APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by Indigenous Peoples
Links
This memorandum concerns World Bank and DFID
joint involvement with mining corporations in processes nominally
established to review the mining industry's social acceptability
and widely agreed need for raised its environmental and social
standards .
The areas of concern highlighted in this submission
is the questionable legitimacy of processes conceived by the mining
industry in the lead up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD)[54]
which despite being rejected as unacceptable by many key mines
affected communities and independent mine monitor groups was uncritically
endorsed and actively supported by World Bank and DFID including
financial support and the conduct of jointly sponsored activities.
The refusal to participate was based on clear expression of the
deficiencies in structure and process and inadequate checks and
balances to safeguard the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples
and others affected by mining.
The attention of this memorandum is specifically
on
1. The Mines Minerals and Sustainable Development
project 2000-02 and other activities in the lead up to the WSSD.
[55]
It is the experience of communities affected
by mining in many parts of the world that mining is a dangerous
intrusive and irreversible process that is associated with severe
negative environmental and social impacts. The increasingly widespread
awareness of the social and environmental problems too often associated
with mining are resulting in growing difficulties in raising finance
and in an upsurge in effective opposition to proposed new mining
projects by indigenous nations and communities around the world.
Therefore leading mining companies have been seeking new vehicles
to promote a more positive image of mining.
A group of leading companies including the London
based corporations—Rio Tinto, Anglo American and BHP Billiton
came together to form the Global Mining Initiative. This Initiative
consisted of three elements:
(a) The Mines Minerals and Sustainable Development
research project. This initiative was funded by the Industry and
co-sponsors including the World Bank and DFID to the tune of $7
million plus. It was self-characterised as "an independent
two-year process of consultation and research with the objective
of understanding how to maximise the contribution of the mining
and minerals sector to sustainable development at the global,
national, regional and local levels. Through this process, MMSD
has proposed a clear agenda for global change in the minerals
sector, that is based on careful analysis, that is understood
and supported by many key stakeholders, and that identifies mechanisms
for moving forward." [56]MMSD
was timed as a contribution to the deliberations leading up to
WSSD.
(b) A global conference to be held in Toronto
in 2002 also self-characterised as being multi stakeholder in
character and aimed at providing an opportunity for the various
stakeholders involved in mining to come together to validate or
debate the finding of the MMSD and approve and present the results
in the context of the WSSD in Johannesburg.
(c) The establishment of a body, the International
Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) [57]to
represent and project the views of the mining industry in the
future of such discussions.
The MMSD project established a sponsors group
of those making financial contribution to the project. Initially
it's members were drawn exclusively from the ranks of mining companies
but later expanded to include both the World Bank and British
Government. (The Canadian and Australian governments also acted
as sponsors.)
Within the MMSD work programme seminars were
organised jointly with the World Bank.
MMSD did produce a lengthy report "Breaking
New Ground" in 2002. The conference in Toronto "Resourcing
the Future" took place and its results, in addition to parallel
lobby efforts towards the WSSD process undertaken by the mining
company members of the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, were used to successfully influence the WSSD process
in ways beneficial to the mining industry. This resulted in the
inclusion of mining in the plan of action for sustainable development
agreed at the WSSD conference. This for the first time controversially
"recognised" mining as a positive contributor both to
sustainable development and introduced into the text of the plan
of action the questionable concept of "sustainable mining."
These assertions were widely challenged within the preparatory
meetings for WSSD including by representatives of major civil
society groups including Indigenous peoples, Women, NGOs, and
Youth. [58]
The structure and process and therefore the
legitimacy of these initiatives was questioned and criticised
from an early stage by a wide range of civil society groups. A
number of groups who monitor the mining industry, including the
Mineral Policy Center (USA) Miningwatch (Canada) Mineral Policy
Institute (Australia) and Indigenous Peoples Links (UK), presented
these concerns in a letter at the launch of the MMSD process.
[59](see
attachment) This called for a substantial restructuring of the
project. Other statements have been issued which refer critically
to these processes. [60]The
project proceeded without significant change despite the appeals.
The concerns of civil society groups were founded
on their past negative experience of the actions of the mining
industry. There is a considerable history of industry representations
and initiatives that promise reform and participation but in practice
fail to deliver on either genuine principled participation or
tangible improvements in practice. Indeed leading companies are
simultaneously active in promoting their commitment to sustainability
while at the same time applying pressure for lowering of standards
and, as for example in Indonesia, gaining greater access to protected
areas. [61]Companies
prominent in the GMI initiative are also currently facing litigation
from communities who accuse them of negligence resulting in severe
negative impacts[62].
A clear and central concern in relation to MMSD
was the unilateral pre-determination by the mining corporations
of the project's goals, the financial and management control of
the project by industry, and the selection of industry nominees
even to monitor the project. Such a combination was seen as presenting
an unacceptable package lacking in the checks and balances necessary
to such a sensitive task. In addition the need for and parameters
of the MMSD were never endorsed or validated by those who stand
most to loose by mining ie the communities affected by the industry's
operations.
As a result of these concerns a wide range of
civil society groups with expertise on the issue, rights holders-particularly
among Indigenous nations and community organisations whose experience
of mining all of who would be vital to a rounded assessment of
industry practice and problems declined to participate in the
process. The extent of this dissociation was substantial including
groups and agencies that are or have been active in other multi-stakeholder
discussions and initiatives. The bodies that withheld their support
were numerous, geographically widely distributed and politically
and organisationally diverse. Inevitably, given the diverse character
of groups concerned on the impacts of mining some did participate
in selected processes of MMSD and/or in the Toronto conference.
However the failure to gain the confidence and participation of
the majority was a major shortcoming even noted in the final report.
As feared—and despite the withheld support
and participation of a substantial body (the majority) of community
organisations, Indigenous peoples groups and civil society organisations,—MMSD
and the Toronto conference have been misrepresented by mining
industry spokespersons as credible and adequate multi-stakeholder
processes and as a manifestation of a newfound commitment to both
inclusive dialogue and improvements in mining practice. It is
of the gravest concern that misleading claims have been made on
the level of civil society participation. These inflated claims
concerning the participation in MMSD and have also been uncritically
accepted as legitimate and substantiated by the World Bank and
by DFID.
It is the submission of PIPLinks that support
for these processes by World Bank and DFID has enhanced their
credibility in some quarters without justification. It has given
credence to assertions presented by the mining industry as if
such were validated by evidence and the acceptance of independent
monitors. In truth the failures of process and structure resulted
in conclusions, which do not accurately represent the concerns
or priorities of those affected by mining or the wider public
about the future of mining. Rather the endorsement of a misrepresentation
has rather contributed to a polarisation and a deepening of mistrust.
IPLinks is deeply concerned that the processes
of participatory dialogue and broad participatory decision making
on this and other issues are diminished and ultimately threatened
by uncritical and one sided promotion of the agenda of a powerful
lobby group from the mining industry at the expense of those who
though directly affected are excluded, marginalized or misrepresented
within a process they did not ask for or endorse, over which they
have had no control and in which they did not participate.
In relation to the role played by the World
Bank and DFID in MMSD we believe that World Bank and DfID participation
and support for a process rejected by numerous key actors violated
their own guidelines on participation that should govern both
structures in their engagement in such processes.
We seek clarification on:
— What if any procedures did the World
Bank employ to ascertain the adequacy of the broad participation
in this self- proclaimed multi-stakeholder process. And what were
the outcomes?
— What efforts did the World Bank and
DFID make to ascertain the views of indigenous nations and organisations
on this initiative? And what were the outcomes?
— What efforts if any were made through
their participation to broaden the participation of affected Peoples
and organisations in the planning definition management of this
process. And what were the outcomes?
— What mechanisms do the Bank and DFID
have to constrain the initiators of a flawed process from making
inflated claims as to credibility, which have repercussions for
the standing of the Bank and DFID?
In conclusion it is the submission of Indigenous
Peoples Links that the support extended by the World Bank and
DFID for the controversial and widely rejected MMSD process has
contributed to a deterioration in the prospects for constructive
negotiation between the mining industry and the community based
victims of mining.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
The involvement of the World Bank in the increasing
funding and active promotion of mining oil and gas projects has
been the subject of criticism over some years from international
and local civil society groups including Indigenous Peoples organisations.
The bases of criticism include:
(a) the argument that promotion of mining
does not contribute to a type of development that alleviates poverty
or bring sustained development but rather can have a serious adverse
effect upon the conditions of poor and marginalised groups through
competition for land and resources, negative widespread environmental
impacts displacement of peoples and negative impact on livelihood
and subsistence opportunities including farming, fishing tourism
and small scale mining.
(b) The evidence that suggests that even
at the level of national economies those countries better endowed
with mineral resources tend, in a seeming contradiction of commonsense
assumptions, to have slower rates of growth than those without
mineral wealth. Thus suggesting that development of mineral resources
retards rather than enhances national development. At best it
is suggested that alternative forms of investment can easily outperform
mining as a route to bringing developmental benefit or poverty
alleviation.
(c) The mining industry contains bad actors
whose activities generate conflict, social disruption, environmental
devastation and who have been associated with heightened violence,
corruption. And that therefore these corporations are unsuitable
partners in development and that at least strong regulation and
safeguards should be the prerequisite of involvement.
In response to these criticisms the World Bank
has launched a Review of its involvement in the Extractive Industries
(see www.eireview.org) which is scheduled to report by mid 2003.
As part of this review a global workshop on the impact of Bank
funded projects upon Indigenous Peoples will take place in Oxford
in April 2003 with the participation of Indigenous representatives
from different parts of the world.
Geoff Nettleton
Indigenous Peoples Links
October 2002
This submission had 4 annexes attached which
have not been printed:
Annex 1: Mine monitoring groups letter to
IIED 2000. Copy placed in the Library.
Annex 2: London Declaration 2001: is available
at http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Charter/londondec.htm
Annex 3: Philippine Declaration 2002: is
available at http://www.tebtebba.org/tebtebba—files/susdev/mining/philmine.htmlthird
Annex 4: Draft Conference Statement: Baguie
City, May 2002. Copy placed in the Library.
National Conference on Mining, Philippines Declaration
http://www.tebtebba.org/tebtebba—files/susdev/mining/philmine.htmlthird
54 Communities on the island of Marinduque in the Philippines
recently lodged a charge against Placer Dome for the legacy of
ill health, environmental devastation and loss of livelihood resulting
from their operation of the Marcopper Mine. Back
55
www.iied.org/mmsd/ Back
56
About MMSD www.iied.org/mmsd/ Back
57
http://www.icmm.com/ Back
58
Indigenous Peoples Statement to the final session of WSSD Preparatory
Commission IV Bali June 2002. Back
59
Letter to Richard Stanbrook IIED August 2000. Back
60
London Declaration http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Charter/londondec.htm Back
61
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/ Back
62
HIPC Status of Implementation Report August 2002, page 33. Back
| 
