KnowLaw

Salting the Mines – Mining Conflicts and the Protection of Indigenous People and Environment

/

Mitakshara Kapoor
Mining

According to Philex Mining Corporation, the most significant mining corporation in the Philippines, there is life in mining. Through “responsible mining,” the firm tells the public that it “values the environment and community.” (“HilomenVelasco, 2011”) Large-scale mining frequently leads to the loss of their lands, which puts their way of life at grave risk because “indigenous peoples” are among the most oppressed and defenseless groups in society.

“In the Philippines, about 60% of mining operations are carried out in ancestral domains, frequently without the consent of the impacted communities, who are subjected to displacement and several human rights violations, including rape, forced recruitment, the killing of community representatives, arbitrary detention, persecution, and house demolition” (“Brawner Baguilat, 2011”). These mistreatments occur in a climate of impunity since both state and private armed personnel that commit the crimes are frequently not held accountable. Mining damages the strong cultural ties that exist within indigenous tribes, which leads to an impairment of culture and identity (“Brawner Baguilat, 2011”).

Salting the Mines

Mining has long been an important sector of the economy, producing the raw materials needed to power modern civilization. However, it is not without controversy and undesirable effects, especially when it comes to the ecology and the protection of indigenous people. The idea of “Salting the Mines” is one such issue that appears in the context of mining.

“Salting the Mines” refers to the intentional strewing of valuable minerals or ore samples at a location to mislead prospective buyers or investors into thinking the location contains significant amounts of the desired minerals. This dishonest practice has been used throughout history, occasionally resulting in substantial financial losses and conflicts. Beyond its economic effects, salting the mines, however, can potentially worsen existing mining-related disputes, notably those involving indigenous people and environmental protection.

“Salting the Mines” can pose further problems in the context of conflicts between mining and indigenous people. Indigenous populations frequently feel a deep bond to their ancestral grounds, which are teeming with natural resources and are significant from a cultural standpoint. The pressure for mining operations in areas inhabited by indigenous groups may intensify when fraudulent mineral discoveries are planted or inflated. Indigenous people may be displaced as a result, lose their means of subsistence, and have their rights to their culture, land, and self-determination violated.

Additionally, “Salting the Mines” may affect environmental conservation initiatives. Mining operations already pose serious dangers to the environment, including habitat degradation, water pollution, and deforestation. However, the destruction of ecologically sensitive places that would otherwise be protected might result when fake mineral resources are used to attract mining investors. As a result, the environment suffers, which has long-term effects on climate change, biodiversity, and water quality.

The idea behind “Salting the Mines” highlights the inherent tensions that exist between mining operations, indigenous people’s rights, and environmental preservation. It emphasizes the requirement for greater oversight, openness, and accountability within the mining sector. The rights of indigenous populations must be respected, their free, prior, and informed permission must be obtained, and sustainable practices must be used to lessen any negative effects on the environment.

Who are Indigenous People?

Numerous groups of people are referred to as “indigenous peoples,” yet very few identify as such. Contrarily, indigenous peoples typically refer to themselves as “the people of the land people of a location or people of X in their language, where X stands for some vital natural resource that nourishes or represents them.”

They are very diverse. Indigenous peoples, who live everywhere from the Arctic to the humid and dry tropics, have developed a wide range of strategies for self-reproduction within a culturally controlled ecological context. Each community has developed its strategies for obtaining food, safeguarding its resource base, upholding its institutions, and fending off outside threats.

Non-indigenous and indigenous participants may have differing ideas about who is and is not indigenous from the start of a particular encounter. Who is and is not qualified to file a claim may be a genuine concern for “non-indigenous stakeholders (NIS),” who may be anticipated to incur financial commitments for impacts.

There is controversy about the inclusion of other criteria in the concept of indigenous peoples, such as sharing a common language or living off the land. Conflict and division are guaranteed by a practical definition that bars native kids from privileges because they don’t share their parents’ tongue. The existence of a subsistence economy is another criterion that receives little support outside of the World Bank. The use of economic factors to define a cultural group should be avoided since it can be deceptive and obfuscating, such as when it is implied that “indigenous peoples” must be primarily focused on subsistence farming. It makes the false claim that if indigenous peoples acquire riches or knowledge, they cease to be indigenous because it conflates the “culture of poverty with a people’s cultural identity.”

International agreements such as the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the ILO Convention 169, Agenda 21, the OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child have all recognized indigenous peoples’ rights to participate meaningfully in natural resource management.” The necessity to get indigenous peoples’ prior informed consent before taking actions that could impact their rights and interests are mentioned in several declarations, as well as “the recognition of indigenous land rights, traditional resource management, equal rights to participate in public affairs, the need to protect indigenous lands from environmental threats”, and more. These choices influence their rights to take part in and receive payment for activities connected to the mining of minerals.

Who are the indigenous groups to which we are alluding?

Mining

A single description could not sufficiently capture the wide range and variety of “indigenous peoples and local communities” across the world.

Indigenous peoples, according to the “United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, have historical continuity or association with a given region or part of a given region before colonization or annexation; identify themselves as indigenous and be accepted as members by their community; have strong links to territories, surrounding natural resources and ecosystems; maintain at least in part, distinct social, economic and political systems; maintain, at least in part, distinct languages, cultures, beliefs and knowledge systems; are resolved to maintain and further develop their identity and distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions as distinct peoples and communities; and often form non‐dominant sectors of society.”

When the land is owned, maintained, or used traditionally, the term “traditional” refers to knowledge gained over generations of observation and interaction with nature. This idea is typically a component of cosmologies that acknowledge the interdependence of all life, hold the natural environment in high regard, and see humanity as an essential component of it. It also discusses practical ways to keep the ecosystem in which they live healthy so that it can continue to provide them with resources like clean water, fertile soil, shelter, food, and medicines.

How are changes in the temperature, biodiversity, and ecosystems affecting indigenous people?

Due to their reliance on subsistence agriculture and their spiritual links to particular lands and regions, the majority of “indigenous peoples suffer disproportionately from loss of biological variety and environmental degradation.” Their capacity to survive, thrive, and maintain a healthy environment and body is threatened by environmental degradation, significant industrial activity, conflicts, toxic waste, forced migration, and shifts in land use and land cover (such as deforestation for agriculture and extractives, for example). These issues are made worse by climate change.

Some mitigation strategies, such as biofuel initiatives, may worsen the threat to indigenous peoples’ lands and defenses rather than lessen it. The usage of more biofuels is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however doing so could harm indigenous peoples’ vital water sources, ecosystems, and landscapes. The biodiversity, food security, and water security may eventually suffer as a result of an increase in monoculture crops and plantations.

However, when indigenous peoples’ rights are honored, particularly regarding their ownership of land, territory, and resources, both their “culture and the environment prosper.”

What part do indigenous people play in creating, maintaining, and safeguarding ecosystems and natural areas?

Indigenous peoples must contribute to the creation and implementation of ecosystem solutions. It is possible to administer sustainably regenerating ecosystems and enhance environmental assessments by utilizing conventional knowledge and cultural heritage. The production and consumption of regional and traditional foods, for example, have a significant positive impact on maintaining a healthy diet, combating climate change, and protecting ecosystems and natural resources. The UNEP will keep supporting pastoralism and the growing of conventional crops.

The “UN Decade for Ecosystems Restoration (2021–2030)” will be formally introduced at the UN Environment Assembly’s fifth meeting, which will be presented with research on traditional knowledge for ecosystem restoration and resilience. More generally, UNEP is working with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to publish this research.

How do we make sure indigenous people participate in managing ecosystems as well as making policy decisions?

Indigenous Rights

In matters that are crucial to Indigenous peoples’ rights, survival, dignity, and well-being, the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” stipulates that their prior, free, and informed consent must be acquired. Additionally, dialogues to gain this permission must be conducted by decision-making, local governance, and governance structures, in “indigenous languages, on indigenous peoples’ time schedules, and without the use of coercion or threat of coercion.”

Indigenous peoples can voice their concerns and push for policy change within the UN through the “Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous People and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.”

The marginalization of indigenous peoples, however, persists both locally and nationally. UNEP has established a policy to support the protection of environmental defenders in response to this. Through this policy, “UNEP will denounce attacks, torture, intimidation, and murder of environmental defenders; advocate for better protection of environmental rights and the individuals fighting for them; support responsible management of natural resources; and demand accountability for incidents that have an impact on environmental defenders.”

Through the “Interfaith Rainforest Initiative, UNEP” also works with religious leaders and communities to support indigenous peoples. The mutual recognition of the sanctity of life and nature, and also the equality of all major world religions and indigenous peoples’ traditional spiritualities, are fundamental elements in our work. We hope to contribute to the maintenance of conventional knowledge and the regeneration of our world by assisting in the resolution of prior disputes between indigenous peoples and many faiths.

Government Policies and Regulations – International Perspective

The laws and regulations governing mining differ from one nation to the next, but there are several global best practices that nations can adopt to guarantee the environmental, social, and economic stability of the mining industry. These best practices are represented by the Mining Policy Framework (MPF), which was created by the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development (IGF) and established global standards for the whole mining life cycle in six pillars of mining law and policy.

“The Mining Law of 1872, which declared all valuable mineral resources in territory belonging to the United States to be free and available for exploration and purchase, is the federal law that governs locatable minerals in the United States.” The US legal system is divided into several tiers of codified and uncodified federal, state, and local laws, and each tier’s regulatory authority may be derived from judicial common law, statutes, administrative rules, or ordinances.

A significant reform in Mexico passed by Congress in 2023 is intended to reduce damaging mining sector practices and enhance protections for the environment and Indigenous peoples. Pro-business interests, however, vigorously opposed some aspects of the reform, which led to a watered-down version of the initial proposal.

A thorough and stringent framework that provides best practices for effective social, environmental, and economic control of the mining sector is the Mining Policy Framework in Canada. The MPF provides a “comprehensive strategy for developing mining following the principles of sustainable development and represents the best practices necessary for effective environmental, social, and economic governance of the mining industry.”The “International Council on Mining and Metallurgy’s (ICMM) Mining Principles” detail the best practices social, environmental, and governance standards of business members through a comprehensive set of “39 Performance Expectations and eight related position statements” on several important industry concerns. By implementing the Mining Principles, we can advance both the global aims of the “Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development” aims.

Government Policies and Regulations in India

Government of India

India’s mining industry is heavily regulated, and in the last five years, important law improvements have made the system more transparent and effective. The “Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, passed in 1957,” is the main piece of legislation in India that governs the mining sector. According to the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, both government and state laws regulate the regulatory framework for the mining industry. State governments serve as the relevant regulatory bodies for the mining industry. They have the authority to grant mineral concessions and to levy royalties, dead rent, and taxes within their borders following the MMDR Act.

Concerns concerning the effects of mining on indigenous people’s lands and resources have been raised regarding the efficacy of these regulations in defending indigenous rights and the environment. Indigenous peoples’ lands are susceptible to being taken over by governments, conservation organizations, or private investors since they frequently lack state-issued land titles. To protect indigenous peoples and their environment, the REDD+ authorities must establish appropriate policies, according to the Indian Law Resource Centre.

In terms of effective policy frameworks, the government introduced the “National Mining Policy 2050 in January 2022.” This document serves as a roadmap for both the government and the sector. The policy aims “to create an industry at the forefront of innovation and development, boost the mining sector’s competitiveness and sustainable productivity, enhance the quality of life for workers, foster peaceful development in the operating regions, and benefit local communities and the nation as a whole.”

Case Studies and Examples

Mining-related conflicts with the environment and indigenous populations are a persistent, global problem. Mining firms’ efforts to extract minerals from areas that indigenous peoples have historically owned or used give rise to these conflicts and cause environmental damage and community relocation. Specifically, the following are a few instances of mining conflicts with native peoples and the environment:

These are only a handful of the many mining-related problems with indigenous populations and the environment that exist worldwide. Indigenous peoples’ rights must be respected, and they must be included in decisions that affect their access to land and means of subsistence.

Conclusion

It might have been reasonable to claim a few decades ago that greater knowledge of the problems might result in more sustainable interactions between indigenous peoples and mining. just not right now. The threats to sustainability posed by mines established nearby or on the native territory are known to non-indigenous parties. And even remote indigenous tribes are becoming more aware of the dangers as a result of greater literacy, rapid communication, and aggressive non-governmental organizations. It is contested by the company that a few low-skilled positions or training will balance out these dangers. Avoiding indigenous questions now increases the possibility of human rights complaints or later, expensive litigation. Empowerment has been prioritized by both the international society and indigenous peoples.

In this new field, empowerment is not seen as a result of paying damages associated with mining development. Without stable employment, it is not training. It isn’t giving gifts. It is not a mining firm agreeing to take up the responsibility of replacing the government in the benefit payout process. And it’s not foreigners advocating for indigenous peoples what they see as healthy alternative lives.“As President K. R. Narayanan of India said: Let it not be said of India that this great Republic in a hurry to develop itself is devastating the green mother earth and uprooting our tribal populations. We can show the world that there is room for everybody to live in this country of tolerance and compassion.

Reference