This presentation by Grace Balawag was given at a session titled "Ensuring free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in REDD+" at the Global Landscapes Forum in Lima, Peru, on December 6, 2014. The session aimed to analyze the existing FPIC guidelines for REDD+ projects and the challenges of extending them to aid organizations and private businesses that are interested in REDD+.

1. Ensuring Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC) in REDD+
Grace Balawag
Tebtebba – Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre
for Policy Research and Education
www.tebtebba.org and www.aippnet.org
6 December 2014
Global Landscape Forum, Lima, Peru

2. Key Questions
 Why does REDD+ needs FPIC?
 What does a process that respects the right to FPIC consist
of?
 How should FPIC be applied in REDD+ projects?
 Key Challenges
 Opportunities

3. Why does REDD+ needs FPIC?
FPIC is a right of IPs, within Cancun Safeguards
 c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous
peoples and members of local communities, by taking into
account relevant international obligations, national
circumstances and laws, and noting that the General
Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);
 d) Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders,
including, in particular, indigenous peoples and
localcommunities;
 e) Actions that are consistent with the conservation of
natural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that
actions are not used for the conversion of natural forests,
but are instead used to incentivize the protection and
conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem
services,and to enhance other social and environmental
benefits;

4. Why does REDD+ needs FPIC?
Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples
 FPIC is a collective right of IPs with a set of principles that define the process or
mechanism
 Independent, collective decision making process with the full and effective participation of
IPs
 Full and effective participation through representation of IPs in all relevant bodies and
mechanisms where appropriate at the local, sub-national, national, regional and
international levels
 FPIC requires disclosure of all
necessary information, as basis
for IPs to accept or reject any
proposal, project, program or
policy, activity or action that has
any implication on their lives,
lands, territories and resources
• Collective right of IPs to decide
on the development of their LTR
and well-being

5. What does a process that respects the right to FPIC
consist of?
 The conduct of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

6. FPIC, with Full and Effective
Participation of Indigenous Peoples
 Information dissemination as precondition for the full and
effective participation of indigenous peoples in all phases
and all levels of REDD+ readiness and implementation
 Consultation: a mechanism for information sharing,
sharing and exchange of views/opinions on a certain
proposal or action
 Consent: a result of an independent and collective
discussion making process, with decision arrived at through
a process – with access to relevant information,
consultations, internal deliberations, and independent
decision-making processes – resulting in a collective
decision of giving or withholding their consent.

7. How should FPIC be applied in REDD+
projects, decisions and actions?
 FPIC applies in all phases and all levels of decisions and actions on
REDD+
 Consultations and effective participation of IPs in mechanisms
and processes related to REDD+ at all levels and all phases
 FPIC through the duly selected or authorized representatives of
indigenous peoples in the RPPs and R-Package, with legislative
reforms affecting IPs relating to REDD+
 FPIC of IP communities as a continuing process, done in the
pilot areas of REDD+, during readiness to implementation
phases and at all levels
 Full and effective engagement of IPs in the pilot areas, with
necessary access to relevant information and providing required
capacity building and appropriate community-based trainings,
monitoring and information systems

8. REDD+ CRITICAL ISSUES for IPs
 Identifying drivers of Deforestation and forest Degradation
 IP Agro-forestry activities, shifting cultivation/rotational agriculture are not
drivers, but part of traditional management of forests
 Land Tenure Rights
 Respect/recognition of customary ownership, control, management of LTR
 Communal land rights and security of IPs should be recognized
 Forest Governance
 IPs’ traditional sustainable use and management of forests and other
ecosystems, thru customary laws, governance and institutions
 Gender and Intergenerational Considerations
 Role, contribution and participation of women and youth, with respect to the
role of the Elders
 Non-Carbon Benefits and Benefit Sharing
 include cultural/spiritual values, enhancing local economies and traditional
livelihoods, increased land tenure security, enhanced biodiversity conservation,
improved forest governance, policy reforms, etc.
 with equity, based on needs and priorities defined by IPs, in accordance to
their management capacities

9. Vietnam Experience in FPIC Piloting
 Vietnam has pioneered the implementation of FPIC in the pilot
province of Lam Dong
 Facilitation team including ethnic minorities; lack of substantive
knowledge and understanding of REDD+, FPIC, Indigenous Peoples
rights and their livelihood systems
 Effective forms of communication like posters, booklets, brochures
etc. were used but:
 The time allocated for information dissemination was short
 The information provided was not sufficient and in particular lack the
substance on the rights and natural resource management of the indigenous
peoples and benefit sharing
 The focus was merely on the forest conservation and the economic
benefits of REDD+
 Consent was taken merely by asking whether they want their forests to be
conserved (Raising hands and secret balloting)
 Devoid of the potential risks and implications associated with the land
tenure, livelihood systems and identity of indigenous peoples among
others

10. Vietnam Experiences in FPIC Piloting
 No time and opportunity for the community members to independently
process and compare with information from alternative sources and
then discuss and deliberate on their understanding, views and concerns
collectively prior to the decision making.
 Village reports prepared by the local facilitators lacked information on
the issues and concerns raised by the villagers in the course of the
meetings.
 These lessons were taken into account in the further development of the
UNREDD guidelines on FPIC
 Inspite of the weaknesses and limitations of the Vietnam experience, it
is still a positive learning experience especially with the support and
cooperation of the government of Vietnam

11. Key Challenges
 Lack of adequate information on REDD+ at the community level in the
forms and manner understood by the communities
 Lack of understanding of REDD+ and FPIC and rights of IP communities
and the need to build their capacities .i.e. engagement of government and
other actors; and to strengthen harmonization and systems of collective
decision making, and in developing collaboration with accountable leaders
 Misrepresentations, manipulations, fasttracking of the FPIC process.
 Lack of independent monitoring and recourse mechanism
--To be formed by credible individuals with deep understanding of IPs rights
and with IP experts identified by IP communities/institutions
--Accessible to IP communities and have effective communication channels
with all parties
--Has mandate to address concerns of IPs and violation to the principle and
processes of FPIC

12. Opportunities
 New international and national standards and guidelines governing
REDD+ and its financing are emerging
 FPIC Guidelines developed by various REDD+ mechanisms and
multilateral / international agencies
 Some REDD+ countries piloting FPIC at subnational levels and drawing
lessons learned in FPIC processes, with participation of IPs
 Other REDD+ countries showing willingness to undertake FPIC
 Support for IPs’ information systems and capacity building for their
empowerment and to engage more effectively
 IPs now more active and capable to engage constructively in REDD+
processes at global, regional and national/subnational/local levels

13. Thank you for your attention!
For more information, please visit our websites:
www.tebtebba.org and www.aipp.org

14. Articles of the UNDRIP on FPIC
FPIC is the right of indigenous peoples to be fully informed and to reject or give
their consent based on their own collective decision making process to any
project or programmes or laws that concerns them. With sufficient time all
facts must be shared to the community where they can base their decision
and agreement by the people is with out force or manipulation by outside
parties or the state.
 Article 10: Indigenous peoples should not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.
No relocation shall take place without the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples concerned.
 Article 11, No.2: related to the right to culture and religion
 Article 19: related to self governance and the formulation of laws and policies affecting IPs
 Article 28, no 1: right to land and to redress
 Article 29, no.2: right to territory and security from
 hazardous materials
 Article 32, no.2: right to land and resources

15. The Principles of FPIC in the International
Human Rights Instruments
 The International Labour Organization: Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169): no relocation without consent;
informed participation in the context of development, national
institutions and programmes, lands and resources
 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: to
ensure that members of IPs have rights in respect of effective
participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their
rights and interests are taken without their informed consent
 The Committee On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights
(CESCR) has highlighted the need to obtain indigenous peoples consent
in relation to resource exploitation
 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) work on Access and
Benefit Sharing, Programme of work on Protected Areas– conduct of
cultural, environmental and social impact assessment regarding
developments proposed to take place on sacred sites, lands and waters of
IPs