Time frames
Time frames for the conduct of FPIC processes should take into account the cultural protocols of the
people. Interviewees held that timetables are a non-indigenous concept, and FPIC may be quick or
may take a long time. What is important is arriving at a consensus after a full understanding of the
information and issues, and not following a rigid time frame. It is the community’s responsibility to
make sure that they have sufficient time to arrive at a consensus.
However, it was also suggested that the timeframe for FPIC should not be open-ended, but should
give a reasonable amount of time to ensure consensus building and good faith in the negotiations.
The period for the FPIC process should be agreed upon with the community, and not set by the
law or FPIC guidelines. That period should take into consideration the customary decision-making
process, agricultural or seasonal cycles, economic activities, necessary rituals, free time of the
community to hold meetings, or issues that could prevent the community from gathering.
If the decision arrived at by the community is a no, the FPIC process should end. The result should
be reported and the State should not persist in getting FPIC after the people have decided. If the
community says no, this decision should hold for a set number of years during which time, no new
FPIC process can take place.
Information Provision and Capacity Building
The government and the company should be transparent and provide the full details about the
mining company at the very start of the application process. Information about company ownership,
registration, ongoing operations and track record were considered important by the interviewees.
Companies should also provide ample information about the proposed project from its inception. This
information should be in a language that is simple and properly understood by communities and any
technical terms should be explained at the company’s expense. Full and summary information should
also be provided in writing. The community should be informed of its right to give or withhold FPIC
and that it has the option to engage independent technical and legal advisors of its own choosing.
There is a need to ensure that there has been sufficient independently provided capacity building for
indigenous peoples so that they are able to engage in meaningful negotiations in the exercise their
right to self-determination. Otherwise the granting of FPIC is not possible. This means that indigenous
peoples must be fully equipped with the technical capacity to set the terms of an arrangement that is
sustainable and conducive to their well-being, and the conditions exist for them to make choices that
include, but go beyond, choosing between saying yes or no to a predefined project proposal, and
extend to choices between various possible negotiated options. One way of achieving this would be
to ensure that there is access to, and financing for, independent technical and legal advice to assist
communities which wish to develop their own FPIC protocols and internal expertise.
Impact Assessments
The representatives interviewed insisted that indigenous communities must be empowered to
effectively participate in the conduct of environmental, social and human rights impact assessments
of a mining project. The community is in the best position to assess the real value of the area and
identify the natural resources, as well as historical, cultural and sacred sites, which could be affected.
Indigenous peoples should also be given an opportunity to review, understand and submit comments
on impact assessments, to ascertain that the final assessments reflect the actual conditions in
the affected communities. Some indigenous representatives held that their communities had the
capacity to perform social, cultural, spiritual, and human rights impact assessments themselves.
They therefore did not want companies to employ external consultants to conduct this activity, as the
result were often flawed and constituted a totally inadequate basis for an informed consent process.
It was also noted that the widespread government practice of requiring corporations to conduct
Environmental and Social Impact Assessments has side-lined the role of the State in ensuring that
communities are given ample opportunity to be consulted and fully informed of potential impacts.
Making Free, Prior and Informed Consent a Reality
21