Mining in the Philippines - Concerns and Conflicts

the Philippines 10 – 15 million indigenous peoples). The right to FPIC extends to natural resource
extraction projects. FPIC is defined as:
the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs [Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples] to be
determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external
manipulation, interference or coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the
activity, in a language and process understandable to the community. 73
The definition is based on what has subsequently become Article 32 of the UN Declaration on
Indigenous Peoples and similar provisions exist in ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples.
The FFT heard compelling evidence that this right to FPIC is being systematically denied to the
indigenous peoples of the Philippines. The indigenous communities they met raised a number of
issues that they claim were serious impediments to the effective implementation of their right to
FPIC.
One of the major concerns voiced by the indigenous peoples is the lack of independent information
regarding mining that is made available to them. They felt that, rather than being informed about the
potential impacts of mining, as required by law, the information they are currently provided
frequently amounted to little more than propaganda by mining companies. As a result they feel that
they are not in a position to make an informed choice. 74 Based on the experiences of other indigenous
communities in the Philippines they fear that many of the promises made by the mining companies
during the FPIC negotiations would not be subsequently fulfilled. In some cases verbal promises
made to them border on the absurd. 75
Another serious issue raised by the indigenous communities was what they described as a type of
‘foot in the door’ policy being operated by mining companies. They described how companies only
provide them with details of their initial planned operations and do not give them information on the
potential for future expansion. The experience of indigenous communities has been that, once mining
operations have been established the incremental processing costs are minimal, expansion is almost
inevitable regardless of the wishes of the communities impacted.
The Midsalip community described how attendance sheets at meetings with a mining company had
been used as proof of consent. They, along with other indigenous communities that the FFT met,
recounted offers ranging from bags of rice to cash amounts, significant by local standards, offered in
exchange for their consent.
In the FFT discussions with the indigenous peoples two common themes emerged. Firstly, indigenous
communities felt that mining companies lacked respect for their traditional cultures, viewing their
right to FPIC as a technical obstacle to be overcome as quickly as possible rather than a necessary
protection of rights. Concrete examples provided by indigenous peoples included cases where mining
companies arbitrarily declared that their sacred sites were ‘not sacred’. This lack of respect was
reflected in a speech by a mining company CEO when he dismissed a mountain that indigenous
people had been fighting to protect as being ‘a bit of an ugly looking place’. 76
The second theme that emerged from discussions with the indigenous peoples relates to factionalism
and misrepresentation. A pattern appears to exist of mining companies attempting to capitalize on,
or generate, division within indigenous communities. In cases where the consent of the indigenous
people has not been forthcoming, non-representative indigenous leaders have been created and
recognized by the NCIP and the mining companies. The indigenous people view the selection of
elders through procedures that do not respect customary laws as invalid. According to them consent
obtained in this manner should not and cannot be the basis of FPIC. This view is supported by IPRA
13