court. June 11, 2008. 126 Consortium Royal Haskoning (2007), p. 13. 127 In this incident, a tailings dam collapsed spilling some 2.9 million cubic metres cyanide-bearing waste into a creek that flows into the Essequibo river. In 2003, 23,000 affected residents filed a suit with Guyana’s High Court demanding compensation of $2 billion USD. See Stueck (May 24, 2003).

71 The North-South Institute and The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname

128 De Ware Tijd reported in February 2008 that a truck carrying carbon dioxide fell into Marshallkreek. Company spokespeople have played down the incident, noting that they are fairly sure there will be no environmental contamination or human risks. These answers do not inspire confidence that there will not be any effects, and local people are very concerned. See Leeuwin (February 18, 2008). 129 Government of Canada. SCFAIT (2005). 130 Government of Canada. “Government Response” (2005). 131 Ibid., p. 3 132 For more detailed information and reports on the national roundtable process, see the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability website: http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/index.php/CNCA_Who and/or the government website: http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/current_discussions/csr-roundtables-en.asp. 133 See official website, http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/current_discussions/csr-roundtables-en.aspx for the report. 134 Halifax Initiative (2007). 135 See Weitzner (2007) and FPP and Tebtebba Foundation (2006) for analyses of how BHP Billiton and Alcoa have failed to implement their own policies regarding ESIA and respecting fundamental human rights in Suriname. 136 CERD (2007), para. 17. 137 UN Doc. A/HRC/1/L.3, 23 June 2006 138 IACHR, Moiwana (2005), Ser. C, No. 124, at para. 133. 139 The proponent is responsible for providing translation.

72 The North-South Institute The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders 55 Murray Street, Suite 200 in Suriname Ottawa, ON Canada PAS gebouw K1N 5M3 Ver. Keizerstraat 92 Paramaribo, Suriname Telephone: 613-241-3535 Fax: 613-241-7435 Telephone: 597-520130 Website: www.nsi-ins.ca Fax: 597-520131 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] est Suriname eople and Mining in W : Indigenous P Shifting Grounds

illage Leaders in Suriname and The North-South Institute

The Association of Indigenous V