Photo: DIOPIM Committee on
Mining Issues (DCMI)
l The spirit of FPIC: lessons from Canada and the Philippines 69
a failure to implement the spirit of FPIC,
instead engineering consent and complying
only with the letter of the law. Mineral
investments promoted by both the government and mining companies are given
priority without considering conflicting or
alternative views. As Joji Carino says:
House belonging to Manolita and Loloy Galvez, who
refused to sell to a mining company, so the company
constructed the mine around them.
that they would become millionaires and be
able to buy Mercedes Benz cars if they were
directly affected by the mining operations
(Goodland and Wicks, 2009). They also
prescribe the establishment of indigenous
authorities even where these are not in
accordance with customary laws and practices.
Indigenous peoples’ efforts to uphold
their right to FPIC have brought them into
direct, and often violent, conflict with both
mining companies and the government –
as experiences at Dipido mine in the Nueva
Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, mining
exploration in the ancestral lands in Bakun,
Benguet, and many others show.2 According to one group of indigenous peoples
(Salamat, 2011):
A pattern has been established each time:
mining exploration permits, mineral
sharing and production applications, and
coal mining contracts were granted by the
government to private mining corporations
before the onset of military operations.
The situation has got so bad that indigenous groups are now campaigning for the
IPRA to be scrapped, as FPIC has been
‘debased and debauched by the self-serving
interests of companies and the NCIP’
(KAMP National Alliance of Indigenous
Peoples Organisations, 2011).
The Philippine experience demonstrates
2 For more information, see: www.minesandcommunities.org
While we must muster all of the economic,
developmental, environmental and technical arguments in support of FPIC, ultimately it will require a political process
that prioritises cultural and natural diversity as core values in our lives and our
survival.
Understanding the ‘spirit of FPIC’ – a case
from Canada
Canada is a country which benefits from its
rich resource endowments: mining
contributed $53.9 billion (over 4%) to
Canada’s GDP in 2010 (Industry Canada
2011). However, Canada has a large indigenous population and an estimated 1200
aboriginal communities are located within
200 kilometres of a mining operation.
Institutions for deliberative processes
In contrast to the Philippines, Canada’s
constitution and case law does not allow for
FPIC where consent is equated with a right
to veto. In effect, the government prioritises
benefits to the wider population over the
impacts on local communities near or on
the mining site.
The law does protect the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted through
deliberative processes (i.e. ‘meaningful
consultation’ ensuring all parties are better
informed in decision-making), but it does
not require that decisions accommodate
feedback given in participation processes
(UN Observer Delegation of Canada,
2005). Aboriginal groups continue to petition against this and for the right to
‘consent’.