FPIC in corporate policy
Official positions on FPIC – policy and public statements
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples has clarified that extractive
companies should ‘as a matter of company policy, endeavour to conform their behaviour at all times
to relevant international norms concerning the rights of indigenous peoples’. Recent years have
seen important developments in terms of their public commitments of some mining companies to
seek or obtain indigenous peoples’ consent. From a policy perspective within the mining sector, Rio
Tinto and De Beers are notable examples with stated commitments to seeking indigenous peoples’
free prior and informed consent.
Rio Tinto’s 2012 Community agreement guidance states that it seeks to:
operate in a manner that is consistent with the [UN Declaration]. In particular, we strive to
achieve the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of affected Indigenous communities
as defined in the 2012 International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 7 and
supporting guidance.142
De Beers 2012 Group Community Policy states that it is committed to:
[r]especting community governance and always seeking a community’s free and informed
consent prior to initiating any significant operations that will have a substantial impact on their
interests.143
In its 2008 policy, De Beers Canada Inc requires consent at the exploitation phase, and defines it as:
mean[ing] that a community is to be consulted, and is free to make its own decision and
give its consent without outside influence, in a sufficiently timely manner ahead of a final
decision in time to influence that decision, that it has sufficient information upon which to
base its decision, and that its consent is required before a significant development or activity
such as mining may go ahead. This means a community has the right of veto before mining
development can take place.144
Disclaimer: De Beers Canada Inc. revised its policy early in 2013. It now makes reference to ‘Free
Prior and Informed Consultation’. The document was not public at the time of printing this report.
The quotes from the De Beers representative included in the section below are from an interview
conducted prior to the adoption of this revised policy. As a result all the references to De Beers in the
report are historical and do not necessarily reflect current policy or positions.
In July 2012, Anglo American acquired 80% ownership of De Beers, which now represents one of
the four business units within Anglo American. Anglo American Socio-Economic Assessment Tool
Box offers a qualified support for recognition of the consent requirement, stating:
Anglo American does not have a policy that grants indigenous peoples Free, Prior Informed
Consent, but it supports the notion where the relevant government authority has granted or
recognized the rights of indigenous peoples.145
Xstrata states that it seeks:
to maintain broad based ongoing community support … including, where relevant, free prior
informed consent.
The ‘relevant’ circumstances are not specified. Xstrata points out that it publicly reports on its
adherence to ICMM’s principles and was an active participant in the development of ICMM’s new
standard on indigenous people. Xstrata’s public commitment to obtaining FPIC for relocation at its
Tampakan project has to be viewed within the context of the Philippine legislative requirement for
FPIC.
BHP Billiton commits to obtaining ‘broad community support’, but holds that this is distinct from
FPIC,146 which it currently regards as ‘only required where it is mandated by law.’147
Inmet was mentioned by the ICMM as a possible case to consider. Inmet does not have a policy
requiring consent but has committed to obtaining it for resettlements of indigenous and campesino
people at its Cobre Panama project.148 Efforts were made to include the case, however divergent
Making Free, Prior and Informed Consent a Reality
41