In Manipur, as in most regions where Indigenous peoples’ lands have been largely affected by extractive industries and other exploitative ventures by States and their agencies, the principle of FPIC has hardly been followed or respected, partially or wholly.
By Salam Rajesh
Issues on discrimination over State policies on resources exploitation from traditional lands of Indigenous peoples around the world has been one of the most pervasive issues globally, often resulting in intense forms of conflicts of interest between local people and State agencies including investors and resource extractors.
The issue has been in focus at the United Nations platform in these past several years with Indigenous peoples’ representatives from around the globe lobbying hard for a universal policy that respects the fundamental rights of all marginalized sections of people particularly clubbed under the nomenclature ‘Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs)’.
The issue is to figure prominently during the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and the Related Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity at the twelfth meeting of the Working Group under the broad umbrella of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at Geneva during the 12th to 16th of next month.
The meeting’s thematic agenda “Development of a new program of work and institutional arrangements on Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous peoples and local communities” is crucial for the IPLCs in the face of strong objections from various State lobbies who could be evidently impacted by such a global decision aimed at protecting the traditional land holding system and the fundamental rights of the IPLCs.
Section 4 of the work plan seeks to ‘Encourage Parties (to the Convention) to engage with indigenous peoples and local communities as on-the-ground partners in the implementation of the Convention, including by recognizing, supporting and valuing their collective actions and respecting their indigenous and traditional territories and their efforts in applying, preserving and maintaining their traditional knowledge, innovation and practices in relation to promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity’.
At the same time, Section 5 of the proposed work plan seeks to ‘Urge Parties (to the Convention) to fully involve indigenous peoples and local communities in the preparation of national reports and in the revision, update and implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans aligned with the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’.
Section 6 of the proposed work plan of the CBD specifically stresses that the ‘Traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technology held by Indigenous peoples and local communities should only be used with the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous peoples and local communities’.
It further stressed that ‘The use of traditional knowledge should be subject to the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use and application of such knowledge, innovations and practice based on mutually agreed terms in accordance with domestic law and with due consideration of the customary laws, community protocols and procedures of Indigenous peoples and local communities’.
The focus of the work plan is ‘to promote, within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity and in alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the implementation of Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention at the local, national, regional and international levels and to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities at all stages and levels of its implementation’.
Reflecting upon this concern of the IPLCs on the issue, the international organization Cultural Survival in its recent report “Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-determination: A Guide On Free, Prior and Informed Consent (2023)” stressed that ‘the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities, in particular Indigenous women, girls and young people, should be ensured, from the local to the global level, in all stages of the identification, implementation and monitoring of the elements of the program of work’.
The emphasis stressed is on the principle of FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) and for the States and their agencies to respect human values. Cultural Survival emphasizes that FPIC “ensures Indigenous Peoples’ right to give or withhold consent to any activities that affect their lands, resources, and territories”.
The right to FPIC flows from the Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination. It encompasses and protects all rights of Indigenous Peoples, including land rights, collective rights, participatory rights, cultural rights, food and water security rights.
The principles of FPIC form a framework that informs the protocols, processes, rules, and regulations that Indigenous Peoples can require from companies, governments, and other sovereign nations when designing investments and infrastructure projects on Indigenous lands.
In Manipur, as in most regions where Indigenous peoples’ lands have been largely affected by extractive industries and other exploitative ventures by States and their agencies, the principle of FPIC has hardly been followed or respected, partially or wholly.
In the year 2007 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) wherein the declaration recognized the Indigenous peoples’ individual and collective rights and making specific mention of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a prerequisite for any activity that affects Indigenous communities.
Similarly, during 2018 the United Nations’ Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples identified ‘respect for FPIC protocols as central to the conduct of good faith consultations’. This assertion comes from the argument that in most cases ‘investors and government officials would carry out “a consultation” as an opportunity to merely inform a community that an investment or development project will be happening’.
Cultural Survival argues that ‘Investors may arrive for the first time accompanied by government officials who tell the community that “they are being consulted” and demand an immediate “yes”. In such situation, project developers do not allow time for an Indigenous community to discuss the potential project internally, seek independent advice, gather information, and then make a decision, privately and according to self-determined practices’.
The assertion reflects very closely to the current endeavour of the State to go for the controversial oil palm cultivation in different parts of the State without going through a proper process of FPIC in the very first place.
The concern is also on whether proper Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) are conducted or not. ESIAs predict the environmental and social consequences of a future project. Many countries have laws requiring that potential investors undertake impact assessments.
Impact assessments are carried out by technical experts who assess the likely impacts of a proposed project and subsequently offer recommendations on how to avoid or reduce any negative impacts on the local environment – including air, water, and soil quality – and on the health and overall well-being of the to-be-impacted local community.
Manipur Government and its concerned State agencies hopefully will adhere to the principles outlined in the proposed work plan of the CBD in all matters related to schemes and projects that could impact negatively on the natural landscapes and other biodiversity sensitive pockets of the State, including forest, grassland and wetland ecosystems.