The Canadian organization Rights and Democracy has developed an assessment tool that communities can use to answer these questions for themselves. The system is called the “Getting it Right” Human Rights Impact Assessment tool, and is designed so that local organizations and citizens can, with minimal training, carry out their own study of how their basic rights -- such as free speech, water, safe working conditions, shelter, and education -- are affected by the actions of governments and companies establishing mines, agricultural operations, factories, or oil and gas pipelines.
“A lot of companies will do an impact assessment on their operations, using an outside consultant, but these don’t always do much for the stakeholders in the community, or promote accountability,” says Chris Jochnick, director of Oxfam America’s private sector program. “Helping community members conduct their own human rights assessment strengthens their capacity to examine their situation, frame their issues, and engage with a company or government,” he says. “We think this will produce a more robust and balanced assessment than one done by outsiders.”
The Rights and Democracy assessment tool helps people document how their rights are supposed to be protected under national law, and the actual effects of an investment project on these rights. It helps community leaders create a team, plan out the work and specific rights to assess, carry out surveys and community consultations, validate findings, write reports, and meet with companies and governments to urge action to address the problems uncovered in the assessment.
Rights and Democracy commissioned five assessments to test the system starting in 2005. One of them looked at the effects of a metal refinery on women’s rights in La Oroya, Peru, concentrating on the rights to water, health, adequate housing, and working conditions. It was done by the Centro de Promoción y Estudios de la Mujer Andina. The organization concluded that lack of enforcement of environmental rules by the state was one of the main contributors to the poor public health situation in the city. The report also cites lack of commitment by the Doe Run Peru SRL company to improve the environmental performance of the plant.
“By looking at the health problems in La Oroya through a woman’s eyes, this assessment helped uncover a pattern of children’s and reproductive health issues that was clearly connected to lead poisoning,” says Gabrielle Watson, Oxfam America’s planning and learning specialist who helped develop the assessment tool with Rights and Development.
Oxfam America is helping two organizations carry out a Human Rights Impact Assessment. One is related to a proposed natural gas operation in Bolivia where the Centro de Estudios Aplicados a los Derechos Economicos, Sociales y Culturales (CEADESC) will carry out the study with local Guaraní indigenous communities that were denied their right to be consulted about the gas exploration activities in their territory. The other case concerns tobacco pickers in the United States, and will be carried out by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC). FLOC will look at efforts by migrant and undocumented farmworkers to improve working conditions on tobacco farms.
Watson says the human rights assessments will help people take control of the type of development carried out in their name. “Local people are the experts about human rights impacts of private investment projects in their communities. This tool puts them in the driver’s seat in the search for safer, more equitable outcomes that are good for everyone.”
]]>Unfortunately, not all indigenous groups participating in these working groups felt that the discussions were productive. AIDESEP, a long-time Oxfam America partner and one of the largest federations representing indigenous peoples in Peru’s Amazon, has withdrawn from the dialogue process, citing lack of progress and reluctance on the part of the government to accept its share of the responsibility for the violence in Bagua.
While indigenous people and the government struggle to continue a meaningful dialogue, the Indigenous Federation of Madre de Dios (known as FENAMAD) has been objecting to the presence of Hunt Oil of Texas in the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve (RCA), part of the 3.5 million-acre Block 76 oil concession located in the Madre de Dios region in southeastern Peru. FENAMAD contends that Hunt Oil could be playing indigenous communities against each other to gain access to their lands. “The current strategy of the US company Hunt Oil is to negotiate directly with the members of each native community and seek to divide them and provoke open confrontation among the brother indigenous people within each community,” FENAMAD is saying in a memorandum.
There is a real danger this could emerge as the next flashpoint in a disturbing stream of conflicts between communities and oil and mining companies in Peru. The Peruvian Ombudsman Office estimates that of the 273 social and environmental conflicts in Peru in the first six months of 2009, 80 percent were related to extractive industry projects. (In 2008 there were 123 social and environmental conflicts in the same period.)
FENAMAD and other indigenous federations are insisting that foreign oil, gas, and mining companies must attain the free, prior, and informed consent from communities before they can enter any indigenous lands such as the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve. The right of free, prior, and informed consent is a right of indigenous peoples established under international law, and requires free access to full information (including independent analysis of project proposals), adequate time for a community decision free of pressure and coercion, and the option to reject a proposal--or accept under certain conditions.
The failure of oil, gas, and mining companies to gain appropriate access to communities with natural resources limits Peru’s ability to benefit from revenues it needs to help the approximately 50 percent of its population now living in poverty.
The legislature gave Peru’s President Alan Garcia broad powers to promote economic competitiveness through decrees last year, saying it was necessary to adapt legislation to comply with new requirements of the Peru-US Free Trade Agreement. Indigenous federations and many civil society organizations have strongly protested the possible consequences of these laws for the Amazon rainforest and indigenous lands, as well as the fact that they were adopted without transparency or genuine consultation. Some of these legislative decrees were rescinded following violent confrontations last June, but many are still in force.
Oxfam America's campaign—called the Right to Know, Right to Decide—aims to arm local citizens with the information they need to weigh the costs versus the benefits and decide whether to provide consent for the projects to move forward.
“There is a potential for this confrontation to escalate to violence,” says Emily Greenspan, Oxfam America’s policy advisor who monitors oil and gas projects in Peru’s Amazon. “Companies seeking to operate in any areas need to attain the free, prior, and informed consent of communities. Those that appear to be forcing their way into communities risk serious conflict, as we have seen in the recent past.”
]]>Newmont, the largest US-based mining company, agreed to the review in 2007 following allegations of serious rights abuses by police and private security forces hired to protect the mine. Among other recommendations, the review calls on the company to more rigorously investigate human rights abuses, disclose contracts with police forces, consider severing ties with a private security contractor, and promote greater dialogue with local communities.
"This report contains a number of important recommendations for addressing ongoing human rights problems at Yanacocha," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Given the current tensions around mining projects in Peru, we urge Newmont to take immediate action to implement these recommendations."
The report is the result of a two-year mediation process between Newmont and Oxfam America under the auspices of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, a global initiative bringing together mining and oil companies, governments, and nongovernmental groups. Newmont and Oxfam entered the mediation after Oxfam filed a complaint over abuses by security forces at Yanacocha in three separate incidents throughout 2006-2007. These included the fatal shooting of a local farmer involved in protests at the mine and the surveillance and harassment of members of a local human rights and environmental group.
Peru has been hit by a recent wave of protests around mining and oil projects. According to government estimates, there are more than 70 active conflicts at mine sites in various parts of the country, some of which have turned violent. Tensions reached a boiling point in early June when actions by the national police to quell protests by indigenous peoples in the Peruvian Amazon, who were protesting government decrees designed to open up more land to mining and oil operations, resulted in a tragic loss of lives and a large number of wounded police officers and indigenous peoples.
"Newmont can help reduce the level conflict in Peru by implementing these recommendations," said Keith Slack, extractive industries program manager at Oxfam America. "Doing so would be an important confidence building measure among local community members affected by mining operations."
The report recommends that Newmont more vigorously implement the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which include ensuring that security forces employed by companies do not have a history of human rights abuse. The report further calls on the company to review the results of psychological examinations of all security personnel before employing them at the mine.
"This is a critical first test of the complaints mechanism of the voluntary principles," noted Slack. "Newmont's compliance with these recommendations is important for the continued credibility of the initiative."
This report follows a previous independent review of Newmont's community relationship management practices, the results of which were released in March. Oxfam encourages Newmont to continue taking leadership in this type of review process and to fully implement the resulting recommendations to improve relationships with local communities near mining projects.
]]>Oxfam America is joining other groups in Peru in calling for a complete investigation of these events, and for the individuals responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice.
"We are requesting that the Public Ministry [public prosecutor] and the police carry out an investigation," said Javier Aroca, coordinator of Oxfam International's extractive industries program. "It is essential that these accusations be investigated and that those responsible are punished to ensure that the laws of our country are enforced and that the fundamental rights of our citizens are protected. In the future, we must be able to attain peaceful solutions to social conflicts."
In January 2009 the National Human Rights Coordinator released a report alleging that 28 community members, who were concerned that mining exploration was being carried out on community farm land without their permission, were kidnapped and detained for three days. They had been marching to the mine site, where the Majaz Mining company (now known as Rio Blanco Copper) was exploring for copper deposits. The community members came from Segunda y Cajas and Yanta in Piura, and Jaén, and San Ignacio in the neighboring department of Cajamarca. According to the report, the march was peaceful—no participants carried any weapons apart from the machetes and whips customarily used when traveling by foot in the rough Huancabamba mountains. According to local leaders, they intended to go and speak with the representatives of the mining company, since other attempts to discuss their concerns had failed.
According to the report published by the National Human Rights Coordinator and FEDAPAZ, the community delegation of approximately 400 people was camped out the night before their planned arrival at the mine site when they were attacked by helicopters shooting tear gas. Soon after, police entered their camp and burned their equipment, food, and medicine. The next day the group was attacked again when it arrived at the Majaz mining camp, one person was killed, 40 were injured, and 28 were kidnapped and detained inside the mining camp. The National Human Rights Coordinator report says the detained individuals were subjected to "diverse forms of physical and psychological torture. As well as being savagely beaten…they were kept hooded, sprayed with tear gas and blindfolded, with no warm clothes in spite of the low temperatures." They were released after three days.
The kidnapped community members made formal legal complaints, but the public prosecutor in the region did not conduct an investigation. Instead, the government accused these individuals of terrorism, and they have been under police investigation. In June of 2008 the Human Rights Coordinator and FEDAPAZ filed a legal case in Piura against the police officers and employees of the security firm Forza who were working for the mine company. The suit also included the public prosecutor and medical examiner, who are alleged to have been aware of the kidnapping and torture, and failed to take proper legal action against the perpetrators.
In January of 2009 the national Human Rights Coordinator received photos taken during the three days in 2005 when the community members were detained at the mine site. The organization says the photographs, submitted anonymously, clearly verify the accounts of the detained individuals and have shocked many in the country.
The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have issued statements urging a thorough investigation of the incidents in 2005. However the police still have not identified any of the officers involved.
"People living in a democracy should not be kidnapped, tortured, and persecuted just for expressing their opinion and raising their concerns," says Oxfam's Javier Aroca. "We need our institutions to create avenues for dialogue so we can avoid conflict and ensure our laws are respected."
]]>The Yanacocha gold mine is currently operating on 26,000 hectares (about 63,700 acres), high above the city of Cajamarca in the Andes mountains of Peru. But that is just a small area: The government conceded a total of 282,000 hectares (690,000 acres, slightly , larger than the state of Rhode Island) to Minera Yanacocha, a company comprised of majority owners Newmont Mining of the United States and Minera Buenaventura of Peru. Yanacocha continues to be a significant part of Newmont Mining's global production, contributing about a quarter of the 5.3 million ounces of gold Newmont sold in 2007.
Minera Yanacocha is working aggressively to expand the mine. In 2004, the mine began exploring for gold on Cerro Quilish, a small mountain that comprises the top of the watershed supplying the city of Cajamarca and the rest of the valley. Dairy and potato farmers in the area and many others opposed to mining Quilish blocked the road to the mountain in 2004. There were weeks of violent confrontation between police and protesters. In the end, Minera Yanacocha stated publicly that it had underestimated the concerns of local people and asked the Ministry of Energy and Mines to revoke its permit to explore for minerals on Cerro Quilish.
The mountain remains in the mine's concession area. Many of the Quechua-speaking indigenous people in the area consider Quilish their apu, a mountain spirit, and a sacred place. "When the clouds gather above Quilish, we know it will rain," says Nelida Chilon, a 24-year old from Bajo Porcón, midway between the city and the mountain. "We want to protect Quilish, our source of water. The [mining] engineers tell us there is water, and no pollution, but we know the land does not produce as it used to, and there is less water than ever."
Local governments representing communities opposed to mining on Quilish also adopted laws to designate it a protected natural area. Other communities where the mine intends to expand have taken similar measures. Oxfam America's partner GRUFIDES is supporting efforts by local communities to protect their land, and provides training and other support to local people eager to learn about and defend their human rights and protect their water sources. With help from Oxfam America, GRUFIDES is also working with the regional government's environmental management agency to create a land use plan that would clearly designate areas for agriculture, human settlement, mining, and other activities.
Minera Yanacocha is disputing 12 local ordinances that prohibit mining, and plans to expand mining exploitation to these and other areas, including La Zanja, where one person was killed by police during a demonstration in 2004. The environmentally fragile high altitude wetlands of El Solitario, where there are 240 ponds and lakes, is another area of proposed expansion.
Minera Yanacocha is claiming jurisdiction in Lima where the company is officially located and where judges are not familiar with these local areas. Communities are hard pressed to be properly represented in the proceedings due to costs and distance (375 miles). "With that kind of trial you know who is going to win," says Marco Arana, one of the founders of GRUFIDES, Oxfam America's partner in Cajamarca. He added that when legal and institutional roads are closed to citizens, it leads to confrontation, and "adds to the social exclusion and asymmetry of power in Peru."
Oxfam America is supporting the work of GRUFIDES to help local communities defend their rights and create an appropriate land use plan for the region. Oxfam is calling on Minera Yanacocha to:
CEJIS went on to say that the attack was similar to others inflicted recently on four other civil society organizations in the area, all of which have been working in the region for many years in defense of the rights of indigenous peoples and peasant communities in Santa Cruz.
Oxfam America's South America regional office expressed concern and sympathy regarding the attack. "CEJIS has been working with Oxfam America in Bolivia for several years now," declared Raul Ho, Oxfam America's coordinator for sustainable livelihoods and environmental programs. "CEJIS has played a key role in obtaining land titling for the Chiquitano indigenous peoples," said Ho.
CEJIS has 30 years of experience working on the deepening of democracy, social justice, human rights, and the democratic freedoms of indigenous people, peasants, and civil society. The organization reaffirmed its commitment to continue working on development of the region and throughout Bolivia despite such attacks and intimidation. This is the second firebomb attack on CEJIS' office since November 2007.
This attack occurred two days before an indigenous peoples' celebration of the historic March for Territory and Dignity held in Beni on August 15, 1990. This march marked an opening of the pathway to justice and equality, as new agrarian reform laws have allowed the Chiquitano people of Santa Cruz and other indigenous groups to claim their right to communal lands in Bolivia.
"Oxfam America expresses its solidarity with CEJIS" added Raul Ho, "and conveys its concern in regards to acts of violence and disrespect for this social organization and its headquarters. We also trust that the authorities will prosecute and punish those responsible as required under Bolivian law," he said.
]]>Paso suspected the reason for this neglect, and it became clear when one health official told Paso that he was not fit to wash dishes in their office because he was an indigenous Quechua speaker, an ethnic group at the bottom of the social order in the scenic region of Cusco. Paso was so discouraged that he almost believed him.
"I was lost," says Paso, now 37, married, and the father of three young boys. "I did not know what culture I belonged to."
Racism, and the discrimination it breeds, erodes the self-respect of the highland indigenous people of Peru. They turn away from their culture and slowly drop their traditional ways of living and working that are so well suited to the Andes. As a result, indigenous people are among the poorest in the country. Paso could see it around his village: farmers like him were not following their traditions of helping each other in their fields; they were poor and ashamed of their culture.
To get some perspective, Paso visited the Centro de Bartolomé de Las Casas, known by its initials CBC, because he had heard on the radio that it was running a bilingual education program designed to help indigenous leaders like him reconcile their place in Peru, learn about their human rights, and develop skills to represent their community with government officials. He joined the program and began learning to read and write in his own Quechua language as well as in Spanish, and he is now more confident in his ability to function in his own indigenous world and the official, Spanish-speaking culture of Peru.
With grants from Oxfam America, CBC had just finished a year-long consultation with Quechua-speaking community leaders and had jointly developed a curriculum designed to help young leaders value their own culture while operating in Peru's modern, post-colonial culture. "We have created a way to help people see they are part of one culture, but they recognize the other," says Nicolette Velarde, an anthropologist at CBC. She says this helps the community leaders create a "dialogue of respect and recognition of one culture with the other."
"Both are valuable," Velarde says. "I am different from you, you are different from me, but there is dialogue and respect."
After developing the curriculum, CBC is now in the midst of training its first group of leaders, which included Paso and 30 others from Cusco and Apurimac.
One of them is Guillermina Mamani Huamán, 53, a mother of four and grandmother of seven. She had a similar experience to Paso's the first time she visited the city of Cusco, 15 years ago. "It was the first time I ever left my village ... Every time I think of it I get emotional," she says, sitting at her loom, staked out on the ground on the banks of the Mapuche River rushing past her father and sister's house.
Huamán went to Cusco to ask a government agency for help in marketing artisan products, but, over the course of four days, she was repeatedly denied the courtesy of even a short consultation. She struggled to find her way in the city, unable to read the street signs, frustrated by her illiteracy, and discouraged by her confrontation with institutionalized racism.
Indigenous women get little help from government agencies whose mission is to assist them. And indigenous women have special problems, even within their own culture, in that men do not always respect the work they do in their homes, and artisan women find that their handicrafts do not fetch a very high price. Huamán intends to learn how to better promote indigenous artisanry and build respect for the work of women. "We need to value fairly what we produce," she says. "This traditional way of weaving is the fruit of our culture, and every weaving has its own character—each woman puts in the way she sees the world."
Paso and Huamán and all the other leaders are planning how they will use their newfound knowledge and leadership skills. Paso is planning to run for public office so he can better represent his community and ensure it gets the schools, health care, and clean water it deserves, without forsaking its cultural identity.
Huamán wants to continue her work to promote the handicrafts produced by women in her community so that they can be more financially independent. "I want to help women educate their children," she says while weaving next to the rushing river, "so they can read and write, and not face the discrimination that I have."
]]>"In the past, indigenous people, especially those from the lowlands in Bolivia, lived in [conditions of] slavery, without any knowledge of their rights. This was mostly in the era of the rubber boom, when their ancestral lands were taken from them and they were forced to work in the rubber fields. Later on, during the era of the creation of large ranch estates, or haciendas, they also worked 14-plus-hour days, were whipped, and died trying to escape. Some of them were able to escape and hide out in inhospitable lands with little water. But in these places they were able to maintain their culture, like in the case of the Chiquitanos of Lomerio.
"The law in Bolivia, as well as the constitution, didn't recognize their rights. For example: The Agrarian Reform law of 1953 referred to them as forest people living like savages and required them to have a legal guardian in order to gain access to land. The concept of indigenous identity was totally unrecognized. The state, which was motivated by mono-cultural, integrationist, and colonialist ambitions, failed to recognize the indigenous people. To gain access to lands they were required to form a peasant union. Then they could get individual parcels of land of 50 hectares (about 124 acres) per family, which ignored the collective vision of land tenure of the indigenous people. Up until the 1980s, indigenous people were prohibited from walking on the sidewalks. They were referred to by the derogatory term, paicos.
"So they decided to organize themselves as an indigenous community starting in 1985, to demand their rights. Foremost were the right to dignity, and the right to their land. That was fundamental to them—as they said, 'without land there is no life.' They said that their land was the key to life for the indigenous people, and that it would allow them to recuperate and once again value their cultural identity. In 1990 the indigenous movement convened an historic march in Bolivia, called the First Indigenous March for Land and Dignity. This marked the movement's emergence from the underground, to make its demands known. And the Chiquitanos participated in this.
"The Chiquitano people have consolidated their territory, and have gone from being excluded by the state to being recognized by it. Now the local authorities treat them equally. There is still some discrimination, but now indigenous people occupy local positions of power. Never before were there indigenous mayors; now there are. There are senators, representatives in the constitutional assembly, and congressional representatives. It's not enough, but there has been some progress. For example, in the constitutional assembly there are four indigenous members, two of whom are Chiquitanos. There is more work to be done, but now the lowland indigenous people are represented. That, along with the consolidation of their territory, gives them more security; they can access more local power and exercise their rights.
"In 1889, indigenous people from all over the country were taken to work on rubber plantations. The Tacana Indians were taken from north of La Paz to the rubber forests. And here in Santa Cruz the indigenous people were captured and taken. They tell stories of how they'd be invited to big parties, where they'd be given alcohol and told that they should go work the rubber, that there was a boom and that they'd be paid well. Some accepted and went. Others went as indentured workers. On their way to the barracks they weren't given anything to eat, some even died in jaguar attacks.
"Men and women worked there, some as young as 12. They tell stories of how they were forced into couples to have children to satisfy the need for workers. They were given one piece of clothing to use year round and they worked all day long. If they didn't come back with what the boss had ordered they would be whipped by the foreman. Many died trying to escape. There is one place everyone calls 'the tragedy,' because an entire family of indigenous people who attempted to escape was killed there.
"After the rubber boom in the late 19th and early 20th century, the estates, known as haciendas, became the new development model in the country. But they were very traditional, feudal style haciendas, where everyone worked for the owner. They produced sugar cane and yucca, which was taken from the communities and sent to Santa Cruz to be sold on the national market. Indigenous people worked 15-, 16-hour days, they were whipped, and there was forced labor. There was also indentured servitude in which you were hired and your basic needs were provided for. They gave you clothes and you could have dried meat, lard, and salt. They wrote down in a book everything you took and at the end of the year the owner balanced the books. Many couldn't read or write, but they were told, for example, 'your work has earned you 100 pesos, but you spent 200 pesos at the company store and so you owe me 100 pesos.' So they'd have to stay and work another year for free—you'd never work off your debts.
"When the Agrarian Reform Law was passed in 1953, stating that land belonged to the people who worked on it, there was an article of the law that was very important to the indigenous people: It prohibited forced labor and slavery. In the western highlands the indigenous people took over the haciendas and the law was applied quickly. But in the eastern lowlands it was a long time before the law was applied. It wasn't until 1965 that people started leaving the haciendas and some owners refused to let the workers go saying that they were indebted to them. So the government had to intervene and it wasn't until nearly 1970 that they were able to form new communities and assert their identity."
]]>Given everything this project represents for the government and the mining industry, all the attention is not surprising. This is a huge copper mine that will require an investment of about US$ 1.4 billion and that could export around US$ 1.0 billion a year for the next 20 years. The recent acquisition of close to 90 percent of the shares of the Majaz main company—the English junior miner Monterrico Metals Plc—by the Zijiin Mining Group Ltd. consortium, does nothing but add more weight in the balance for the development of the project, especially now that the Peruvian government wishes to sign a trade agreement with China.
The conflict, nevertheless, did not start this week, and the referendum that intends to collect the opinion of the local population about the continuation of the Majaz mine, is just the latest controversy. There have been a series of problems that have marked the presence of this mining company since it entered the scene in 2001.
From the beginning, the concerns about the environmental impact of this mining project have marked the tone and character of this debate. Located in the Huancabamba mountains, the mining concession area will cover a total of 6,473 hectares (about 18,858 acres) of deserts and cloud forests. The forests act like a sponge, collecting rain water and feeding it into the rivers that flow into the agricultural basins of Chinchipe (in Cajamarca) and Quiroz (in Piura). The communities of Yanta and Segunda y Cajas, under whose territories the copper deposit lies, immediately expressed their worries about the potential destruction of these fragile eco-systems and the effect on their agricultural lands. Soon other peasants and biologists from Piura joined in with concerns about the impact mining would have on the rich biodiversity of the area. The preliminary results of a recent study of the University of Texas made by researchers Kenneth Young, Blanca León and Julio Postigo confirmed their worries, when it found that a mine with an open pit of 1,000 hectares (2,450 acres) would cause alarming degrees of destruction because "it would cut connections among eco-systems (biological corridors), transcending impacts of local dimensions," and endangering species already threatened like the oso de anteojos or Andean spectacled bear and the altitude tapir. Majaz has not yet presented its Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which makes it difficult to know what plans they have to diminish these potential impacts.
But besides these environmental worries, another social problem that has legal implications must be added: Majaz never obtained the communities consent, required by law, to start the explorations in their territories. As it has been confirmed by the report N° 001-2006/ASPMA-MA of the Peruvian Ombudsman, the firm has not obtained the authorization of two thirds of the members of the communities found in the mining concession area. Recently, Andrew Bristow, operations manager for Majaz mine, has admitted that even if the firm had a document signed by leaders of both communities in 2002 authorizing the exploration activities, Majaz did not comply with the above mentioned legal requirement. It is not surprising then that the firm, after six years operating in the zone, has not obtained the social license required to operate a mine project. This fact was recognized even by Bristow, who has declared that the Río Blanco mining project "could be delayed if a social agreement with the communities where it operates is not obtained."
The social conflict reached its most critical moments in 2004 and 2005, when two demonstrations of thousands of community members coming from several miles around confronted police forces. Several peasants were injured in violent confrontations—some of them severely. Two died and more than 200 had lawsuits brought against them for taking part in the protests.
A few days from the referendum, hostilities have started again. "The referendum is being politically manipulated. "...mayors from outside of Piura and international NGOs are involved," declared Bristow. And the government, which in almost all other similar social conflicts has supported the mining investors, has ignored communities concerns. The Prime Minister Jorge Del Castillo, who traveled to Piura on Monday September 3rd with Monsignor Luis Bambarén, bishop of nearby Chimbote, said that "a referendum cannot be used to veto an economic activity...because natural resources are the property of all Peruvians and do not belong to a district, community, or province." The minister of Energy and Mining, Juan Valdivia, said that "the interests of other countries are behind these entities [NGOs] that intend to delay the country's development." On the same note, the National Jury of Elections (JNE) has delcared this referendum illegal, and that it will start the legal actions against those who should be held responsible for "acts against the legal order."
The Ombudsman office and the National Council for Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice have expressed a different opinion, recognizing this is not an illegal procedure. The Ombudsman in particular said that these kinds of mechanisms are useful if they are oriented to "start processes that will build consensus which enrich the decisions of the state authorities."
Answering the JNE statements, the mayors of the zone have said that they are holding the referendum because the government will not engage in a dialogue with them. According to Javier Jahncke, from the Technical Table for the support of Majaz, "since January 2006 there were several initiatives for dialogue, but this year, with the authorities of the new government, it definitely stopped. That is why this referendum was conceived."
At the time of this report, the mayors of Carmen de la Frontera, Ayabaca, and Pacaipampa are determine to hold the referendum in their towns and reestablish some type of dialogue afterwards. The mining company has reiterated that the offer they made last August 15th of giving US$ 80 million as a fund for social projects and infrastructure in the communities, "is still standing." Prime Minister Del Castillo expressed his wish to build bridges when he declared in a press conference that the president of Zijin "has no intention of exploiting the mineral resources in the zone if they do not reach an agreement with the population."
Being so close to the referendum, the political and media pressure on the organizers will be, no doubt, very strong during these days. Above all, it is expected that the action will take place in calm and with transparency.
From a legal point of view, the most important aspect of the conflict between Minera Majaz and the communities is the lack of consent from the communities, required by law, authorizing mining explorations in their territories. In its report N° 001-2006/ASPMA-MA, released in November 2006, the Peruvian Ombudsman declares that the Law of Peasant and Native Communities states that all use of lands for mining activities, including exploration, must have the authorization of the communities who own the surface property, granted in general assembly and registered in an act signed but two thirds of the accredited members. If the community authorization is not obtained, the firm must wait until the state carries out a "serving procedure," in which the government of Peru gives the authorization and pays compensation to the community. According to the Ombudsman, this legal requirement has not been completed, because Majaz has not obtained the authorization of two thirds of the members of the communities over whose territories the concession is located.
As for the legal status of the referendum, the Nacional Jury of Elections (JNE), in a communiqué dated August 15th, stated that the referendum has no official character, and is also illegal because "no person, sector of the population, or organization, including a city hall, can arrogate the exercise of exclusive and non transferable faculties that constitutionally belong to the electoral bodies."
The Peruvian Ombudsman has declared that, even though these mechanisms do not have legal implications, meaning that the State is not forced to accept its results, the referendum is allowed under constitutional law and is not illegal.
Anthony Bebbington, an academic from the Environmental and Development School of the University of Manchester and main author of the study "Mining and development in Peru, with special reference to the Río Blanco Project, Piura,"" has observed that the deep discrepancy among the central government and the local authorities about which are the adequate ways to solve the conflict could be a sign that the democratic practice is failing. As Bebbington says, "it seems that there are no institutions that permit a point of a balance among local wishes and concerns, on the one side, and national wishes and concerns, on the other."
]]>The proposed mining project has caused social conflict in this area of Peru. The problems started when the communities denied the company their authorization for the use of their lands, which the firm needs under Peruvian Law No. 26505. The Peruvian Ombudsman office verified this, and communicated the decision to the Ministry of Energy and Mining, which disregarded it. After that there have been several violent conflicts between the security forces hired by the company and community members, two of whom died.
In recent weeks, the Zijin consortium has offered $40 million to the community of Yanta, and the same amount to the community of Segunda y Cajas, to be paid over the duration of the mining project. The latter community held an assembly and decided not to accept this proposal, which conditioned the disbursement to the approval of the mining project. The former will decide in the following days.
"This plebiscite is taking place because the population has asked for it," said Fernando Romero of Oxfam International. "The citizens of this zone want to express their opinion about an activity that would profoundly affect their lives. This action respects the right to express one's opinion, a very fundamental right," he added. "Oxfam International decided to support the referendum because it is a legal mechanism that does not pretend to go further than what the law recognizes as a matter for local governments, as it has no legal implications. We think it is crucial to collect the communities' opinion and establish a dialogue between the authorities, firms, and civil society." Romero emphasized that, according to Oxfam's experience, only by listening to the population can social conflicts be mitigated.
In the last few days some Peruvian authorities have publicly criticized the referendum. The National Election Board, the body that regulates elections, has declared it an illegal activity because local authorities are not supposed to hold referenda in which citizens decide about extractive industries. The Ministry of Energy and Mining has said that local authorities cannot make declarations on a national issue. President Alan García and the Prime Minister Jorge Del Castillo have publicly opposed the referendum.
Nevertheless, the office of the Peruvian Ombudsman has declared that the referendum is not an illegal activity because it is within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. The Ministry of Justice has made similar statements. The organizers have stated that the referendum lies within the responsibility of the local government, and that it is meant to reflect public opinion, which they want the authorities to consider when it is time to make decisions.
"We make a public call for this activity to be held in peace, for the different points of view to be heard, and for the authorities to give the necessary help and make sure there is adequate security for everyone," said Romero. "Oxfam is opposed to any type of violence or coercion and supports freedom of expression and participation for everyone involved. We expect this opportunity will be used to hear the population's opinion and find the best solution for the social conflict that has been brewing. The communities of these three districts have sought a way to express themselves in a peaceful way, and this is a will and a right that should be respected."
]]>Oxfam America and Peru's National Human Rights Coordinating Body are both publicly denouncing these threats and expressing concerns about the safety of the individuals being intimidated. Oxfam America calls on the legal authorities to protect these individuals, and investigate the death threats and attacks.
Javier Jahncke is the coordinator of a technical support team that advises communities affected by the Rio Blanco mining project in the Huancabamba and Ayabaca provinces of the department of Piura. Jahncke is also a member of FEDEPAZ, one of Oxfam America's partners, as well as the Muqui Network, which is an association of national and local organizations working on the environmental and social effects of mining.
The Rio Blanco Project is run by the Majaz Mining company, an affiliate of the British Monterrico Metals company. Critics of the Rio Blanco project contend that mining could transform an environmentally fragile area of cloud forests and high plains into a mining district that will degrade natural resources and pollute the Piura and Chinchipe rivers. (The Chinchipe is part of the Amazon Basin.) Peru's Public Defender office (a government ombudsman agency that protects the rights of citizens) has said that the mining company started the mining exploration project without the approval of the communities, as required by law.
Civil society groups including the Front for the Sustainable Development of the Peruvian Northern Border have proposed community consultations so that people can express agreement or disagreement with mining activities on their lands. The Front is formed by representatives of farming communities, social organizations, the mayors of the Provinces of Ayabaca and Huancabamba, in Piura, and of Jaén and San Ignacio, in Cajamarca. Javier Jahncke is member of the technical team that advises the Front.
FEDEPAZ has for several years assisted the communities of Ayacaba and Huancabamba in filing claims of illegal land seizure by the Majaz Mining Company.
The death threat against Jahncke is the latest in a series of threats and attacks against community rights advocates in Peru:
In December 2006, Father Marco Arana of the GRUFIDES organization in Cajamarca was being followed, threatened, and intimidated in retaliation for his work advocating for the rights of communities affected by mining.
In February 2007, a man driving a car shot at, but did not hit, Nicanor Alvarado, coordinator of the Environmental Apostolic Vicarage of Jaen, a member of the Muqui Network.
Oxfam America has joined with Peru's National Human Rights Coordinating Body (Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos del Perú) in expressing concern for the safety of environmental and community advocates, and calls on all sides of conflicts related to mining projects to resolve them through dialogue and other non-violent means.
]]>These were the questions taken up by the Organization of American States' Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a special session to discuss "Human Rights Violations and the Responsibility of International Financial Institutions."
Financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank loan huge sums to governments and companies in Latin America. In 2006 it provided more than $6 billion for 112 projects. World Bank lending in the region was more than $5 billion in 2005. Yet despite the power to affect the lives of millions across the region, these bodies have always claimed they are not bound by international human rights law.
"This was the first time the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held a hearing on this topic, and they seemed quite enthusiastic about becoming more engaged on the issue," said Ian Gary, Oxfam America's policy advisor on extractive industries. He delivered remarks specifically on the $1.7 billion Camisea gas pipeline in Peru, which benefited from $135 million in financial support from the Inter-American Development Bank. Broader legal arguments regarding the need for international financial institutions to comply with human rights norms in their projects were made by representatives of the Indian Law Resource Center and the Center on International Environmental Law.
Critics of the pipeline charge that it runs through national parks and environmentally sensitive areas of Peru without the proper consultation of indigenous communities living there, a violation of the International Labour Organization's Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries. The five spills since the pipeline was completed in 2004 have affected the right to a livelihood of indigenous communities – communities say project impacts have contributed to a decline in fish stocks and access to wild game.. A delegation of NGO representatives led by Oxfam America visiting the pipeline area in 2006 were told by local groups that little of the gas royalties given to local government had been used for social programs, such as schools or health clinics, to help the indigenous people in the area.
"This hearing was an important first step to bring public agencies like the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank within a system of accountability to address human rights abuses," Gary said. "Our prospects for sustainable reforms are greatly enhanced when we support local partners to defend their rights and, at the same time, make these arguments in important venues such as this."
Oral Presentation by Ian Gary, Policy Advisor for Extractive Industries, Oxfam America, March 1, 2007
Indigenous groups, Peruvian and international environmental and human rights NGOs expressed serious concerns about the project prior to the IDB's decision to co-finance the project. Unfortunately, many of the concerns related to the rights of indigenous peoples and environmental damage have been borne out.
A woman in her 30s looked up from the floor, directed her gaze at me, and spoke. "Señorita," she began respectfully, yet ready to speak her part. "These projects you have helped us with are good. We are growing fish, and our gardens are healthy. But, a real concern to me is education. After completing the 6th grade here in the community, where will my children go to study?" She explained that she does not want to send them away to boarding school, but that she wants them to be educated "so that they know who they are, and what they can do." She proceeded to ask us to help them build a school.
This is a big request. I had to explain that Oxfam is not in a position to build schools in every rural Amazonian village. And once built, they need to be staffed with properly paid teachers. Schools also need books, desks, chalkboards, qualified teachers and to be maintained—every year. Funding a school from outside the community can be risky. A well-meaning donor could cover some construction and other costs. But as the years go by, if there is no viable local structure to foster education, who will be responsible for the school?
However, I continued, the people of Sensa have a basic right to quality education for their children, and we would consider supporting their efforts to claim that right in collaboration with the communities farther down the river. This would involve organizing these communities, and forming allies with others outside the Urubamba river valley. In this way they could reach out to the local and national government, who are responsible for education, and advocate for decent schools that will endure.
The contrast between the poorest indigenous people in Peru and the fantastic wealth in timber, gas, and minerals coming from their lands is stark. While the local government builds fancy offices for itself down the river in Echarate with oil and gas money, villages like Sensa, where the resources are extracted, have no electricity, telephones, or health clinic.
The indigenous people in these villages do not always understand their rights to a fair portion of these revenues in the form of basic services like health care and education. And if they do, they may not have the means to verify that they are getting their fair share. They usually lack the skills and political connections to hold accountable a government that has never shown it is open to the concerns of its native peoples.
"You do not want to be beggars, saying 'We are poor, give us money. Take care of us,'" said my colleague Igidio Naveda, himself an indigenous person from the Andes of Peru and a passionate, highly experienced program officer.
"No—you are indigenous people," he continued. "You have your culture, your traditions; you love your land. You have rights and need to demand them and ensure that they are met. And your lands: these are your home. Would you walk into someone else's home and take their things, leave a mess, disrespect the place? You should demand that the loggers in the area, the gas companies, the government workers respect your rights, and knock at the door before coming in. You need to lay out the rules and make them follow them."
Heads were nodding and people began to speak to one another in their Yine language. The group became animated, some laughing, others speaking intensely, gesturing as they sat at the wooden tables.
We concluded the meeting soon thereafter, inviting a new and more ambitious funding proposal from them, developed together with the chiefs of the other three nearby communities that had participated in the current project. A proposal like this would show that the community is moving to the next level of organization: The villagers will need to coordinate the project with other communities, and create effective ways to encourage the local government to meet its obligations. They will also have to address the illegal logging and other threats to the environment coming from outside the community.
From my perspective, last year's project was a success. It helped indigenous communities manage their local biodiversity and begin to increase their food supply. That, in turn, served as a catalyst for them to become organized and collectively determine their priorities. This greatly strengthens their control over local development efforts, and increases the likelihood that new projects they pursue will succeed.
Although they may lack the advocacy skills needed to get the government to meet its obligations to educate their children immediately, we know the right organizations that can train them. Once people know their rights and are educated, they are better able to hold their leaders accountable. This knowledge and sense of empowerment can never be taken away. It is one of the best investments you can make, because it helps people learn to solve their own problems—they create a vision for the type of future they want for their village, set their own priorities, and make sure that they are met.
Hoping to reach the next community before dark, we excused ourselves from the welcoming community of Sensa, slipping down the muddy river banks to our canoe, with children trailing us on all sides, teasing each other and, laughing, no doubt at the spectacle of the four outsiders that had come to visit. The sun had moved sideways along the river and the tree tops were shining with a golden light. As the first mosquitoes of the evening reached us in our boat, we pushed off and continued downstream, eager to see what the next community had to say.
]]>On December 15th, a delegation of Chiquitano people engaged in a protest on a main road in the area was attacked by an unknown number of people traveling to a meeting in buses. When the bus passengers encountered a road block created by the protestors they attacked them with sticks, stones and some small arms. Fifty people were injured as the indigenous people attempted to defend themselves.
That same day, the offices of indigenous organizations in the towns of Concepcion and San Javier were attacked, and several of their leaders received death threats, causing them to flee their homes. The Indigenous Central Committee of Concepcion said in a press release that 100 people attacked and destroyed the office shared by several indigenous groups there, destroying computers, cameras and other electronics, office furniture, and two motorcycles before burning the office and all files. No one from the indigenous organizations was injured in this attack.
Details of these attacks were released by the Indigenous Central Committee and the Coordinator of Ethnic People of Santa Cruz (CPESC), the Organization of Chiquitano Indigenous People (OICH), and three other organizations. The indigenous groups denounced the organizers of the attacks, mostly political and business leaders from the area objecting to the work of indigenous people's organizations to gain legal title to their ancestral lands.
Oxfam America funds the work of the OICH and CPESC groups, which are organizing the legal titling of indigenous lands in the Monte Verde region of eastern Bolivia and promoting the human rights of the indigenous peoples there.
This recent wave of well coordinated attacks on indigenous people in eastern Bolivia is just one in a series over the last several years. Bolivia has seen immense disparities between the indigenous majority (close to 80 percent of the population) and tiny elite that controls most of the natural and other resources of the country. The status quo seems likely to change under the current presidency of Evo Morales, who has demonstrated sympathies with the indigenous majority. In the first few months of his administration, he has nationalized the oil and gas industry, removed several obstacles that had slowed down indigenous land claims for decades, and agreed to re-examine fundamental clauses in the national constitution with a particular eye to the way that resources are shared across the population.
"These actions show a complete lack of respect for the human rights of indigenous people," said Gonzalo Delgado, director of Oxfam America's program in South America. "We express our solidarity with our partners in Bolivia, and hope that those responsible for these attacks will be brought to justice."
]]>Also in this issue, working together to save the family farm, the power of reading empowers women in The Gambia, and updates on Oxfam's work in Bolivia and in eastern and southern Africa.
]]>