A critical evaluation of the domestic standards of the right to prior consultation under the UNDRIP: lessons from the Peruvian case

ABSTRACT

The adoption of the UNDRIP gave new hope to indigenous peoples in constituting a tool to defend their rights when facing major political and economic powers that impose development projects. The right to prior consultation, foreseen by the UNDRIP, implies an intercultural dialogue between the state and indigenous peoples with the objective to achieve their consent. In addition, it empowers them to demand the fulfilment of other rights and to rule their destinies according to their own criteria and priorities of life. Peru is the first Latin American country that approved a legislation focused on the right to prior consultation. This experience is seen as a successful model by its neighbours. However, after the first years of its application, this legislation has started to be under scrutiny. This article analyses the new Peruvian legislation of prior consultation, its congruence with the UNDRIP and its requirement of free, prior and informed consent through the presentation of an emblematic process of consultation on hydrocarbons.

KEYWORDS:

• UNDRIP
• Peru
• prior consultation
• FPIC
• Amazon
• indigenous peoples

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Alexander Michiels and Carolina Sánchez for their comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors are mine.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Amelia Alva-Arévalo, PhD in Law (Ghent University), holds a Law Degree awarded by the National University of San Marcos (Peru) and a Master Degree in Latin-American Studies by the University of Salamanca (Spain). She has done a number of specialisation courses on human rights and indigenous people's rights. She is a member (co-founder) of the Multidisciplinary Network on Indigenous Peoples. Her main interests concern indigenous peoples' rights, extractivism and social movements. Her doctoral research focused on evaluating the national legislation and practice of the right to prior consultation in Peru from an international human rights perspective.

ORCID

Amelia Alva-Arévalo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3228-5405

Notes

1. J. Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Annual Report to the Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, 15 July 2009, ¶ 38.

2. Article 19 establishes that states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. In other cases, the UNDRIP also invokes the application of the right to consultation before taking measures: to combat prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and other segments of society (Article 15(2)); to protect indigenous children from exploitation and possible labour jobs that endanger their physical, mental or moral development (Article 17 (2)); to use indigenous lands or territories for military activities (Article 30); to facilitate the exercise and ensure the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, policical, economic and social purposes with their ownn members as well as other peoples across borders (Article 36); and to achieve the purposes of the UNDRIP (Article 38).

3. As category of soft law can be mentioned, among others, inter-state conference declarations, UN General Assembly resolutions, codes of conduct, guidelines and the recommendations of international organisations. See: M. Barelli, ‘The Role of Soft Law in the International Law System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 58, no. 4, (October 2009): 960.

4. M. Davis, ‘Indigenous Struggles in Standard-setting: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 9 (2008).

5. J. Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Interim Report to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/65/264, 9 August 2010, ¶ 85.

6. The right to consent of indigenous peoples has previously recognised by the Convention concerning the protection and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent countries (ILO Convention N. 107), to protect them from forced removal from their lands and territories (article 12 (1)), and it has been reaffirmed in Article 16 (1) of ILO Convention N. 169.

7. IACtHR (Judgment) Saramaka people v. Suriname, 28 November 2007, ¶ 134.

8. ICHR, Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and natural resources. Norms and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. / Doc. 56/09, 30 December 2009, ¶ 333.

9. Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making. UN Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2, ¶ 88.

10. Anaya, James (Annual Report) UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, 15 July 2009, ¶ 47.

11. The Baguazo refers to the most critical moment of the mobilizations of the indigenous population against the decision of the government to approve, without prior consultation, a package of more than hundred legislative decrees, in order to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. They demanded to repeal these decrees and to be consulted, but the Executive power warned that any modification would violate the Agreement with the United States. Fruitless talks between the Peruvian government and indigenous representatives led to the escalation of the conflict. The result of these events was 33 deaths – i.e. 23 police officers and 10 civilians, including 5 indigenous persons –, 200 wounded, 83 arrested persons, one missing person, and extensive damage to public and private property. See: International Amnesty, Peru: Bagua, six months on (UK, 2009), 12–13; Defensoría del Pueblo, Actuaciones humanitarias realizadas por la Defensoría del Pueblo con ocasión de los hechos ocurridos el 5 de junio de 2009, en las provincias de Utcubamba y Bagua, región Amazonas, en el contexto del paro amazónico, Informe de adjuntía N° 006-2009-DP/ADHPD, Lima, 2009, 3, http://www.defensoria.gob.pe/modules/Downloads/informes/varios/2009/informe-adjuntia-006-2009-DP-DHPD.pdf.

12. J. Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Observaciones sobre la situación de los pueblos indígenas de la Amazonia y los sucesos del 5 de junio y días posteriores en las provincias de Bagua y Utcubamba, Perú, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34/Add.8, 18 August 2009, ¶ 50.

13. See: Constitutional Tribunal, judgment No. 5427-2009-PC/TC, ¶ 47.

14. Ley No. 29785, Ley del Derecho a la Consulta Previa de los Pueblos Indígenas u originarios, reconocido en el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, published 7 September 2011.

15. In 2006, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, had already warned for the existence of an ‘implementation gap’ in the context of constitutional reforms concerning indigenous issues. See: R. Stavenhagen, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/78, 16 February 2006, ¶ 5.

16. Decreto Supremo No. 001-2012-MC, Reglamento de la Ley de Consulta Previa, published 3 April 2012.

17. See: Political Constitution of 1993, Fourth Final and Transitory Provision.

18. R. Stavenhagen, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/78, 16 February 2006, ¶ 21.

19. Source: Directorate of Prior Consultation of the Ministry of Culture of Peru.

20. CooperAccion, Organizaciones evalúan aplicación de Consulta Previa, http://cooperaccion.org.pe/organizaciones-indigenas-de-15-regiones-del-pais-evaluan-aplicacion-de-consulta-previa/ (accessed February 20, 2018).

21. Two types of conflicts regarding extractive activities have been distinguished: The first involves local people versus transnational corporations concerning the dispute over land and natural resources or environmental pollution. The second involves local populations confronting local administrations to determine the use of the proceeds obtained from the central government by extractive activities. See: J. Arellano-Yanguas, ‘Aggravating the Resource Curse: Decentralization, Mining and Conflict in Peru’, Journal of Development Studies 47, no. 4 (2011), 617–38.

22. Unlike the mining sector, the implementation of hydrocarbon consultations was promoted by Perupetro and the hydrocarbons business association – Sociedad Peruana de Hidrocarburos – whose former president, Beatriz Merino, expressed her support for the consultation while holding meetings with the leaders of the main indigenous organisations. See: C. Sanborn and A. Paredes, Country Study: Peru, in: Americas Quarterly, Consulta Previa and Investment (Spring 2014), 9, http://americasquarterly.org/content/country-study-peru. It should not be forgotten that the involvement of Mrs. Merino in indigenous issues was a hallmark of her management when she was at the head of the Ombudsman’s Office during the 2005–2011 period.

23. See: Congress of the Republic, Commission of Constitution and Bylaws’ opinion, Article 3, approved 18 May 2010, http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/TraDocEstProc/CLProLey2006.nsf; and Congress of the Republic, Congress of the Republic, Second Ordinary Legislature, 9a C Morning Session, Diario de Debates, 19 May 2010, 26, http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/TraDocEstProc/CLProLey2006.nsf.

24. See: R. Stavenhagen, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/90, 21 January 2003, ¶ 66.

25. See: J. Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, 15 July 2009, ¶ 48–49.

26. ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), 99th Session, 2010, Geneva, p. 784.

27. See: Law of Prior Consultation, Article 1.

28. See: Regulation, Seventh Supplementary, Transitional and Final Provision.

29. G. Damonte Valencia, ‘Estado, gobierno y extractivismo en el Perú’, in El Perú en los inicios del siglo XXI: Cambios y continuidades desde las ciencias sociales, ed. M. Quero (Mexico D.F.: Universidad Autónoma de México, 2016), 13–28.

30. Political Constitution of Peru 1993, Fourth Final and Transitory Provision ‘Rules concerning the rights and freedoms recognised by this Constitution are construed in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties and agreements regarding those rights that have been ratified by Peru.’

31. IACtHR (Judgment), Saramaka People v. Surinam, ¶ 126–127. Similar restrictions on individual rights has been provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 (3).

32. IACtHR (Judgment) Saramaka People v. Surinam, ¶ 128.

33. IACtHR (Judgment) Saramaka People v. Surinam, ¶ 129.

34. IACtHR (Judgment) Saramaka People v. Surinam, ¶ 137.

35. The ‘effective’ participation, together, with the recognition of the FPIC, had been already called by the Human Rights Committee: ‘participation in the decision-making process must be effective, which requires not mere consultation but the free, prior and informed consent of the members of the community. In addition, the measures must respect the principle of proportionality so as not to endanger the very survival of the community and its members’. HRC, Poma Poma v. Peru, UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006, Communication No. 1457/2006, ¶ 7.6.

36. IACtHR (Judgment) Mayagna (sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, ¶ 149.

37. IACtHR (Judgment) Mayagna (sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, ¶ 154. See also: IACommHR, (Special report) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and natural resources. Norms and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.L/Vol/II. Doc. 56/09, 30 December 2009, ¶ 10.

38. IACtHR (Judgment) Mayagna (sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, ¶ 147.

39. IACtHR (Judgment) Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, ¶ 51.

40. Article 200 of the Peruvian Political Constitution of Peru enshrined the principle of proportionality: ‘When petitions concerning these constitutional rights are filed with regard to restricted or suspended rights, the corresponding jurisdictional body examines the reasonability and proportionality of the restrictive act.’

41. O. Ruiz Chiriboga, ‘Sección especial: Pueblos indígenas y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Fondo y reparaciones’, in Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario, eds. C. Steiner and P. Uribe (Lima: Fundación Konrad Adenauer, 2014), 947–1026, 993, 1040.

42. IACtHR (Judgment) Gelman v. Uruguay, ¶ 239.

43. The promoter entity has been defined as the entity of the state that is going to issue legislative or administrative measures directly related to the rights of indigenous or native peoples and is at the same time competent to carry out the prior consultation process. See: Law of Prior Consultation, Article 17; and Regulation of the Law of Prior Consultation, Article 3, g.

44. See: Law of Prior Consultation, Article 15.

45. A. Peña Jumpa, ‘Barreras de Acceso a la Justicia, y la Justicia Comunal como Alternativa en el Perú’, Revista Derecho y Sociedad, No. 38 (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú, 2012), 360–8.

46. J. Gilbert and C. Doyle, ‘A New Dawn over the Land: Sheeding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent’, in Reflections on the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, Studies in International Law, eds. S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (Oxford, Vol. 30, 2011), 389–428, 317–9.

47. UNDRIP, Article 46(2) provides:

In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society. (Emphasis added)

48. H. Quane, ‘New Directions for Self-Determination and Participatory Rights’, in Reflections on the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, Studies in International Law, eds. S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (Oxford, Vol. 30, 2011), 280–1.

49. See: Oficina Nacional de Diálogo y Sostenibilidad, Willanqniki. Proyectos hidrocarburíferos en el Perú. Lecciones aprendidas y retos frente a la conflictividad social, No. 28 (Lima: Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, March, 2015), 16.

50. Block 192 is located in Andoas discrict (Marañon basin, Loreto region, Peru). Its operations began with the concession granted to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in block 1-A (22 June 1971). Later, the contract for block 1B was signed (3 April 1978). In 2001, the Cesión de Posición contractual en el contrato de servicios para la explotación de hidrocarburos en el lote 1AB was signed between Perupetro S.A. and Pluspetrol Perú Corporation S.A. This contract was approved by Decreto Supremo No. 022-2011-EM (24 May 2001). In 2014, Perupetro S.A. approved the creation, extension, demarcation and new nomenclature of Block 192. The area includes Blocks 1-AB and incorporates additional areas, in which exploratory activities can be developed.

51. M. Finer and M. Orta-Martínez, ‘A Second Hydrocarbon Boom Threatens the Peruvian Amazon: Trends, Projections, and Policy Implications’, Environmental Research Letters, No. 5, 2010, UK, 3–7.

52. See: Human Rights Council, 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, Annex, 16 August 2012, 10, ¶ 29. Also see: A. Bebbington and D. Humphreys Bebbington, An Andean Avatar: post-neoliberal strategies for promoting extractive industries. Working Paper, Brooks World Poverty Institute: Manchester University, 2010, 117; C. Rodríguez Garavito, ‘Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18, no. 1 (2011), 267.

53. T. Evans, Human Rights in the Global Political Economy: Critical Processes (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010), 90–92.

54. These administrative procedures in hydrocarbons are the concession of transportation of hydrocarbons through pipelines; concession of natural gas distribution by pipeline network; modification of the concession, authorisation of the installation and operation of the pipeline to own and main use; modification or transference of the authorisation of the installation and operation of the pipeline to own and main use; supreme decree that approve the subscription of contracts to explore and exploit oil and gas; and favourable technical report for the installation of refining and hydrocarbon processing plants.

55. A Decreto Supremo is a type of norm of general nature that regulates norms with the rank of a law or sectorial or multisectorial functional activity at the national level. They may or may not require the approving vote of the Council of Ministers, as provided by law. They are signed by the President of the Republic and endorsed by one or more Ministers to whose competence they correspond. See: Ley Orgánica del Poder Ejecutivo, Law No. 29158, Article 11.

56. ‘Perupetro S.A. is the state company, on behalf of the Peruvian state and it is responsible for promoting, negotiating, underwriting and monitoring contracts for exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in Peru’. See: www.perupetro.com.pe.

57. Consultations that count with the final measure are: Area of Regional Conservation Maijuna-Kichwa, National Park Sierra del Divisor, the regulation of the Ley Forestal y Fauna Silvestre, the Hidrovía Amazónica Proyect, the block 192, the mining project Aurora, the mining project Toropunto, the mining project Misha, the policy of intercultural health and the regulation of the Ley de Lenguas. See: R. O’Diana Rocca and I. Vega Díaz, ¿Cómo va la aplicación de la consulta previa en el Perú?: Avances y retos (Lima: Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica, October 2017), 8, http://www.caaap.org.pe/2017/documentos/Consulta_previa_25_octubre_2017.pdf.

58. This contract was approved by Decreto Supremo No. 022-2011-EM (24 May 2001).

59. Just between 2013 and 2014, the Ministry of Environment declared an environmental emergency in the Pastaza, Corrientes, Marañon and Tigre River basins, having found higher rates than allowed of lead, barium, arsenic, aluminium and hydrocarbons in the water and soil. See: Congreso de la República, Grupo de Trabajo sobre la situación indígena y ambiental de las cuencas de los ríos Pastaza, Tigre, Corrientes y Marañon 2012–2013, Lima, Julio 2013, http://observatoriopetrolero.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Informe-4-Cuencas-Comision-de-Pueblos-2013.pdf. See also: James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, La situatión de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en el Perú, en relación con las industrias extractivas, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/52/Add.3, 7 May 2014, ¶ 22.

60. ILO Convention N. 169 entered into force in Peru on 2 February 1995.

61. See: consulta.pe, Comunidades indígenas de Loreto alertan de un conflicto si el Gobierno licita el lote 192, published 25 February 2015, https://consultape.com/2015/02/25/comunidades-indigenas-de-loreto-alertan-de-un-conflicto-si-el-gobierno-licita-el-lote-192-2/ (accessed 4 February 2018).

62. Oficina Nacional de Diálogo y Sostenibilidad, Willaqniki. Informe de diferencias, controversias y conflictos sociales, No. 29 (Lima: Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, April 2015), http://onds.pcm.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/W29.pdf.

63. See: Law of Prior Consultation, Article 8.

64. A. Leyva, Consúltame de verdad. Aproximación a un balance de la consulta previa en el Perú en los sectores minero e hidrocarburífero (Lima: CooperAcción - Acción Solidaria para el Desarrollo & Oxfam America, June 2018), 18.

65. According to the indigenous representatives, the minister of energy and mines imposed a maximum of two hours to accept the government’s proposal on the social fund, since at that time she was ‘connected with Perupetro S.A. and the contract will be closed’. See: La República, Lote 192: Consulta Previa en riesgo, 29 August 2015, http://larepublica.pe/impresa/opinion/699754-lote-192-consulta-previa-en-riesgo.

66. PUINAMUDT, Achuares y Quechuas del río Corrientes y Pastaza firman acta histórica en etapa de evaluacion interna por consulta del lote 192, 8 July 2015, http://observatoriopetrolero.org/achuares-y-quechuas-del-rio-corrientes-y-pastaza-firman-acta-historica-en-etapa-de-evaluacion-interna-por-consulta-del-lote-192/.

67. The process began the 14th of May 2015 when Perupetro S.A. invited the indigenous organisations to the preparatory meetings of the process of consultation and ended the 26th of August 2015 with the official communication of the promoter entity that the stages of the consultation process had been complied. See: Dirección General de Asuntos Ambientales y Energéticos, Ministerio de Energía y Minas, final report of the prior consultation of block 192, Report N. 797-2015-MEM/DGAAE/DNAE/DGAE/RCO/SED/CIM, 5 October 2015.

68. A. Leyva, Consúltame de verdad. Aproximación a un balance de la consulta previa en el Perú en los sectores minero e hidrocarburífero (Lima: CooperAcción - Acción Solidaria para el Desarrollo & Oxfam America, June 2018), 24.