65 Abbi Buxton
72
ality, limiting real empowerment. However,
where decision-making processes have been
more flexible, allowing processes to adapt
to reflect different values, they have been
more successful in reaching joint decisions.
Creating a space where all positions can
be considered equally is crucial to achieving the spirit of FPIC. Legal frameworks are
often necessary to force the start of a
conversation. But they should look to codify
existing practices and norms and be flexible in allowing new norms to develop, based
on new partnerships between government,
civil society and the private sector. Local
communities and governments need to
work together to identify shared values –
based on both cultural and technical knowledge – and practices for implementing
FPIC in a way that empowers local communities. This is seen in the Canada case study.
By contrast, the strong anti-mining sentiment seen in the Philippines – which has
followed from the many environmental
disasters and violent conflicts surrounding
mining operations – together with the
government’s prioritisation of mining’s
contribution to economic growth, has
prevented government and civil society
from coming together to identify shared
values and institutions for upholding those
values.
Institutions should be set up to give
access to different perspectives. The
MVRMA boards include indigenous knowledge not as a technical requirement but as
part of a process of representing and incorporating different worldviews (Armitage,
2005). The boards are allowed to create
their own rules and policies, which enable
them to reflect the social and cultural values
that they hold. This flexibility is in part the
result of the political and social context in
which these boards were designed, specifically aimed at enabling aboriginal
communities to decide on the use of their
land under Comprehensive Land Claims
Agreements.
Conclusion
There is no blueprint for the institutions for
implementing FPIC. Research into flexible
systems for participation and deliberation
will, however, provide governments, civil
society and the private sector with guidance
on how to achieve the ‘spirit of FPIC’. This
requires deliberative and participatory decision-making processes which reflect the
knowledge, values, practices and norms of
local communities. Deliberative processes
are institutions that share information from
all participants, consider all views equally
based on the evidence shared and give
conscientious consideration to a discussion
in which all values and positions are relevant. Institutions for FPIC should
incorporate customary practices that allow
indigenous communities to properly reflect
their values and consider indigenous
knowledge alongside ‘western scientific’
knowledge. This will allow indigenous
peoples’ perspectives to be considered more
equally alongside those of governments and
companies, which are conventionally dominant. This is the spirit of FPIC.
CONTACT DETAILS
Abbi Buxton
Researcher, Sustainable Markets Group
International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED)
80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8NH,
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 3463 7399
Fax: +44 20 3514 9055
Email: abbi.buxton@iied.org
Website: www.iied.org