![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
In Chile, the indigenous consultation processes being carried out by the Ministry of Energy in the area of geothermal energy refers only to concessions for the exploitation of this energy, excluding those that authorise the activities of exploration. To enforce the former and discard the latter, both the government and the courts focus only on the general rule of consultation given by art 6 of International Labour Organization Convention 169, ignoring the special rule contained in art 15.2. In this context, the present study addresses the situation of concessions for exploration of geothermal energy through an analysis of the special rule, pointing out the differences between this norm and the general rule, and the relevance of the distinction between the two of them, not only to the enforcement of consultation processes, but for the substantive rights of indigenous peoples.
Notes
1 Comunidad Indígena Huenchullan v Ministerio de Energía [2012] Santiago Court of Appeals (SCA), 9431-2012 (Huenchullan).
2 Jorge Bermúdez and Dominique Hervé, ‘La jurisprudencia ambiental reciente: tendencia al reconocimiento de principios y garantismo con los pueblos indígenas’ [2013] Anuario de Derecho Público 237, 252.
3 ILO Convention No 169 (1989), art 15.2: In cases in which the State retains the ownership of mineral or sub-surface resources or rights to other resources pertaining to lands, governments shall establish or maintain procedures through which they shall consult these peoples, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what degree their interests would be prejudiced, before undertaking or permitting any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of such resources pertaining to their lands. The peoples concerned shall wherever possible participate in the benefits of such activities, and shall receive fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of such activities.
4 CEACR, Observation CEACR: Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 – Chile (Ratification: 2008) (Adoption: 2013, Publication: 103rd session CIT 2014) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/es/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3140788 accessed 19 January 2017.
5 Sebastián Donoso, ‘Empresas y comunidades indígenas: el nuevo escenario que plantea el Convenio 169 de la OIT’ [2014] Temas de la Agenda Pública 2, 14.
6 CEACR, Observation CEACR: Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 – Chile (Ratification: 2008) (Adoption: 2012, Publication: 102nd session CIT 2013) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/es/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3058398 accessed 28 January 2017.
7 CEACR, Direct Request CEACR: Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 – Chile (Ratification: 2008) (Adoption: 2013, Publication: 103rd session CIT 2014) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/es/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3140784 accessed 28 January 2017.
8 The CEACR has been repeating since its first assessment of Chile's compliance with the Convention in 2011, that national legislation needs to be modified to ensure compliance with art 15.2. Cf CEACR, Direct Request CEACR: Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 – Chile (Ratification: 2008) (Adoption: 2010, Publication: 100th session CIT 2011) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/es/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:2334939 accessed 8 January 2017. See also, CEACR, Observation CEACR: Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 – Chile (Ratification: 2008) (Adoption: 2016, Publication: 106th session CIT 2017) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/es/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3300880 accessed 10 May 2017.
9 This theory, which can be traced right back to the Message with which the Draft Legislation on the Agreement was introduced into Congress, was enshrined in law in art 5 of DS No 124/2009 and reached its culmination with the equivalence between Consultation and Citizen Environmental Participation (PAC) established by Law No 19.300.
10 Requerimiento presentado por un grupo de Diputados respecto de la inconstitucionalidad del Convenio N° 169, sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes, adoptado por la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, el 27 de junio de 1989 [2000] Constitutional Court of Chile (CCCh) 309-2000 (Requerimiento Convenio 169).
11 Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR), ‘Ruling No 70.292’ (2009). See also Andrés Fernández Alemany and Christian De la Piedra Ravanal, ‘Implementación y evolución de los derechos contenidos en el convenio OIT 169. Aporte de la jurisprudencia y pronóstico de desarrollo futuro de sus implicancias ambientales y regulatorias’ (2011) 121 Estudios Públicos 71, 117–18.
12 Cf Cristóbal Carmona, ‘La aplicación del Derecho a Consulta del Convenio 169 de la OIT en Chile. Hacia una definición de su contenido sustantivo: afectación e instituciones representativas’ (Master thesis, Access Group, 2013) 15, 46–68. See also Álvaro Durán Soto, ‘El derecho a consulta de los pueblos indígenas en el Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental chileno, su estándar a la luz de la jurisprudencia nacional e internacional’ (2014) 2 Revista de Derecho Universidad Finis Terrae 101.
13 Between 2011 and 2012, for example, the National Assets Ministry carried out an ICP prior to putting out to tender the concession for the use of state land for a wind-park in the area of Lasana-Conchi Viejo, on reserved land in Calama Norte, Antofagasta Region.
14 CGR, ‘Ruling N°7.308’ (2016).
15 See CGR, ‘Ruling N°100.973’ (2015), which confirmed CGR, ‘Ruling N° 94.485’ (2014).
16 The processes are open and their state of progress can be seen. Ministry of Energy, ‘Prior Consultation with Indigenous Peoples’ (Ministry of Energy, Government of Chile) www.energia.gob.cl/participa/participacion-y-asuntos accessed 10 May 2017.
17 Dominique Hervé, Justicia Ambiental y Recursos Naturales (Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso 2015) 287.
18 Cf Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, ‘Historia de la Ley N° 20.701, Procedimiento para otorgar concesiones eléctricas’ (BCN, 2013) www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1055073 accessed 20 July 2016.
19 Compañía Minera Cerro Colorado v Fisco de Chile [2016] Supreme Court of Chile (SCCh) case 6.628-15. I am grateful to Álvaro Durán for making me aware of this sentence.
20 On the constitution of mining easements, see Compañía Minera Cerro del Medio v Fisco de Chile [2016] Second Civil Court of Copiapó C-16-2012. In the same sense, but referring to mining concessions, see Comunidad Indígena Ñadi-Newen y otros v Segundo Civil Osorno y otros [2015] Valdivia Court of Appeals (VCA) 1091–2014. I am grateful to Alejandro Navarrete and Elisa Muñoz for making me aware of the first sentence and to Constanza Inostroza for making me aware of the second.
21 For an exhaustive review of the various elements included in the territorial rights of indigenous peoples, see Juan Jorge Faundes, ‘Tendencias y debates en materia de propiedad y derecho al Territorio’ (Colecciones Jurídicas de la Corte Suprema 2016) http://decs.pjud.cl/Documentos/Academicos/Tendencias_Jurisprudenciales_Convenio169.pdf accessed 7 January 2017.
22 Real Academia Española, ‘Diccionario de la Lengua Española’ http://dle.rae.es/?id=UQYkRWb accessed 17 January 2017.
23 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, art 31.1: ‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’
24 ‘Recognizing the aspirations of these peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live.’
25 CEACR, General Observation – Convention on indigenous and tribal peoples, 1989 (no 169) (OIT 2011) www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_305958.pdf accessed 13 November 2016.
26 Human Rights Council (HRC), Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, James Anaya. Las industrias extractivas y los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/24/41 2013) para 67.
27 Caso Comunidad Garífuna de Punta Piedra y sus miembros v Honduras [2015] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) C No 304, paras 215–24.
28 Alonso Barros and Judith Schönsteiner, ‘Diligencia debida: Proyectos de inversión, propiedad sobre los recursos naturales y consulta libre, previa e informada a los pueblos y comunidades indígenas concernidos’ in Tomás Vial (ed), Informe Anual sobre Derechos Humanos en Chile 2014 (Ediciones UDP 2014) 205, 210.
29 Ministry of Energy, Res Ex No 42, 16 November 2015.
30 Cruz Plaza Antonio y otros v Ministerio de Energía [2012] SCA Case 12.533-2012.
31 Cristóbal Carmona, ‘¿Deben ser consultadas las concesiones de exploración de energía geotérmica? susceptibilidad de afectación y territorio’ in Derechos Indígenas desde un enfoque multidisciplinario: Una mirada a los conflictos de la zona centro sur andina. Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional de Derecho Indígena (Universidad de Tarapacá/CONADI 2015) 63.
32 Convention, Considerandum (Co) 4 of the Preamble, art 5.a and art 5.b.
33 Esther Sánchez Botero, ‘Construcciones epistemológicas para el conocimiento de los sistemas de derecho propio y de las justicias indígenas: el caso colombiano’ (1998) 58(1–2) América Indígena 179. For a link with the RPC, see also Ricardo López Vyhmeister and Tania Mohr Aros, ‘Susceptibilidad de afectación directa en la consulta previa del Convenio 169. Análisis de Normas Previstas y de su trato en la Jurisprudencia. ¿Una cuestión de derecho?’ (2014) 27(1) Revista de Derecho Universidad Austral 105, 111.
34 Matías Meza-Lopehandía, ‘El Convenio N°169 sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo’ in José Aylwin (Coord), Matías Meza-Lopehandía and Nancy Yáñez, Los pueblos indígenas y el derecho (LOM 2013) 337, 397.
35 HRC, Informe del Relator Especial sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, James Anaya (A/HRC/21/47, 2012) para 66.
36 Resguardo Indígena Cañamomo Lomaprieta, v Alcaldía Municipal de Riosucio, Caldas [2011] Constitutional Court of Colombia (CCC) T-698/2011 Section II.b.6. See also Pueblo Indígena Motilón Barí v Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia y otros [2006] CCC T-880/2006 and Julio Alberto Torres Torres y otros v Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia y otros [2010] CCC T-547/2010.
37 HRC, Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, James Anaya (A/HRC/12/34, 2009) para 43.
38 Carmona, ‘La aplicación del Derecho a Consulta del Convenio 169 de la OIT en Chile’ (n 12) 78–86. Likewise, Juan Jorge Faundes, ‘La jurisprudencia, su impacto y debates en torno a la aplicación del Convenio N°169 de la OIT y el deber de Consulta’ (2013) 81(233–234) Revista de Derecho Universidad de Concepción 197, 209.
39 Faundes (n 38) 209.
40 Ibid.
41 HRC, Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, James Anaya. Las industrias extractivas y los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/24/41, 2013) paras 12–16.
42 ICHR, Derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales sobre sus tierras ancestrales y recursos naturales. Normas y jurisprudencia del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (OAS/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 56/09, 2010) 93. Indeed, for Anaya, these potential impacts justify not only the applicability of the RPC but also the requirement for the communities’ consent to proceed with these activities: ‘taking into account the invasive nature of the extraction of natural resources on an industrial scale, the enjoyment of these rights is invariably affected in one way or another when extractive activities take place inside indigenous territories; hence the general rule that the consent of the indigenous people is obligatory for extractive activities inside their territories’. HRC, Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, James Anaya. Las industrias extractivas y los pueblos indígenas (A/HRC/24/41, 2013) para 25.
43 Likewise, the IACHR found the effects on the Saramaka people that derived from exploration and exploitation concessions granted by the State of Surinam arose both from the extraction of natural resources that are necessary for the subsistence of the Saramaka people, and from resources like gold, extraction of which – although the Saramaka have no traditional relation with them – would affect other natural resources that are critical for their physical and cultural survival. Pueblo Saramaka v Surinam [2007] IACHR C No 172, paras 144–55.
44 Requerimiento Convenio 169 (n 10) Co 70 and 71.
45 The first two occurred in 2009, with reference to the public call for tenders by the Mining Ministry for a group of 20 concessions, among which was Sollipulli, and was a legal as well as an administrative challenge to this act (cf Remulcao Porma v Ministerio de Minería [2009] SCA 8.304-2.009; Ministry of Mining, Rechaza reclamación y observaciones en contra a la convocatoria a licitación pública para el otorgamiento de la concesión de exploración de energía geotérmica denominada ‘Sollipulli’ (Exempt Decree No 360, 2009)). The next was in 2011, in which a series of administrative oppositions was formulated against a new public tender process (Ministry of Energy, Rechaza oposiciones contra la convocatoria a licitación pública para el otorgamiento de las concesiones de exploración de energía geotérmica ‘Sollipulli’ y ‘Newen’ (Exempt Decree No 362, 2011). The last relates to the judicial challenge against the decree granting the concession in Huenchullan, analysed above.
46 Ministry of Energy, Report to the Court in Comunidad Indígena Huenchullan v Ministerio de Energía (2012).
47 For example, following the reasoning of the CCCh, the Chilean Commission of Copper (COCHILCO) said that, in the mining legislation, there were ‘provisions of greater strength and prescriptive emphasis than those enshrined in ILO Convention 169’ (COCHILCO, Report to the Chamber of Deputies (Of Ord No 36/2015, 2015)). See also, the Council of Defense of the State, Report to the Court in Comunidad Indígena Ñadi-Newen y otros v Segundo Civil Osorno y otros (2014).
48 As Nogueira explains: ‘The legislator refused to give the Constitutional Court the character of “supreme interpreter of the Constitution” or to make its sentences binding on the other State organs, as is made clear in the second report on the amendment act partially analysed in this article’. Humberto Nogueira Alcalá, ‘Las mutaciones de la Constitución producidas por vía interpretativa del Tribunal Constitucional. ¿El Tribunal Constitucional poder constituido o poder constituyente en sesión permanente?’ (2009) 2 Estudios Constitucionales 389, 427. I am grateful to Juan Jorge Faundes and Iván Díaz, both of Universidad Católica de Temuco, for clarifying this point for me.
49 For example, Correa, referring to the CCCh's interpretation of art 7.1 of the Convention, insofar as it modified the Organic Constitutional Law on Regional Government and Administration, shows that ‘this interpretation is not binding either on the National Congress, or on the President of the Republic, or on the Judicial Power. The Constitutional Court lacks institutional mechanisms to impose such an interpretation’. Rodrigo Correa, ‘Informe de Constitucionalidad Convenio 169 sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales en países independientes, de la OIT’ (Comisión de Verdad Histórica y Nuevo Trato 2002) 1, 13.
50 Humberto Nogueira Alcalá, El derecho procesal constitucional y la jurisdicción constitucional en Latinmoamérica y sus evoluciones (Librotecnia 2009) 508.
51 Requerimiento Convenio169 (n 10) Co 7.
52 Ibid, Co 70.
53 Carlos Vázquez, ‘Treaties as Law of the Land: The Supremacy Clause and the Judicial Enforcement of Treaties’ (2008) 122 Harvard Law Review 599, 635.
54 Requerimiento Convenio169 (n 10) Co 7.
55 ‘As may be observed, these causes leave no place for the opposition of rights other than those founded in the better right of the holder of a prior mining concession. The procedure does not contemplate any mechanism for opposing against the concessionaire the better right of an indigenous community to the territory and the natural resources affected by the granting of a mining exploration and/or exploitation concession’. José Aylwin and Nancy Yáñez, ‘Los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en Chile’ in José Aylwin, (Coord), Matías Meza-Lopehandía and Nancy Yáñez, Los pueblos indígenas y el derecho (n 34) 41, 218.
56 Silvia Zorzetto, ‘The Lex Specialis Principle and Its Uses in Legal Argumentation. An Analytical Inquire’ (2013) 3 Eunomía. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad 61, 73.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ricardo Guastini, ‘Antinomias y Lagunas’ in Estudios sobre la interpretación jurídica (UNAM 2000) 72.
61 Cesar Rodríguez Garavito, Etnicidad.gov. Los recursos naturales, los pueblos indígenas y el derecho a la consulta previa en los campos sociales minados (Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad, Dejusticia 2012) 23.
62 Asociacion Indigena Koñintu Lafken-Mapu Penco represen. por Maria Patricia Flores Quilapan y otros v Serv de Evaluacion Ambiental Reg Bio Bio y Comisión de Evaluación Ambiental Reg Bio Bio [2017] SCCh 65.349-2016.
63 See Gastón Gómez Bernales, ‘Jurisprudencia medioambiental: ¿decisionismo o racionalidad pública?’ [2014] Sentencias destacadas 109.
64 See, eg, Comunidad Mapuche sucesión Quiñimil Pirul v Comisión de Evaluación Ambiental VIII Región del Bío-Bío y otros [2016] Third Environmental Court R-31-2016.
65 Rodríguez Garavito (n 61), 56–61.
66 HRC, Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, James Anaya (A/HRC/21/47, 2012) para 48.
67 Alfonso Henríquez Ramírez, ‘Participación indígena: desarrollo y alcance en torno a la participación ambiental’ (2013) 2 Ius et praxis 251, 276.
68 Raquel Yrigoyen, ‘De la tutela indígena a la libre determinación del desarrollo, participación, consulta y consentimiento’ (2009) 40 El Otro Derecho 11, 32.