between indigenous peoples and mining companies as a step towards constructing that common
ground with regard to the requirement for indigenous peoples’ FPIC.
It advocates for multinational mining companies, the investor community, and state actors
to understand the importance of the FPIC principle from ethical, sustainability and economic
perspectives. Fundamentally it argues that it is essential to understand FPIC from an indigenous
peoples’ rights-based perspective in order to effectively support its operationalization in a manner
which is in accordance with indigenous peoples’ exercising their right to self-determination.
Making FPIC a Reality project
In this context, three UK-based civil society organisations – Ecumenical Council for Corporate
Responsibility (ECCR), Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks), and the Missionary Society of St
Columban – and one UK academic institution – Middlesex University School of Law – established a
consortium to develop an advocacy project, jointly with indigenous representatives, aimed at making
FPIC a reality in the mining industry.
The project aims to promote the human rights of indigenous peoples by persuading leading
multinational mining companies to abide by their obligations under international human rights
standards. Specifically, the project aims to achieve sector-wide adoption of FPIC as the global mining
industry standard, in order to safeguard the rights, including the collective rights to self-determination,
lands, territories and resources and culture, of indigenous peoples currently or potentially faced with
mining operations in their territories.
Report contents
This research paper is the first major initiative of the project. It seeks to contribute towards a
discussion between indigenous peoples and mining companies on the issue of indigenous peoples’
FPIC. The foundation for this discussion is three fold. The first element seeks to develop a shared
understanding of the international normative framework of indigenous peoples’ rights, which includes
the requirement for FPIC. The second element is an overview of indigenous perspectives on the
requirement, while the third element is the perspectives of mining companies. These theoretical
perspectives are complemented by a series of brief case studies addressing how indigenous peoples
and companies have approached the issue of FPIC.
The first part of the paper summarises the current status of the requirement for indigenous peoples
FPIC under international human rights law.3 It provides an overview of the requirement under
international human and indigenous peoples’ rights treaties, instruments and jurisprudence, as
well as regional human rights systems and specific standards pertaining to corporate engagement
with indigenous peoples. An overview of the content of the requirement for FPIC and the guidance
emerging from the human rights regime, in relation to its operationalization, is also provided.
The second section presents the key concepts of FPIC and issues related to its implementation
from an indigenous perspective. These are drawn from interviews with indigenous leaders and
representatives of indigenous communities across the global regions. It presents indigenous peoples’
definition of FPIC, concepts of culturally appropriate FPIC processes and indigenous guidelines
for operationalizing FPIC, and the experiences and issues that indigenous peoples have with its
implementation.
The third part looks into prevailing mining industry policies on FPIC and corporate perspectives
on its operationalization. It draws insights from interviews conducted with major UK-based mining
multinationals, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Xstrata, and Anglo-American/De Beers, as well as the industry
body the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). Investor policies, particularly of the
International Finance Corporation and World Bank are also considered.
The paper draws on a range of case studies to illustrate positive and negative experiences from
which lessons can be derived. Company-specific case studies examine the challenges faced, and
progress made, by corporations in engaging with FPIC in certain contexts. A second set of case
4
Making Free, Prior and Informed Consent a Reality