abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English

Der Inhalt ist auch in den folgenden Sprachen verfügbar: English, 日本語

Artikel

6 Sep 2024

Autor:
Earthworks

New ICMM Indigenous Peoples and mining position statement risks doing more harm than good, according to NGO Earthworks

"The International Council on Mining and Metals’ New Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement Risks Doing More Harm Than Good" 5 September, 2024

The ICMM’s updated Indigenous Peoples’ Position Statement was published on August 8th, 2024, replacing the mining industry association’s original Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement published in 2013. While the new ICMM document is little more than a restatement of already existing international Indigenous Rights norms, it risks creating more harm than good. It includes ambiguous and seemingly contradictory language in critical sections, which leave open to broad interpretation how companies should proceed when:

  1. a State (i.e. a country) does not recognize the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), does not recognize the existence of affected Indigenous Peoples within an impacted area, or otherwise fails to carry out an adequate FPIC process;
  2. a State approves a project despite lack of consent by an impacted Indigenous community to said project; and
  3. acquiring a mine site where FPIC was not carried out or carried out inadequately prior to the company’s acquisition of said mining operation...

According to the Position Statement, no retrospective application of an FPIC process is required in the case of projects where FPIC was never carried out, or was flawed in its execution. This is particularly problematic as many mines owned by ICMM members were opened without an adequate FPIC process, often by non-ICMM member companies. This provision allows ICMM members to freely inherit and profit from the legacies of neocolonialism and environmental racism set in motion by other actors—leaving no entity fully accountable for those harms...

For the Position Statement to be of value it would have to go above and beyond already recognized and widely accepted international human rights norms regarding the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. Instead, it contributes to existing confusion and creates further loopholes for companies to continue to trample on the rights of Indigenous Peoples around the world...

At a time when investors and regulators are calling for greater ambition in corporate human rights and environmental performance and demanding more transparent and reliable reporting, the ICMM continues to fall behind global trends in corporate respect for human rights...

Zeitleiste