67
The spirit of FPIC:
lessons from Canada
and the Philippines
4
by ABBI BUXTON
The spirit of FPIC is that development
should become accountable to peoples’
distinctive cultures, priorities and unique
paths to self-determination, not endanger
their very survival.
Joji Carino and Marcus Colchester
(2010).1
Embracing the ‘spirit of FPIC’ means
enabling genuine inclusion of indigenous
peoples’ perspectives and values and recognising their rights to self-determination. In
this article, I look at two case studies in
which indigenous peoples participate in
FPIC or FPIC-type processes. Both case
studies are in the context of mineral mining,
an industry which brings into stark contrast
competing interests and views. Processes
that allow for a diversity of views to be
incorporated into mutually beneficial decision-making are therefore of the utmost
importance.
I begin the article by discussing each of
the case studies in turn, first the Philippines
and then Canada. In each case I explore the
institutions supporting FPIC, and how they
work in practice. Building on this analysis,
I then draw out some lessons from the two
case studies, reflecting on how institutions
may be designed or redesigned to reflect the
true spirit of FPIC.
Legal recognition of FPIC: a case from the
Philippines
The Philippines is a country that suffers
huge poverty (ranked 97th out of 169 countries in the 2010 Human Development
Report) but also has enormous mineral
wealth (estimated at US$3 trillion) – only
2% of which is currently explored. However,
it is estimated that half of the area identified
for mining development in the Philippines
is subject to indigenous land claims
(Holden, 2005).
Institutions for FPIC
The Philippines is one of the few countries
in the world to have written FPIC into
1 Ms Carino is policy adviser at Tebtebba Foundation and an Ibaloi-Igorot from the Cordillera
region of the Philippines. Marcus Colchester is Director of the Forest Peoples Programme.