Dissenting voices in a consenting village: lessons from implementation of free, prior and informed consent at a REDD+ pilot in Tanzania
K Mukisa, D M Tumusiime, C Webersik, E T Liwenga, J R S Tabuti
International Forestry Review, March 2020; 22(1) pp 120-131
Abstract
Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is a key institutional tool in meeting social safeguards. Its implementation ensures respect of the local people’s rights in an intervention. This paper presents a case of FPIC implementation at a REDD+ pilot site. Data were obtained through key informant interviews and focus group discussions with proponents and village members of the Lindi REDD+ project. Findings indicate that the inclusive approach to FPIC by taking the consultations to the hamlet level did not deliver a flawless process. The consent decision was reached by a majority vote, not consensus. There was some dissent, prompting the early establishment of project implementation committees. Consent was obtained, though it was not absolutely free, prior and informed. Future REDD+ projects should consider having FPIC as an independent and earlier process, separate from the main implementation of the project in order to uphold local peoples’ rights in a less anxious process.

Articulating ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) for engineered gene drives
Research Articles
Dalton R. George, Todd Kuiken and Jason A. Delborne
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 11 December 2019; 286 (1917)
Abstract
Recent statements by United Nations bodies point to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as a potential requirement in the development of engineered gene drive applications. As a concept developed in the context of protecting Indigenous rights to self-determination in land development scenarios, FPIC would need to be extended to apply to the context of ecological editing. Without an explicit framework of application, FPIC could be interpreted as a narrowly framed process of community consultation focused on the social implications of technology, and award little formal or advisory power in decision-making to Indigenous peoples and local communities. In this paper, we argue for an articulation of FPIC that attends to issues of transparency, iterative community-scale consent, and shared power through co-development among Indigenous peoples, local communities, researchers and technology developers. In realizing a comprehensive FPIC process, researchers and developers have an opportunity to incorporate enhanced participation and social guidance mechanisms into the design, development and implementation of engineered gene drive applications.

Towards an Indigenous-Informed Relational Approach to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)
Terry Mitchell, Courtney Arseneau, Darren Thomas, Peggy Smith
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, October 2019; 10(4)
Open Access
Abstract
International and domestic rights frameworks are setting the stage for the full recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Canada. However, current political promises to restore Indigenous relations, to reconcile historic wrongs, and to foster mutual prosperity and well-being for all people within Canada remain woefully unfulfilled. Indigenous Peoples continue to call for full engagement with emerging Indigenous rights frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This article discusses the key findings from a multi-year university–community research partnership with Matawa First Nations in which we collaboratively seek to advance understanding of consultation processes and Indigenous experiences of and perspectives on FPIC. The article, based on several years of dialogue and interviews and a two-day workshop on FPIC, offers insight into Indigenous perspectives on FPIC advancing an Indigenous-informed relational approach to consultation and consent seeking.

From Individual to Collective Consent: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and UNDRIP
Research Article
Richard Healey
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13 September 2019
Abstract
Much of the debate around requirements for the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples has focused on enabling indigenous communities to participate in various forms of democratic decision-making alongside the state and other actors. Against this backdrop, this article sets out to defend three claims. The first two of these claims are conceptual in nature: (i) Giving (collective) consent and participating in the making of (collective) decisions are distinct activities; (ii) Despite some scepticism, there is a coherent conception of collective consent available to us, continuous with the notion of individual consent familiar from discussions in medical and sexual ethics. The third claim is normative: (iii) Participants in debates about free, prior, and informed consent must keep this distinction in view. That is because a group’s ability to give or withhold consent, and not only participate in making decisions, will play an important role in realising that collectives’ right to self-determination.

Editor’s note: The UNDRIP is the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The Transformative Potential of Indigenous-Driven Approaches to Implementing Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Lessons from Two Canadian Cases
Research Article
Martin Papillon, Thierry Rodon
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13 September 2019
Abstract
While it is increasingly recognised as a core element of the emerging international Indigenous rights regime, the implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) remains contested. As the comparative literature shows, if and how fpic is implemented depend both on the institutional context and on the agency of actors involved. Faced with deep power asymmetries and strong institutional resistance to their understanding of fpic as a decision-making right, a number of Indigenous groups in Canada have taken advantage of the uncertain legal context to unilaterally operationalise fpicthrough the development of their own decision-making mechanisms. Building on two case studies, a mining policy adopted by the Cree Nation of James Bay and a community-driven impact assessment process established by the Squamish Nation, this article argues Indigenous-driven mechanisms can be powerful instruments to shape how fpic is defined and translated in practice.

Mobilising Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Below: A Typology of Indigenous Peoples’ Agency
Research Article
Almut Schilling-Vacaflor, Riccarda Flemmer
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 30 Aug 2019
Abstract
Based on rich empirical data from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru – the three Latin American countries where the implementation of prior consultation processes is most advanced – we present a typology of indigenous peoples’ agency surrounding prior consultation processes and the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The typology distinguishes between indigenous actors (1) mobilising for a strong legal interpretation of FPIC, (2) mobilising for meaningful and influential FPIC processes, (3) mobilising against prior consultation processes, and (4) blockading prior consultation processes for discussing broader grievances. We identify the most prominent indigenous strategies related to those four types, based on emblematic cases. Finally, we critically discuss the inherent shortcomings of the consultation approach as a model for indigenous participation in public decision-making and discuss the broader implications of our findings with regard to indigenous rights and natural resource governance.

The Politics of Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Indigenous Rights and Resource Governance in Ecuador and Yukon, Canada
Research Article
Roberta Rice
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 30 Aug 2019
Abstract
What are the institutional arrangements required to implement a genuine process of free, prior and informed consent (fpic)? This article provides a comparative perspective on the politics of consent in the context of relations between Indigenous peoples, states and extractive industries in Canada and Latin America. The case of Ecuador is presented as an emblematic example of a hybrid regime in which Indigenous communities have the right to free, prior and informed consultation, not consent, concerning planned measures affecting them, such as mineral, oil and gas exploitation. In the case of Yukon, Canada, the settlement of a comprehensive land claim with sub-surface mineral rights has provided the institutional basis for the implementation of a genuine fpic process, one that includes participatory decision-making power over natural resource development projects. The article concludes with a discussion on the necessary conditions for moving governments from a consultation to a consent regime.

Sustainable exploitation of natural resources in Kenya : a case for communities’ free, prior and informed consent in oil and gas projects
Rodgers Otieno Odhiambo
Africa Nazarene University Law Journal, 2019; 7(1) pp 1 – 23
Abstract
This article attempts to analyse the development of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as an international law principle, its nature and its essence. Further, the article seeks to illustrate the advantages of the principle in natural resource development. Indeed, the principal aim of this article is to bring the development of an international law principle useful in the exploitation of natural resources to the attention of Kenyan legal scholars and policymakers. This is crucial in the context of Kenya which has no experience in the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas, and in view of the fact that the country has embarked on various legal and policy reforms within the extractive sector. Being a frontier market, Kenya needs to learn the nuances within the oil and gas sector. It would therefore be imperative to examine the jurisprudence of international bodies and the activities of other international actors with regard to communities’ participatory rights, while recognising that a new standard of international law has developed which recognises that there is a duty to obtain the FPIC of local and indigenous communities when undertaking extraction of natural resources activities within their locality. Thus, the paper seeks to explore the development of the duty to obtain FPIC in international instruments such as declarations, treaties and Acts by international bodies. The article concludes by making a strong case for the entrenchment of FPIC within the policy and legal framework governing the extractive sector in Kenya.

Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Rights; Troubling Subjects [Book]
Stephen Young
Routledge, 19 December 2019; 272 pages
Summary
Analysing how Indigenous Peoples come to be identifiable as bearers of human rights, this book considers how individuals and communities claim the right of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as Indigenous peoples.

The basic notion of FPIC is that states should seek Indigenous peoples’ consent before taking actions that will have an impact on them, their territories or their livelihoods. FPIC is an important development for Indigenous peoples, their advocates and supporters because one might assume that, where states recognise it, Indigenous peoples will have the ability to control how non-Indigenous laws and actions will affect them. But who exactly are the Indigenous peoples that are the subjects of this discourse? This book argues that the subject status of Indigenous peoples emerged out of international law in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Then, through a series of case studies, it considers how self-identifying Indigenous peoples, scholars, UN institutions and NGOs dispersed that subject-status and associated rights discourse through international and national legal contexts. It shows that those who claim international human rights as Indigenous peoples performatively become identifiable subjects of international law – but further demonstrates that this does not, however, provide them with control over, or emancipation from, a state-based legal system. Maintaining that the discourse on Indigenous peoples and international law itself needs to be theoretically and critically re-appraised, this book problematises the subject-status of those who claim Indigenous peoples’ rights and the role of scholars, institutions, NGOs and others in producing that subject-status. Squarely addressing the limitations of international human rights law, it nevertheless goes on to provide a conceptual framework for rethinking the promise and power of Indigenous peoples’ rights…