We have done it with lands. Through international and national laws, we have recognized the ownership rights of the Indigenous Peoples over lands that they have traditionally occupied and used. Then, why not with waters?
There are pressing issues and disputed claims over waters on which the states take precedence over Indigenous Peoples. There are two international documents that deal with these issues, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Just a historical background. After 22 years of deliberation and debate, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the General assembly in 2007. The Declaration presents substantial rights and claims of the Indigenous Peoples who, at times, have been marginalized and excluded from the the schemes of society.
Article 26 of the Declaration states that "1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired; 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired; 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned."
Although it is not explicitly stated, "territories" would encompass waters that are traditionally used for subsistence. It is resoundingly clear in the Declaration that the Indigenous Peoples have rights and claims on waters as much as on lands and resources.
Even neighboring countries that share water territories have been unable to agree on how to manage and oversee the use, development, and conservation of the disputed territories. Examples of these cases are the Spratlys group of islands claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia, and Senkaku/Diaoyutai Island claimed by Japan and China.
How much more if the dispute is between indigenous peoples and a state?
This is the case of the Rotenese of southeastern Indonesia when they contend with Australia their fishing rights on and historical connection with Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands. To highlight this issue, an International Conference on Indigenous Claims on Waters: What Do the Indigenous Convention and International Law Documents Say about this? will be held in The Hague, Netherlands on 18 March 2011. There will also be case presentations of other similar issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
If you or your organization is interested to sponsor this event, please contact Yetty Haning at yetty.haning@timorworldwide.org.
For registration, kindly email info@timorworldwide.org.
Gold, At What Cost?
“We should live here on earth as though we were intending to stay for good.” – 2000: A Better World for All
In 2000, robberies of pawnshops in Naga City cropped up like a booming industry. The crooks might have been disinterested now in robbing banks with the depreciation of peso that is why they shifted to robbing pawnshops. Knowingly, they must have been apprised that the glittering gold never devaluates in the market. It is quite impressive to have spotted that lucrative activity at par with kidnapping, bank robbery, and drug pushing.
The gold per ounce has reached $1,400, an all-time high.
What is it in gold that people desire it so much?
Although I acknowledge its indispensability in the field of sciences, I still wonder how it has dominated our world. People simply become fond of it that they want to accumulate more and more until there is more. Even the crude oil is labeled as “black gold” for its significance in the present living is defined by its universal use and demand. Its exploitation as a resource becomes imperative as long as the host permits so. Hence people from other land come to marked places in search of that precious, special gem.
Historically myriad conflicts erupted due to the insatiable want of possession of gold. But the modern trend of globalization restrains any possibility of that since it makes legal the intrusion of foreign people to exploit the resources of the local people. On the account, our people become poor while living in the midst of abundance made available for them by the ordered creation. It is the strangers from our land that benefit from the blessings above and under us. They take the first bite of the cake while our people just watch waiting for the leftover. Commonly what they give appears like a gift out of their generosity not a settlement of their duty. And sadly our people accept gladly the leftover from the strangers without realizing that they are merely receiving what rightfully belongs to them. It is a plain poetic injustice to our people. And yet on their side are our own people who are supposed and tasked to push for our welfare and rights against these imposing strangers, but they turn their back against their own people since they share a little piece of the cake.
This is the typical picture of the mining industry in our country. With the 1995 Mining Act, the industry has been revived from its moribund state. Coupled with our government’s thrust of globalization vis-à-vis market liberation, the industry is bound to glory days again.
But not too fast, says the environmentalists and other groups who oppose mining in the Philippines
The fight against mining is a universal struggle profiling the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Most of the gold resources around the world are used for jewelry by the affluent and wealthy people. Therefore it caters to the demand of the few and not to the human need. How many mountains and vast of land must we reduce to barrenness just to satisfy the created fashion whims of the few? There is always, I believe, a point of time to realize our damnation, but shall we wait for a messiah to that for us?
Our people’s rise to go against mining is a politically correct decision that we have to support. And in Bicol, let us join the struggle to stop the Rapu-Rapu mining project in Albay, Philippines.
(Click here for a book on mining issues in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. It is entitled, Under-Mining the Power of Commuities: The Politics of Mining and Local Community in the Philippines)
UNDERMINING THE POWER OF COMMUNITIES: THE POLITICS OF MINING AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Oftentimes, local communities feel powerless in the decision-making on issues that matter most to them. It is time to give them back the power they truly deserve and put them at the center of decision-making of these issues.
Environmentally critical projects such as mining remain a controversial and divisive issue in mineral-rich communities all over the world. Arguably, mining projects bring jobs, revenues to local governments, cash income, and various development projects, such as electrification, paved roads, schools with free or subsidized education, chapels, water system, and other livelihood programs. In many instances, these benefits are very enticing and attractive to locals.
However, scientific studies and objective data on mining operations in various communities have found out that mining also brings adverse effects and negative impacts on locals and the environment, such as displacement from homes and traditional livelihoods, dependence on cash income and incursion into their value system leading to consumerism, health problems caused by exposure to toxic materials, siltation of waterways, deforestation, loss of productive land, and pollution of marine environments.
Environmental advocacy campaigns of both pro- and anti-mining communicate these mining benefits and costs to the locals to convince them either to accept the mining project or join the struggle against the mining project. Given these two scenarios, how do locals decide when a mining project is presented in their community? How do they participate in the decision-making that impact on their economic, political and socio-cultural standing? What influences their participation in decision-making and their decision?
The locals of Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay in the Philippines were in that situation in 2001 when a mining project was seeking social acceptability from the local communities. This study revisited their decision and explained why they decided that way. It also took into account the crucial physical, political, economic, and sociocultural contexts of the decision-making of the locals.
Background
Since the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Summit of 1992 on environment and development, “sustainable development” has become the buzzword and rhetoric of development planning and intervention. The basic principle of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, thus improving people’s quality of life. The environment is now given a greater role, consideration, and attention in the development paradigm.
Countries have aligned their development plans with the sustainable development framework. The Philippines is no exception. In fact, the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21), the blueprint guide for sustainable development which resulted from the Summit, articulates this premise, "envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation."
PA 21 had an eminent influence on the national and local policymaking and policy direction initiatives which deal with the conservation and preservation of the environment and country’s quest toward sustainable development. As concrete steps toward that quest, several landmark legislations were enacted into laws such as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, Mining Act of 1995, and Clean Air Act of 1999.
Local communities know their situation well. It is a matter of including them in the decision-making with informed and meaningful participation.
Stop The Runaway Trains And Trucks
 |
| Photo by Stop Nuclear Power Network |
Now, the mode of shipment of those unwanted nuclear waste shifted from train to truck. From the railway depot in Dannenberg, the containers would be carried by trucks to Gorleben, the final destination and permanent storage site of nuclear waste in Germany.
After Chernobyl nuclear disaster, there has been insecurity surrounding nuclear use for energy production. What makes the anti-nuclear protest more compelling is the availability of renewable sources of energy. As most European countries, Germany has both the money and technology to shift from reliance on nuclear energy to renewable sources of energy. Instead, the German government surprised green activists and drew the ire of them by extending the use of power plants to ten more years of operations.
Somewhere we have to stand up if we need to see the change we want to see. And this is what green activists in Germany and elsewhere are doing to press and demand their governments to adopt projects that utilize natural resources such as solar, wind, tides, rain, and other renewable sources of energy.
The developing world looks up to Europe as the model for development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Thus, let us stop the runaway trains and trucks as symbols of old ways that do not tackle climate change head-on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
