Suriname: the impact of gold mining

On February 13h we read a publication from the American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) from a working visit to Suriname in South America. The visit took place on 23th and 25th January. From this visit the Commission released a statement on the rights of women and indigenous peoples of continental interest.

During the visit Rapporteurs received information from both the state and non-state individuals and entities. The Rapporteurs acknowledge the steps taken by the State to recognize the right of certain communities maroon i.e. recognition of their traditional territories and the use and enjoyment of the land and the resources necessary for their survival. Yet, the Rapporteurs emphasize the need to increase its efforts.

Some of the information that they received was related to gold mining and its impact. For instance the use mercury on water damages the quality of it in these communities. There is also the issue of forced displacement, child labour and sexual violence perpetrated against women in mining areas. Due to this situation surrounding gold mining, the Rapporteurs stress “the need to hold consultations with affected communities before and during the implementation of these activities, and the State's obligation to take measures to safeguard the economic, social and cultural rights of these communities”.

Another case presented to the Rapporteurs was from the village Brownsweg, where the population feels isolated “with respect to policies, programs and benefits provided by the national government and the lack of an effective response to their needs.” Moreover, the villagers noted “deficiencies in the provision of basic services, such as those related to water and health, and lack of support for the preservation of their language.”

While Suriname is not a member of the ILO Convention No 169, it is indeed one of the countries that voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, it is important to remember some potential articles which Suriname appears to be violating e.g. Art 10 ‘Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.’ Art 17(2) “States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, taking into account their special vulnerability and the importance of education for their empowerment.”. Art 26 “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired”. Art 29 “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment” and Art 29(2) “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.” [I am sure there are more]

Source Servindi (Servicios en Comunicación Intercultural).

Colombia: consultation is a must!

From Colombia we heard news that a Judge in the region of Choco (situated in the west of Colombia on the Pacific coast) has suspended for six months the licenses, concessions and studies granted to mining in more than 50,000 hectares.

Going back to October 2012 the Land Unit from the Ministry of Agriculture filed a lawsuit against the National Mining Agency. At that time the Mining Agency has issued 13 titles covering 40,000 hectares, 13,000 of which were part of indigenous lands. The judge ordered security forces to recover, in the shortest time possible, the territory and ordered to the companies involved to withdraw personnel and machinery from the territory.

It is said, according to the Agencia Intercultutral de Noticias de Bolivia (AINI), the judge based the case on the fact that the Indigenous communities living in the area were never asked; in other words they were not consulted as required by the ILO Convention 169 and UNDRIP – both signed and ratified by Colombia.

Chile on Indigenous land

In March, the Chilean Supreme Court had unanimously rejected arguments made by a family of Rapa Nui people (case No 9431-2011), regarding the return of ancestral lands on Easter Island. The action for restitution was filed by the Hito clan against the current owners of the Hotel Hanga Roa. For years the Hito clan has tried to regain control over land that was traditionally in their possession. However, the Supreme Court stated that: 1) 1888, all inhabitants on Easter Island became illegal squatters; 2) the land in question was legally transferred from ancestors of the Hito clan to non-indigenous people; and 3) the land in question no longer qualifies as “indigenous land” within the meaning of the law, and so, special protection is not needed.

The following facts were established in the case:

a) the plaintiff is an ethnic Rapa Nui – the indigenous people of Rapa Nui from the Polynesian island of Te Pito o Te Henua (Easter Island) has been legally recognised in Chile according to Indigenous Law No. 19,253 of 1993.
b) the State of Chile became owner of all Easter Island due to taken possession of it by the Chilean navy Policarpo Toro Hurtado on September 9, 1888, and since then, the Republic of Chile has full acts of sovereignty over the island. Because of this the people living there came to have the status of land squatters. c) Law No. 3220 of 1917 gave to the Minister of Maritime the care of the population of Easter Island -- the Directorate of Maritime Territory of Chile decided to put in charge of the Island to a Maritime subdelegation. d) in 1928 the above subdelegation gave a temporary assignment to Mary Anne Tepihe and their children, Richard and Stephen, a land of 9.8 hectares, to be fenced in a year awaiting the Supreme Government to arrange for the final possession, thus recognizing the persons named the domain in the land, becoming thus mere holders of the property.
e) in 1933, by judgment of the First Civil Court of Valparaiso, the Real Estate of said city proceeded to register the possession of the State of Chile on Easter Island land, and establishing that the mode of acquiring ownership was the one established in Article 590 of the Civil Code.
f) in 1970, Mrs. Veronica Atamu, widow of Don Ricardo Milestone, Corfo yielded to any rights it may have on land plot No. 40 of Hanga Roa, where he established the sequence of it, appearing before Don Pedro Villagra, Chief of the Land Office of Easter Island, with his son Isidro Landmark.
g) on 31 October 1970, the State of Chile, donated to the Corporation for Economic Development Agency public lands where is located the Hotel Hanga Roa, registration was fulfilled before the Real Estate of the island that year.
h) in 1979, was released on Decree Law No. 2885, which established standards for the granting of titles of ownership and administration of public lands in Easter Island, legal text that started the process of regulating land to its inhabitants.
i) on 2 January 1981, CORFO sold the Hanga Roa Hotel to Hugo Salas Roman.
j) in 1991, Hugo Salas Roman became a partner at the Hotel Inter-American Society (Chile SA) and granted the land domain and the hotel above-- signing this in the Property Register of the Real Estate Easter Island in 1991.
k) on October 5, 1993, Law No. 19.253 established rules for the protection, promotion and development of indigenous people and the National indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) was created, with general rules for all ethnic groups and special rules for the Rapa Nui.
l) the defendant company owns the land on which they built the Hotel Hanga Roa. m) CONADI certified that there is no evidence that the land occupied by the defendant is Indigenous land, in accordance with Article 15 of Law N ° 19,253. 

The case appears to be straightforward since the applicant failed to established dominion over the land. Moreover, the matter raised the issue that the lands are not indigenous and therefore not subject to special protection. However I wonder: what does make a territory to be indigenous land? Additionally, when does a territory that has been occupied by indigenous peoples no longer qualifies as “indigenous land”?

Plenty to be serious about...

Having a look at Art 15 of Law N ° 19,253 it establishes that “The Corporation shall open and maintain a Public Register of Indigenous Land. In the Register it shall be entered all lands referred to in Article 12 of this law. The registration credits the status of Indian land.” That said, to register there is the need to have entitlement, right? So I went to read Art 12 of the said Law which establishes the following: “Indian lands are: 1 ° Those that people or indigenous communities currently occupy on property or possession from the following titles: a) Securities Commissioner under the law of 10 June 1823. b) Titles of mercy in accordance with the laws of 4 December 1866 to August 4, 1874, and 20 January 1883...” and so forth. Yet in section 2 ° the law establishes that Indigenous land are “those that have historically been occupied and have been in possession of people or communities Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui or Easter Island, Atacama, Quechua, Colla, Kawashkar and Yamana, provided that their rights are registered in the Indigenous Land Registry created by this law, by application of the respective communities or indigenous property owners. The answer to my first question is: an indigenous land is the one that is registered as such! [no very helpful I would say]