l Accessible technologies and FPIC: independent monitoring with forest communities in Cameroon 157
Figure 2: The five levels of FPIC
Community free, prior informed consent form
Statement (should be filmed if agreed by participants)
Stamp/sign to
grant consent
(YES).
X to withhold
consent (NO).
1. Q: What do you understand to be the purpose and the main objectives of the project entitled
‘Enabling local and indigenous people to do independent monitoring of forest resources’?
A: Does answer demonstrate understanding?
• If not, explain again and in a different way until the answer demonstrates proper
understanding.
• If yes, then can ask representative to stamp/sign against the following statement:
Statement: We understand and support the purpose and objectives of the project.
2. Q 2.1: What do you understand will be the benefits of participating in this project?
A: Does answer demonstrate understanding?
• If yes, then can ask Q 2.2.
• If not, explain again until the answer demonstrates proper understanding.
Q 2.2: What do you understand will be the potential risks of participating in this project?
A: Does answer demonstrate understanding?
• If no, explain again until the answer demonstrates proper understanding.
If an informed understanding of both benefits and risks is demonstrated, then ask
representative to stamp/sign against the following statement:
Statement: We have been informed and understand both the potential risks and the
potential benefits of participating in this project.
3. We agree to participate in this project by collecting data on customary forest use and timber
exploitation.
4. We agree to share data we have collected regarding timber exploitation with government
officials and organisations participating in the project.
5. We understand our right to withdraw fully or partially from the project at any time, and that
we may insist on the deletion of all data that we have collected as part of the project.
protocol approach, recently implemented
in Asia and South Africa by Natural Justice
and UNEP.7 The CP enabled communities
to discuss and specify how they would
participate, and to clarify roles and responsibilities. This was formalised in a simple
two-page document – with images to help
non-literate communities ‘read’ them – to
determine the timescale for activities, what
data would be collected and where, the
names of cartographers, equipment keepers, and representatives for the advocacy
work after data was collected, as well as
describing mitigating actions to address
risks. Some ILCs appointed their ‘team’
easily. Others found it difficult due to many
wishing to participate or internal rifts that
required sensitive negotiation.
The process of elaborating the FPIC
forms and community protocols is important. Most challenges facing project
implementation by the community are
discussed, and strategies to resolve them
developed. Participating communities
7 To promote the Convention of Biological Diversity, UNEP supported research to develop
biocultural community protocols. Bavikatte and Jonas (2009) offer a good example of this.