https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-8784
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article explores the role of ILO Convention 169 in two cases in the context of the development of lithium mining projects in Argentina. The cases serve to illustrate the implementation challenges arising from the Convention obligations on environmental impact assessment, free prior informed consent and benefit-sharing for the protection of indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over natural resources pertaining to their lands. The cases also point to areas where improvements in implementation are needed in light of indigenous peoples’ demands that are reflected in international guidance on human rights and the environment.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to the many local community members and others that took part in the research initiatives that inform this work. Any mistakes or misrepresentations remain our own. Thanks also to the editors of this special issue and reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this work. The article draws on research carried out under the BeneLex project (Benefit-sharing for an equitable transition to the green economy – the role of law) funded by the European Research Council (grant 335592).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Pia Marchegiani is a PhD Candidate at the Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO-Argentina) and Environmental Policy Director at FARN (Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). She lectures at FLACSO (Global Studies Programme) and at the University of Buenos Aires Law School (Environmental Law Legal Clinic). She researches on environmental and social dimensions of lithium mining in Argentina.
Elisa Morgera is Professor of Global Environmental Law at Strathclyde University Law School, Glasgow, UK. She was the Principal Investigator of the BENELEX project on fair and equitable benefit-sharing (2013–2018).
Louisa Parks is Associate Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Trento's School of International Studies and Department of Sociology and Social Research. A research fellow on the BENELEX project on fair and equitable benefit-sharing (2013–2018), her book Benefit-sharing in Environmental Governance: Local Experiences of a Global Concept based on findings from the project will shortly be published by Routledge in open access.
ORCID
Elisa Morgera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-8784
Notes
1 International Labour Organization (ILO), Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 28 ILM 1382 (1989), Article 15.
2 Ibid., Articles 7(3), 5–6, 7(4).
3 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 28 November 2007; Elisa Morgera, ‘Reflection on 2016 UN Biodiversity Conference (Part II): assessing the Mo’otz kuxtal guidelines on benefit-sharing from the use of traditional knowledge’, BENELEX blog post (2017), https://benelexblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/reflections-on-2016-un-biodiversity-conference-part-ii-assessing-the-mootz-kuxtal-guidelines-on-benefit-sharing-from-the-use-of-traditional-knowledge/ (accessed January 9, 2019).
4 Gaetano Pentassuglia, ‘Indigenous Groups and the Developing Jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Some Reflections’, UCL Human Rights Review 3 (2010): 150–63, 158; African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights v The Republic of Kenya, African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights App. No 006/2012, Judgement, 26 May 2017, para. 191.
5 James Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Progress Report on Extractive Industries, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/47 (2012), paras. 52, 62; UN Expert Mechanism, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights, Setting a Framework for Consultation, Benefit-Sharing and Dispute Resolution, UN Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2009/5 (2008); UN Expert Mechanism, Follow-up Report on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-making, with a Focus on Extractive Industries, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/55 (2012), para. 40; John Knox, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights and the Environment John Knox: Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, UN Doc A/HRC/34/49 (2017), principle 15.
6 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, paras. 93–5; Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 25 November 2015, para. 124; Mattias Århén, Indigenous Peoples in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 93.
7 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname; James Anaya, Report on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/37/ (2010), paras. 257–67. See also James Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur Anaya to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/71/99 (2016), paras. 74 and 80, which does not refer to benefit-sharing as such, but to partnership building.
8 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, paras. 122–3; Patrick Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 282.
9 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, paras. 155–8; Stefania Errico, ‘The Controversial Issue of Natural Resources: Balancing States’ Sovereignty with Indigenous Peoples’ Rights’, in Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, eds. Stephen Allen and Alexandra Xanthaki (Oxford: Hard Publishing Ltd, 2011), 329–66.
10 Implementation gaps can be identified both in the implementation of international agreements and in the fulfilment of national legislation.
11 National Constitution of Argentina, Article 41: ‘All inhabitants enjoy the right to a healthful, balanced environment fit for human development, so that productive activities satisfy current needs without compromising those of future generations, and have the duty to preserve the environment … ’.
12 National Constitution of Argentina, Article 75, point 17: ‘To recognize the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of indigenous peoples of Argentina’.
13 Argentina General Environmental Protection Law (‘Ley General del Ambiente’) No. 25.675 (2002), Articles 11–13.
14 See Pía Marchegiani, Jasmin Höglund Hellgren and Leandro Gómez, Lithium Extraction in Argentina: A Case Study on its Social and Environmental Impacts (Buenos Aires: Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2018), https://goodelectronics.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/DOC_LITHIUM_ENGLISH.pdf (accessed July 25, 2019).
15 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 41; Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgement (Merits and reparations), 27 June 2012, para. 206; Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), para. 215.
16 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 12 August 2008, para. 41 and fn 23, which appears confirmed in Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Concluding Observations on the Combined Thirteenth to Fifteenth Periodic Reports of Suriname, UN Doc. CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-15 (2015), para. 26. See also Anaya, Report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, para. 73, and UN Expert Mechanism, Progress Report on the Study on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-making, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/35 (2010), para. 37.
17 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Regarding Developments to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities, CBD Decision VII/16 F (2004), https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-en.pdf (accessed January 8, 2019); Elisa Morgera, ‘Dawn of a New Day? The Evolving Relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and International Human Rights Law’, Wake Forest Law Review 54 (2018): 101–21.
18 This is also due to the fact that Law No. 26160 prevented land evictions during the process of land identification and title granting. Thus, the rules on land title transfers were extended for 5 years in 2009 to allow for a technical legal survey. In 2013, these rules were again prorogated until the end of 2017.
19 Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Progress Report on Extractive Industries, 11.
20 Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 300; Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, para. 214; CERD, para. 26.
21 Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, paras. 18, 64–6 and 70.
22 Argentinean Mining Code, Article 213.
23 ILO, Monitoring Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights through ILO Conventions: A Compilation of ILO Supervisory Bodies’ Comments 2009–2010 (Geneva: ILO, 2010), 95; ILO, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights in Practice: A Guide to ILO Convention No 169 (Geneva: ILO, 2009), 107–8.
24 ILO, Report of the Committee Set Up to Examine the Representation Alleging Non-Observance by Ecuador of ILO Convention No. 169, Doc. GB.282/14/4 (2001), para. 44(3).
25 Anaya, Report on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, para. 80.
26 Rachel Wynberg and Maria Hauck, ‘People, Power and the Coast: Towards an Integrated, Just and Holistic Approach’, in Sharing Benefits from the Coast: Rights, Resources and Livelihoods, eds. Rachel Wynberg and Maria Hauck (Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, 2014), 143–65, 158.
27 Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 186; Jérémie Gilbert and Cathal Doyle, ‘A New Dawn over the Land: Shedding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent’, in Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, eds. Stephen Allen and Alexandra Xanthaki (Oxford: Hard Publishing Ltd, 2011), 289–328.
28 James Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report to the Human Rights Council. Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/41 (2013), para. 75.
29 CBD, Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines, para. 46.
30 Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, paras. 115 and 134.
31 See Marchegiani, Hoglund Hellgren and Gomez for a full discussion.
32 This trend has been reverted and stopped in the context of economic adjustment policies as from 2018.
33 This section draws on Marchegiani, Hoglund Helgren and Gomez, which provides further detail and information.
34 November 2018.
35 M. A. Marazuela and others, ‘Hydrodynamics of Salt Flat Basins: The Salar de Atacama Example’, Science of the Total Environment 651, no. 1 (2018): 668–83.
36 The Sales de Jujuy project is a joint venture by Orocobre (an Australian mining company), Toyota Tsusho (Japan) and JEMSE. The Minera Exar project is a joint venture by Lithium Americas Corp. and the Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. in which JEMSE also holds a minor share.
37 Todd C. Frankel and Peter Whoriskey, ‘Tossed Aside in the ‘White Gold’ Rush’, Washington Post, December 19, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/tossed-aside-in-the-lithiumrush/?tid=batteriesseriesnav (accessed January 9, 2019).
38 Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 300; see also Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, para. 214; CERD, para. 26.
39 Case of Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 134.
40 CBD, Mo’otz Kutal Voluntary Guidelines for the Developments of Mechanisms, Legislation or Other Appropriate Initiatives to Ensure the ‘Prior and Informed Consent’, ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ or ‘Approval and Involvement’, Depending on National Circumstances, of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities for Accessing their Knowledge, Innovations and Practices Relevant for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, and for Reporting and Preventing Unlawful Appropriation of Traditional Knowledge, CBD decision XIII/18 (2016), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/13/18/6 (accessed January 9, 2019); Morgera, ‘Reflection on 2016 UN Biodiversity Conference (Part II): assessing the Mo’otz kuxtal guidelines on benefit-sharing from the use of traditional knowledge’, BENELEX blog post (2017), https://benelexblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/reflections-on-2016-un-biodiversity-conference-part-ii-assessing-the-mootz-kuxtal-guidelines-on-benefit-sharing-from-the-use-of-traditional-knowledge/ (accessed January 9, 2019).
41 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 25; CBD, Refinement and Elaboration of the Ecosystem Approach, CBD Decision VII/II (2004), Annex I; CBD, Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities Relevant to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, CBD Decision X/42 (2010), https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ethicalconduct-brochure-en.pdf (accessed January 9, 2019), para. 14; United Nations (UN), Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/59 (2018), para. 53.
42 CBD, Refinement and Elaboration of the Ecosystem Approach, paras. 24 and 35.
43 Elisa Morgera, ‘Under the Radar: The Role of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing in Protecting and Realising Human Rights Connected to Natural Resources’, International Journal of Human Rights 23, no. 7 (2019): 1098–139; CBD, Mo’otz Kutal Voluntary guidelines, paras. 6, 8 and 23(a); UN, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007), preambular para. 15; UN Expert Mechanism, Follow-up Report on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-Making, with a Focus on Extractive Industries, Annex, paras. 28 and C.1.b, para.5; James Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report to the Human Rights Council. Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/41 (2013), paras. 75–7 and 92; James Anaya, Report on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, UN doc. A/HRC/12/34 (2009), para. 53; Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Sierra Porto and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, 25 November 2015.
44 Virginia De Francesco, ‘La Argentina Del Litio - La Imperiosa Necesidad de Contar con Informacion Confinable’, in FARN Revista Pulso Ambiental No. 10, No Todo Che Brilla es LITIO (Bueno Aires: FARN, 2018), https://issuu.com/fundacion.farn/docs/revistapulso_n10_06-08_ok (accessed January 8, 2019).
45 James Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/66/288 (2011), para.105.
46 Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report to the Human Rights Council. Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, para. 62.
47 Ibid., paras. 88 and 92; Elisa Morgera, ‘The legacy of UN Special Rapporteur Anaya on Indigenous Peoples and Benefit-Sharing’, BENELEX blog post (2014), https://benelexblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-legacy-of-un-special-rapporteur-anaya-on-indigenous-peoples-and-benefit-sharing/ (accessed January 9, 2019).
48 Three projects are at the exploration stage (one in Laguna de Guayatayoc and two in Salinas Grandes), two at initial exploration stage (both in Salinas Grandes), and three at the prospecting stage (all in Salinas Grandes) (Marchegiani, Hoglund Hellgren and Gomez). The exploration stage triggers an EIA and ensuing FPIC requirements under the General Environmental Law.
49 Eliana Ferradás Abalo, Ana Laura Lobo and Julieta Lucero, Conflicto socioambiental en Salinas Grandes: Neoextractivismo, Resistencias y Nociones de Desarrollo en el Nuevo Escenario Político Regional (Villa María: Universidad Nacional de Villa María, 2016).
50 Ibid.
51 Louisa Parks and Elisa Morgera, ‘The Need for an Inter-Disciplinary Approach to Norm Diffusion: The Case of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing’, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 24, no. 3 (2015): 353–67, 356.
52 CBD, Mo’otz Kutal Voluntary guidelines, para. 19.
53 See Comunidades Indígenas de las Salinas Grandes y Laguna de Guayatayoc de Jujuy y Salta, Procedimiento de Consulta y Consentimiento Previo, Libre e Informado para las Comunidadades Indígenas de la Cuenca de Salinas Grandes y Laguna de Guayatayoc, November 15, 2015, https://cl.boell.org/es/2015/12/15/kachi-yupi (accessed November 20, 2018); Clemente Flores, ‘Entre el Litio y la Vida: Comunidades Originarias y la Lucha por la Conservación del gua y de su Cultura’, in FARN, Informe Ambiental Anual 2017 (Buenos Aires: FARN, 2017).
54 See CBD, Mo’otz Kutal Voluntary guidelines and Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs).
55 Comunidades indígenas de las Salinas Grandes y Laguna de Guayatayoc de Jujuy y Salta, 2, author’s translation.
56 CBD, Mo’otz Kutal Voluntary guidelines.
57 Anaya, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report to the Human Rights Council. Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, para. 76.